by Ronnie W. Rogers
https://ronniewrogers.com/2021/11/08/calvinism-and-the-problem-of-damnation-and-hell/
Calvinism’s exclusive doctrines position it in an untenable place when it comes to people spending eternity in hell. They offer various responses to allay the indefensible entailments of Calvinism that consign people to hell (the reprobate non-elect class). Here are a few: first, some say they deserve to be there. While that is true, it does not tell us why they are there since the people in heaven equally deserve to be in hell. Second, some say it is so God can show his full glory in both love and wrath. But damning people to hell is unnecessary for God to show his wrath or holiness since no one needed to suffer God’s wrath to demonstrate his holiness because Christ suffering his wrath for our sin is the quintessential display of God’s wrath.[1]
Third, some say people in hell chose to reject God. But people are not in hell simply because they chose to reject God, for the very people in heaven rejected God before he overpowered them with efficacious grace. If God had overpowered the ones in hell, they would have accepted him; hence the missing element is God’s overpowering grace. We also know people are not in hell to highlight God’s compassion, love, and grace by pedestaling his contrasting wrath and holiness; the death of Christ sufficiently displayed that. We also know they are not in hell because God was unwilling to do what was necessary for them to not be in hell. Because the death of Christ sufficiently took away the sin of the world (John 1:29; 1 John 2:2).
Once we dismiss the pleasantries of Calvinism, the only reason some are in heaven and some are in hell is because it pleased God for them to be there. Notwithstanding the weak and misleading arguments to the contrary by many Calvinists, I maintain all consistent Calvinists inevitably believe in double predestination. They either believe God actively predestined some to hell, as Calvin does, or he did so by choosing not to offer what would have surely delivered them from hell to heaven, which is unconditional election and selective regeneration. Calvin refers to this cold, inescapable reality as the product of God’s wish, pleasure, and counsel.[2]
Commenting on what Paul says in Romans 9, John Calvin candidly explains, “He [Paul] concludes that God has mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth (Rom 9:18). You see how he refers both to the mere pleasure of God. Therefore, if we cannot assign any reason for his bestowing mercy on his people, but just that it so pleases him, neither can we have any reason for his reprobating others but his will“[3] (italics added). Calvin further says the reprobate are doomed in God’s “hidden purpose” while simultaneously (and quite contradictorily) maintaining “so wonderful is his love towards mankind that he would have them all to be saved.”[4] Calvin classifies God’s good pleasure to doom this innumerable group of people, whom he created, to such a ghastly and unalterable fate, which he did not have to choose, as “incomprehensible judgment.”[5]
Similarly, the Canons of Dort assert, “Moreover, Holy Scripture . . . further bears witness that not all people have been chosen but that some have not been chosen or have been passed by in God’s eternal election—those, that is, concerning whom God, on the basis of his entirely free, most just, irreproachable, and unchangeable good pleasure, made the following decision: to leave them in the common misery into which, by their own fault, they have plunged themselves; not to grant them saving faith and the grace of conversion, but finally to condemn and eternally punish them”[6] (italics added).
Fast forward to eternity. Imagine all the redeemed, unconditionally elected according to Calvinism, are standing on the precipice of hell in which untold billions of people suffer unimaginable, unquenchable, and unparalleled agony and torment. While the elect gaze into the cauldron of hell, one of the unconditionally elect exclaims God is holy. And that proclamation is immediately and worshipfully met by thunderous amens and hallelujahs since, whether redeemed or judged, God’s perfect and unlimited righteousness and holiness are irrefutably evident to all.
Then another of the unconditionally elect, caught up in the moment, resoundingly declares that God is love. An eerie pause follows this declaration. A hollow cavern of silence. A silence not from or awakening calmness, but a silence invoked by an insurmountable contradiction. A silence wherein an attribute of God is suppressed by the conquest of evidence; a silence like never before. It is not one of awe and glorious wonder but one of confusion and demoralization of the elect.
While God clearly dealt with the elect and the damned in holiness, and the elect in love, it is impossible to truthfully say God dealt with the damned, the reprobate, in perfect love, salvific love. Seeking to explain how God is perfect love and yet withholds his salvific love from those he created and predetermined for eternal torment is like trying to explain God as perfect holiness if he did not deal with all people and sin in perfect holiness.
Moreover, seeking to dismiss this contradiction of God’s perfect love by appealing to such as how God’s withholding his power at times does not equal that he is not omnipotent is fallacious. The reason this argument is fallacious is because love is a moral attribute like holiness and power is not. Consequently, he may display or withhold exercising his omnipotence based on his moral attributes, but his moral nature of perfect holiness, righteousness, and love is always perfectly present. Calvinism calls this type of inescapable dilemma a “mystery.” Anywhere else, it is called what it is, a tragic contradiction in Calvinism, that depicts God unlike the God of Scripture.
[1] Even if people in hell were necessary, a point I do not concede, it seems probable that far fewer reprobates are necessary, and maybe only one would sufficiently display God’s wrath.
[2] John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, translated by Henry Beveridge (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1997), vol. 2, bk. 3, chap. 21, sec. 7, pg. 210.
[3] John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion (Bellingham: WA: Logos Bible Software, 2010).
[4] John Calvin, “Commentaries on the Second Epistle of Peter,” Commentaries on the Catholic Epistles, edited by John Owen (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1979), 419. Logos electronic edition.
[5] John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, translated by Henry Beveridge (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1997), vol. 2, bk. 3, chap. 21, sec. 7, pg. 211.
[6] Canons of Dort, First Head of Doctrine, article 15.
This is a long article with long paragraphs. For clarity sake I will summarize here.
Why people spend eternity in hell according to Calvinism:
1. “They deserve to be there.” But so do people in heaven.
2. “So God can show his full glory in both love and wrath.” Nope. Christ suffering God’s wrath for our sin is the quintessential display of God’s wrath. No other example needed.
3. “People in hell chose to reject God.” Nope. People in heaven rejected God before He overpowered them with efficacious grace. If God had overpowered the ones in hell, they would have accepted him too. The missing element is God’s overpowering grace, not their choosing.
3. A. “to highlight God’s compassion, love, and grace by contrasting wrath and holiness.” Nope. (see above)
3. B. “because God was unwilling to do what was necessary for them to not be in hell.” Nope. Because the death of Christ was sufficient for the sin of the world (John 1:29; 1 John 2:2).
4. What is left? The reason some are in heaven and some are in hell is because it pleased God for them to be there. Quote Calvin. Quote Canons of Dort.
“God is Holy” (the unjust in hell experience His wrath)
“God is Love” (the unjust in hell were predestined to be there). Nah! That’s not love in any sense of the word. Those billions and billions were never loved by God in a way that Scripture talks about.
Does that pretty much sum it up, Calvinist friends?
I would humbly submit that 1 should be replaced with the following:
1) In Calvinism – at the foundation of the world – the vast majority of human souls are specifically created/designed – expressly and intentionally – for eternal torment in a lake of fire – in order to satisfy the good pleasure of the THEOS.
One thing that no calvinist has ever been able to explain: why God chose to consign / pass over (take your pick, the quandary is the same) the “non-elect” to hell, when in Ezekiel 18:23 God clearly states that His PREFERENCE is for the wicked (every human being) to turn and live, rather than die. Every calvinist “explanation” shows their version of God to be insincere in this statement.
A more TRUTH-TELLING “T” for the Calvinist TULIP
“T” Totally Predestined Nature:
The underlying foundation of the doctrine stipulates that whatsoever comes to pass concerning nature (i.e., all created things and all movements of nature at any instance in time) are infallibly decreed prior to creation. Whatever the state of man’s nature is at any instance in time, is therefore totally determined before any man is ever created. Since on this view, 100% of whatsoever comes to pass is exclusively up to a divine mind, it goes without saying that absolutely nothing about the condition of man’s nature at any instance in time, is ever up to any man. And this would be the case for Adam, who is created late within the sequence of created things. So, it would be more forthcoming or truth-telling, for the “T” in TULIP to stand for “Totally Predestined Nature”.
“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.
Why warn about hell if a person doesn’t have potential to go there?? But Jesus talked about hell 3x more than heaven. When calvinist say “seeking the lost” the term “lost” doesn’t mean lost n going to hell bc the “elect” is never in danger of hell.
Hello James and welcome
In my mind – the better question is – why warn man about that which you give man absolutely NO CHOICE in the matter of?
In Calvinism – every micro-second of whatsoever comes to pass – is 100% predestined at the foundation of the world.
Leaving absolutely NOTHING about anything UP TO any man.
Why would a perfect being – treat what he knows to be TRUE AS-IF it is FALSE?
Calvin’s god creates man – granting man NO CHOICE in the matter of anything
But then treats what he created AS-IF it is the opposite of what it is.
Is every statement you make always right.
Is every doctrine you have ever believed completely pure.
John Calvin makes one statement, and his followers make a doctrine of it
He (Paul) concludes that God has mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardens (Rom 9:18). You see how he refers both to the mere pleasure of God. Therefore, if we cannot assign any reason for his bestowing mercy on his people, but just that it so pleases him, neither can we have any reason for his reprobating others but his will. Calvin further says the reprobate are doomed in God’s “hidden purpose” while simultaneously maintaining “so wonderful is his love towards mankind that he would have them all to be saved. Calvin classifies God’s good pleasure to doom this innumerable group of people, whom he created, to such a ghastly and unalterable fate, which he did not have to choose, as incomprehensible judgment.
But both the whole and individual, specific narrative of scripture continually refutes that.
Besides God is a person, not a principle, not a theory, not a doctrine, nor some words written on paper.
He is Love and He Loves.
He is just as Jesus revealed Him to be, recorded in the Gospels.
A new commandment I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you also must love one another. John 13:34
One has to wonder how they can trust God when you see him as being so unpredictable and as having a rationality so different to us.
Hello John and welcome
Your conclusion is identical to that of C.S. Lewis – where he concludes – “we know not what we worship”
When you boil it down – what John Calvin is essentially claiming (without coming out and saying it of-course) is he is endowed with DIVINE SUPER GNOSIS
And if what he says appears like DOUBLE-SPEAK to you – then the answer is to NOT THINK – just swallow! :-]
Interesting that Calvin appeals to Romans 9:18 for his position, while you appeal to some fictitious situation that you dreamt up. Really shows the difference in approach beautifully.
Hello spurcalluth and welcome
More precisely – John Calvin appealed to some DOUBLE-MINDED position on Romans 9:18 that he dreamt up :-]
A dream about Scripture is better than a dream without Scripture 🙂
Especially when that dream is DOUBLE-MINDED :-]
It seems that the non-Calvinist position here is to just avoid talking about Romans 9:18 as much as humanly possible instead of actually engaging with what the verse says. I’d rather be a Calvinist that can deal with all of Scripture than a non-Calvinist that has to ignore parts of Scripture in order to have a good night’s sleep.
I’d rather be a RATIONAL thinker while thinking about anything :-]
spurcalluth,
You had said:
“It seems that the non-Calvinist position here is to just avoid talking about Romans 9:18 as much as humanly possible instead of actually engaging with what the verse says. I’d rather be a Calvinist that can deal with all of Scripture than a non-Calvinist that has to ignore parts of Scripture in order to have a good night’s sleep.
My response:
OK, so let’s talk about verse 18 then. Actually, we non-Calvinists have discussed Romans 9 at length in other blog posts.
Verse 18
Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
But in order to talk about verse 18, we have to back up to put a context to it. Let’s at least back up to the previous verse, verse 17, shall we?
Verse 17
For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.
Now, what’s very important is the very first word in verse 18, “THEREFORE”.
So, verse 18 is telling us to BACKUP a bit.
The very first word in verse 17, “FOR” also tells us to back it up a bit, as well.
The very first word in verse 16, “SO” also tells us to back it up a bit.
The same with “FOR” in verse 15.
And so on, and so on until you reach verse 1.
The conversation begins with Paul discussing his BRETHREN, the Jews. Not us lowly Gentiles.
And the converstaion from all of Romans 9-11 is about the Jews trying to obtain RIGHTEOUSNESS under the law, vs. the Gentiles obtaining RIGHTEOUSNESS by FAITH, in that the Jews under the law are the ones FITTED FOR DESTRUCTION, by nature of the law of Moses, and Gentiles (AND JEWS) UNDER FAITH are fitted for MERCY, Gentiles, by the way, were never under the Law of Moses to begin with.
The Pharaoh, verse 17, yes, God hardened the Pharaoh’s heart…IN ORDER TO SHOW GOD’S POWER THRU HIM. The verse you wish to provide is proving the exact opposite of your premise. The Pharaoh got mercy DUE TO God “using” him.
The Pharaoh was not a Jew.
Romans 11
30 For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief:
31 Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy.
32 For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.
So, to conclude…you concentrate on HARDEN, and DESTRUCTION, while we concentrate on MERCY, which is what Romans 9-11 is REALLY all about. God’s MERCY on the Jews, because the JEWS are BLINDED by God for HIS PURPOSE (God, being the Potter here), because God shows his POWER through the Jews.
My last sentence is the MOST important of this comment. This is all about God’s MERCY on the Jews for which God uses the Jews for DESTRUCTION FOR THE PURPOSE OF SHOWING HIS POWER amongst the Gentiles.
But Calvinism has a different twist. I also find that FORMER Calvinists have a different twist, as well. Thank God I was neither.
Ed Chapman
Thanks, Ed, you have given me much to think about. I’ll definitely keep this in mind the next time I read through Romans, and see if and how it fits into the reading. Ultimately, I believe it’s not about who is right and who is wrong among us people, but about understanding, believing, trusting, and obeying what God has said to us. So if your interpretation makes more sense to me, that’s what I’m going to go with regardless of whom I will then start disagreeing with.
Yes, over the years that I’ve been studying, I agree with you. We don’t have all the answers, but we have some, and we can share what we think we know, and I think God is pleased with that. Iron sharpens Iron is stated for a reason.
If I had a choice between two minds and zero minds, I know that I would choose two. Evidently that is not everyone’s choice.
And there is the pattern of your thinking revealed
DOUBLE-MINDED is not two minds thinking – it is one mind thinking against itself.
That is why scripture warns against it.
Benevolence would hope – you will stop and take the time to ponder the pattern of your thinking in regard to its reliability?
Its the difference between walking a clean walk – vs stepping into one doodoo after another.
Love hopes all things!
Man, you must practice at being a jerk to be so good at it, BRDMOD. You have really mastered the art.
Now you’re simply jumping off a cliff into self-sabotaging emotions
Why would you do that to yourself?
You’re right, I was getting emotional. I shouldn’t have gotten emotional. I’m just frustrated that after all the exchanges we’ve had, I am still not one wit closer to a different interpretation of Romans 9:18 than when we started our conversation. It’s frustrating that you want me to believe something else, but you won’t tell me what that something else is.
I didn’t say I wanted you to believe something else.
What I’m asking you do to is stop and take the time to examine the way you’ve been taught to think.
If you’ve been conditioned to TURN OFF your brain and simply accept what someone has taught you to think.
What I notice is that you still haven’t given me any other interpretation of Romans 9:18. If there is one interpretation of Romans 9:18 (the one Calvin gave) and one absolute avoidance of interpreting Romans 9:18 on the other hand, what am I supposed to do? Just ignore Romans 9:18 like you do? I’m sorry, I won’t do that. So please give me an alternative interpretation of Romans 9:18 or shut your mouth. I don’t need sanctimonious insults from non-Calvinists. Nobody does. What everybody needs is the best, clearest understanding of Scripture so we can know what it was that God said to us, not doctrinal battles centered in insulting the other guy.
From my experience – talking with a Calvinist about scripture – is like riding in a taxi driven by a gorilla
Its an act of futility.
The *REAL* topic should be whether one’s thinking is RATIONAL or not.
If one can’t recognize that – then any conversation is doomed.
Okay, so you just refuse to talk about Scripture. Well then, I have no reason to believe that you have my well-being in mind. I can just assume that since you don’t want me to know what God said, the logical conclusion is that you hate me. Why else would you not follow the example of the apostles who, wherever they came, expounded the Scriptures in the synagogues (i.e., among Jews who in most cases hated the Messiah)? It must be that you think I am not only worthy of hell, but that you will do everything in your power to make sure that that is where I end up. Well then, I guess I don’t need to talk to you anymore. I’ll continue being a Calvinist, and you can continue to hate Calvinists. Have a good life.
This last post contains so many non-sequiturs – it serves as a wonderful example of what I was just describing.
The Lord is so good!!!
Calvinists frequently remind me of the girl whose parents are trying to reason with her concerning her boyfriend Billy – because Billy is physically beating her. Her answer to their concern is: “You simply hate Billy”
I do hope you will take something valuable away from this conversation!
Blessings!
BTW:
In Calvinism you don’t have choice – because you are not granted the function of choice.
For every INCLINATION there is one infallibly decreed option
And all alternative options are infallibly EXCLUDED
Because any alternative of that which is infallibly decreed would falsify the infallible decree – which the infallible decree does not permit.
Therefore in Calvinism:
1) There is ever only one RENDERED-CERTAIN option available to you
2) You are given NO CHOICE as to what that option will be
3) You are given NO CHOICE about what your role will be in that option.
Therefore it logically follows – for the Calvinist – the perception of having or making a choice – is a predestined illusion.
Good answers, Br.d, and Chapmaned. Funny how spurcalluth asks for alternative explanations to Romans 9:18 but doesn’t even acknowledge that Chapmaned gave him one.
And here are a few things to consider about Romans 9:18 (not that it will change a Calvinist’s mind): In the concordance (original Greek, with Vine’s Expository Dictionary), the word “hardens” is a retributive hardening (punishment) for people who have continually resisted God’s lovingkindness and patience. They brought the hardening on themselves for resisting God. God did not randomly choose to harden them.
Also, Chapmaned pointed out the “fitted for destruction” verse. In the concordance (with Vine’s), “fitted” has to do with the people’s destiny being tied to their character. They fitted themselves for destruction by how they chose to be. It’s not that God formed them to be that way.
And as Chapmaned pointed out, the chapter is about Israel. It’s about the fact that God does not have to save Jews just because they are part of Israel (they don’t earn salvation just because they follow the law or have a certain bloodline, God can still punish them even though they are His “chosen” race) and that God has the right (in His mercy) to open the door of salvation up to the Gentiles even though they are not part of Israel. That’s what Romans 9 is all about. The Jews were jealous that God would extend salvation to the Gentiles too. They thought they were special – that they deserved to be saved, never condemned – because of their genealogy and because they followed the Law, unlike the Gentiles. But because Israel rejected Jesus, they brought condemnation and a partial-hardening on themselves, and God extended the offer of salvation to the Gentiles, allowing them to be grafted spiritually into the “chosen” race, Israel, if they believe in Jesus.
Understanding it this way, properly, in context, keeps God’s character and the rest of the Bible intact, whereas the Calvinist way destroys God’s character, His Word, the Gospel, Jesus’s sacrifice, and most people’s chance for salvation.
Also, spurcalleth, just because Calvin refers to a verse – just because anyone refers to a verse – doesn’t mean they understand it correctly or are godly (Satan knows how to quote Scripture too, while subtly twisting it). There are many false teachers, many cult leaders who use the Bible wrong. Be a Berean! Don’t just take what someone else says as truth just because they quote a verse. Research it to see if they are using it properly.
Heather, it is not very charitable to just assume the worst of people without knowing what the real situation is. When I left the website on Friday afternoon, I had not yet received any explanation from a provisionist position about Romans 9:18. I could not acknowledge Ed’s explanation because I had not seen Ed’s explanation. This is the first time I have a chance to return to the discussion. Now you can of course claim that I maliciously chose to spend time with my wife instead of hanging around on this website all weekend, but I know that it was not done with malice, so if you do choose to accuse me of malice, just know that you choose the way of falsehood rather than truth.
Spurcalleth, I didn’t realize that your comment which showed up after chapmaned’s was actually written earlier than his. Since it was after his, I thought it meant you commented after seeing his comment but ignored it. Sorry about not checking the time stamp on the comments.
However, it’s ironic for you to criticize my “uncharitable” attitude and to accuse me of thinking the worst of you when you are doing the same thing to Brdmod, accusing him of hating you and of hating Calvinists, of thinking you are worthy of hell and trying to get you there, saying he’s good at being a jerk, insinuating he has zero minds, etc.. And you accuse me of accusing you of maliciousness(?) for being with your wife. No need to be so dramatic.
(If Brdmod won’t get into Scripture with a Calvinist, it’s because he’s been around the block a few times and knows how fruitless it is, unless and until a Calvinist is willing to see that they might be wrong.)
Have a good life.
Hi Heather. The problem I had with BRDMOD was that he might know some Calvinists, heck, he might know many Calvinists, and he might think that none of them want to understand Scripture, but he has never interacted with me and therefore does not know me. Based on his zero knowledge of me, he decided that I don’t care what Scripture says, that I have already declared enmity with Scripture, and that I have hardened my heart against God. My unsavoury interaction with him was a result of his assumptions about me. Now, you might think that I am just using the schoolyard excuse “teacher, he hit first”. Maybe you’re right. But I don’t think a Christian should be denying anyone else the truth of Scripture as they see it, on the basis of what other people have done. It certainly took Paul a LONG time and a LOT of physical pain before he said, “You know what, Jews, I won’t be talking to you anymore”, and if a Jew after that still came and wanted to find out more, I don’t think Paul would have denied him. You judge if that is a godly attitude or if Paul should have been more like BRDMOD.
Spurcalluth:
Interesting that Calvin appeals to Romans 9:18 for his position, while you appeal to some fictitious situation that you dreamt up. Really shows the difference in approach beautifully.
roland
You’re definitely right about the non-calvinist approach, it is a dream. Or as the article’s author wrote in the sixth paragraph “Imagine…” Non-calvinists have to “dream” or “imagine” situations in order to argue against the Calvinist position. As Calvinists, we cite and reason from Scripture unlike non-calvinists who reason to Scripture and impress their rationalism onto Scripture. It is the reason why I embraced Calvinism after I realized that all non-calvinists have a few things in common. First, they begin with non-biblical presuppositions. Second, they reason from an anthropomorphic foundation. Third, and there’s probably more, they place reason over revelation. According to non-calvinists if it an argument doesn’t make sense or conform to the laws of logic, then it is not biblical.
Hello Roland
I hope this finds you well.
The idea that the Calvinist finds his basis in scripture is itself a dream.
The Calvinist makes scripture say what he wants it to say – and then claims the process is the reverse. :-]
I can’t tell you how many times – a Calvinist will come here a quote a verse – and his quote literally REMOVES words from the text and REPLACES them with words he has been taught by some Calvinist teacher – in order to make the text say what they want it to say.
That is about a clear a sign as anyone needs! :-]
The second strategy is to alter the meaning of a word in a verse – in order to FORCE that word to mean what the Calvinist needs it to mean.
The humorous part of Calvinism is observing how many square-circles and married-bachelors the Calvinist can pull out of a magical hat – and then claim he got them from scripture! 😀
brdmod:
The Calvinist makes scripture say what he wants it to say – and then claims the process is the reverse. :-]
roland
I have not read every post by every Calvinists on this site but I have heard many non-calvinists do what you are accusing Calvinists of doing, which I do not deny. But here are a few examples of non-calvinists William Lane Craig and Leighton Flowers changing the meaning of words and in Leighton’s case, completing putting another word in the text that is not even there.
First, Craig several years back in the Unbelievable podcast with Justin Brierly and Paul Helm made the statement that in Romans 8:29 God’s foreknowledge is about human decisions. But that is not what the text says. Yes, as a Calvinist, I believe Scripture teaches that God’s knowledge is perfect, He knows all humans future decisions. I agree with Craig. However, Craig’s error occurs when he says that foreknowledge in Romans 8:29 refers to decisions when in reality God’s foreknowledge refers to people whom He foreknew.
Romans 8:29
New King James Version
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.
God foreknew certain individuals to be predestined to Christ’s image. Leon Morris in his Romans commentary argues that the predestined are God’s people, page 333.
Second, Flowers concludes in his youtube, “Isaiah 10 De-Calvinized” that God only permitted Assyria to plunder Israel. That is not what the text says. Read Isaiah 10:5–12 and nowhere is the idea or concept or word “permitted” in the text. God is very active in the text. But Flowers would have his followers to believe that God is a sort of gatekeeper who only opens the gate to “permit” Assyria to do what they please. Here’s the link
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Ee4uCxMm30
At 4:43 Leighton says: “God removes His hand of protection and PERMITS the Assyrians to follow their own libertarianly freewill.”
The text nowhere indicates that God is permitting. Quite the contrary, God is sending, giving, and even causes Assyria to commit actions. Isaiah 10:7 Yet he (referring to Assyria) does not mean so; Nor does his heart think so.
Roland
First, Craig several years back in the Unbelievable podcast with Justin Brierly and Paul Helm made the statement that in Romans 8:29 God’s foreknowledge is about human decisions. But that is not what the text says.
br.d
That is a commentary about a text – which is not the same thing as altering the words in the text.
Every commentary you will ever get your hands on does that :-]
Roland
I believe Scripture teaches…….
br.d
And there is a problem.
How many times have I heard a Calvinist or a Jehovah’s Witness, etc – claim what the scripture “teaches” and often by quoting verses which may literally have nothing to do what what is being asserted.
We’ve made jokes about it here – like asking a Calvinist to please provide a verse which EXPLICITLY says what he claims – and please don’t quote from the Beatitudes! 😀
So, Roland, you chose to embrace Calvinism after coming to certain realizations, huh? So much for God’s (Calvi-god’s) sovereign control, huh, when your own logical reasoning made you become a Calvinist. [And yet I seem to remember someone saying in another post that they don’t use human logic when evaluating biblical truth, meaning that you won’t give any weight to the logical arguments of non-Calvinists against Calvinism. So I guess it’s okay for you to use human logic to get into Calvinism, just not to get out of it, huh? And for the record, non-Calvinists reject Calvinism not because it doesn’t conform to the laws of logic but because when we look logically at what Calvinism teaches compared to what Scripture clearly says and at God’s revealed character, we can see that Calvinism contradicts Scripture and destroys God’s character. And that’s why we call Calvinism unbiblical.]
Heather:
[And yet I seem to remember someone saying in another post that they don’t use human logic when evaluating biblical truth, meaning that you won’t give any weight to the logical arguments of non-Calvinists against Calvinism
roland
I have never written that I “won’t give any weight to the logical arguments of non-Calvinists against Calvinism.” I did in the past. I used to believe that God gave us libertarian freewill not on the basis of Scripture, as there is no Scripture making such a proposition, but on the basis that God would be unfair or unjust if humans do not have libertarian freewill. I know you know the arguments and I used to believe them. I will agree with a person who makes the argument that if humans do not freely choose to love God, how can that be love?
I would even agree with the human example that if a husband and wife love each other, which they should, then each must have made a libertarian free decision to love each other. If they did not, then it is not love. If either were “forced” into the marriage, then it is not love. I would have fully agreed with this example and I would have reasoned from this example upward and applied it towards the example of God and Christians.
However, I later rejected such examples on the basis that Scripture nowhere presents the relationship between God and His people in this manner. Yes, I know, Ephesians 5 speaks about Christ and His Church being Christ’s bride. But reasoning from human analogies to God is not biblical. There are many problems with humans analogies because they disregard, sometimes, human nature and they don’t take into account God’s nature. There’s a lot more to this but for time’s sake on this point I’ll stop here.
Heather:
So I guess it’s okay for you to use human logic to get into Calvinism, just not to get out of it, huh?
roland
I don’t believe I used human logic to get into Calvinism. I was convinced of Calvinism through reading Scripture that supports Calvinism. I believe Calvinism is a biblically valid position to hold.
Heather:And for the record, non-Calvinists reject Calvinism not because it doesn’t conform to the laws of logic but because when we look logically at what Calvinism teaches compared to what Scripture clearly says and at God’s revealed character, we can see that Calvinism contradicts Scripture and destroys God’s character. And that’s why we call Calvinism unbiblical.]
roland
No, for the other record, there are many on here that only appeal to syllogisms, logical concepts, and logical fallacies when arguing against Calvinism. Someone even wrote that there is no point in citing Bible verses for Calvinists because we do not listen (something along those lines). You wrote “because when we look LOGICALLY at what Calvinism teaches…” I would rather look at all viewpoints SCRIPTURALLY and not logically.
I agree with you: “what Scripture clearly says.” What does Ephesians 1:4? That God chose us in Him before the foundation of the world! The doctrine of election is clearly taught in Scripture. It is the non-calvinists that is required, due to their non-biblical presuppositions, to twist Scripture and give it a meaning to conform to their presuppositions. I believe Calvinism is more clearly seen in Scripture than all non-calvinistic interpretations such as provisionism, arminianism, and molinism.
Thanks for reading and I appreciate your cordial comments and response, Heather.
Roland,
Why do you put a punctuation mark at the end of the word “world” in Ephesians 1:4?
My point, if one was to put a punctuation mark there, then the next sentence makes no sense.
Take it out, and then the sentence makes sense, and you will not have the same conclusion as you do with it.
That conclusion, to me, explains that the words after the word “world ” is what God chose FOR “US”. NOT that we were chosen.
That punctuation mark makes all the difference in the world, pun intended, to the interpretation of the sentence.
Ed Chapman
Roland,
Why do you put a punctuation mark at the end of the word “world” in Ephesians 1:4?
My point, if one was to put a punctuation mark there, then the next sentence makes no sense.
Take it out, and then the sentence makes sense, and you will not have the same conclusion as you do with it.
That conclusion, to me, explains that the words after the word “world ” is what God chose FOR “US”. NOT that we were chosen.
That punctuation mark makes all the difference in the world, pun intended, to the interpretation of the sentence.
Ed Chapman
Roland says: “I would rather look at all viewpoints SCRIPTURALLY …”
Heather: That’s what “…compared to what Scripture clearly says and at God’s revealed character…” means.
And then you add “… and not logically.”
Heather: Well, I would rather look at all views Scripturally AND logically. Because there are many who use Scripture but twist it. And so logic (our God-given ability to think and reason and examine things, etc.) is needed to see if it represents Scripture accurately.
I do agree with you that human analogies can have problems and cannot be used to decide what’s biblical or not. But they can be used to help explain what’s biblical, to make it more understandable. (I don’t speak for all non-Calvinists, and I am sure that you are right that there are those who misuse analogies and logic, using it as the basis for their beliefs. On both sides, Calvinist and non-Calvinist.)
I however disagree that the Bible doesn’t show God relating to free-will people. I think believing God gave people free-will is the only proper, commonsense way to understand things like God calling people to believe in Him, saying that He wants all to be saved and no one to perish, that He loves all and that Jesus died for all, that He holds out His hands to those who reject Him, that He didn’t command the people to sacrifice their children to Baal, that the king of Israel set free a man that God determined should die, that Jesus wanted to gather Israel to Him but they were not willing, that the people stopped up their ears and hardened their hearts and would not listen to God, that “woe to the obstinate children who carry out plans that are not Mine,” that the people made the hearts of the righteous sad when God Himself did not make them sad, that there will be rewards for obedience and penalties for disobedience, etc.
Free-will (the God-given right to make decisions about whether we obey God or not, believe in Jesus or not) is the only way to understand those verses in a plain, no-hidden-meaning, no-contradiction way and to still keep God’s revealed character intact. The other way, Calvinism’s way, makes God unjust, untrustworthy, unloving to most, ungracious to most, the cause of sin, glorified by evil, etc., and it involves reading into Scripture things that aren’t there, taking verses out of context, breaking many biblical concepts up into “two different kinds, one for the elect and one for the non-elect,” stretching things past what Scripture reveals, adding multiple layers that aren’t there, that contradict the plain understanding of Scripture, etc..
Personally, I think most Calvinists are more concerned with defending Calvinism and prominent Calvinist leaders than they are with understanding what Scripture really teaches. I think they secretly like being part of an elite, specially-chosen group and having “special knowledge” of God’s “hidden meanings” that the average person doesn’t get. And it’s hard to give that up, to realize you’re just like everyone else, that anyone, even a child, can understand the gospel, that anyone can be saved.
[And you caught me on the “cordial” thing. I wasn’t being very cordial to you, was I? Sorry about that. My irritation with spurcalleth’s attitude came out in my response to you. My apologies.]
Blessings to you.
Chapmaned says: “That conclusion, to me, explains that the words after the word “world ” is what God chose FOR “US”. NOT that we were chosen.”
Well said! They don’t finish the sentence. Instead they stop with “He chose us,” making it sound like Calvinist predestination/election. But it’s not that certain people were “chosen” to be saved, but that those who are “in Him” (and anyone can be in Him) are chosen to be holy and blameless in His sight.
And how do we come to be “in Him”?
“And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit,” (Ephesians 1:13).
Notice that they were not “in Him” until they believed. And they did not get the Holy Spirit until they believed. But in Calvinism, all the elect are chosen before time began, and they get the Holy Spirit before they believe, in order to cause them to believe. So which one is right?
Anyone who becomes “in Him” (and anyone can), as a result of believing in Jesus, will be seen as holy and blameless in God’s sight because they accepted Jesus’s sacrifice on their behalf, wiping away their sins in God’s eyes.
God bless!
Heather,
That’s exactly right!! And there is two more like verses, just like that, too, and the conclusions are the same.
I find it funny that br.d had previously said that calvinists make verses say what they want it to say, to where Roland disagreed. But just this one verse, Ephesians 1:4, proves br.d correct.
Now, regarding Roman’s 9:18, they isolate, rather than giving context. It’s obvious that the whole conversation begins in verse 1, and ends at the end of chapter 11.
Let me give another example, that I believe ALL church’s got wrong…Communion.
If you isolated a verse or two…maybe 3 verse, you get… Communion.
But… let’s put context to it, and when you do, it’s not about Communion at all.
It’s about a church banquet, about manners, about how to conduct yourself at the dinner table, not about eating a cracker and drinking grape juice to remember the Lord’s Death. The whole chapter must be read, not just a verse.
These are reasons that I’m non-denom Christian. I can’t let dead people decide for me what to believe.
Ed Chapman
1 cor 1:27 explains calvinists….
but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise…
Calvinists are supposed to be the intellectuals…God offers a simple gospel they can’t understand.
Hello Utahozzie and welcome
I appreciated your comments and understand its rational.
However I think you’ll eventually discover its much worse than that.
Calvinism is a system of DOUBLE-MINDEDNESS
It forces the Calvinist to live in a DOUBLE-MINDED state about his belief system
And that is why Calvinist language is saturated with DOUBLE-SPEAK.
Mercy doesn’t refer to salvation….simple if you know that.
Hello Brandon and welcome
In the context of Romans 9-11, yes, it does.
Roland wrote: “I agree with you: “what Scripture clearly says.” What does Ephesians 1:4? That God chose us in Him before the foundation of the world! The doctrine of election is clearly taught in Scripture. It is the non-calvinists that is required, due to their non-biblical presuppositions, to twist Scripture and give it a meaning to conform to their presuppositions.”
Yes, the doctrine of election is clearly taught in Scripture, including the verse above, just not the calvinist version of election. Please note the two words in that verse calvinists always like to ignore. IN HIM. When were you in Christ, and how were you in Christ? Paul himself said that Andronicus and Junia were in Christ before Paul. He explains that we are in Christ by faith – in other words at the point when we believe, and not before. None of us existed to be in Christ before the foundation of the world. God’s choice was made at that point. Christ was the original elect One and we step into that corporate category when we believe.
Shock horror, a non-calvinist interprets Scripture, and does so differently to you! Do you even acknowledge that there are alternative possible interpretations of Scripture than those propagated by your favorite philosophical theorists?
Pastor Loz:
When were you in Christ, and how were you in Christ?
Roland:
According to Ephesians chapter 1, the Ephesian believers were in Christ before the foundation of the world (see verse 4). I would also add that ALL BELIEVERS were in Christ before the foundation of the world. I was in Christ before the foundation of the world by God’s own choice (see verse 4 again).
Also see Ephesians 1:6, note that “He MADE us accepted in the Beloved.” Any sinner that is in Christ is MADE to be in Christ by God.
6 to the praise of the glory of His grace, by which He made us accepted in the Beloved.
Pastor Loz
None of us existed to be in Christ before the foundation of the world.
Roland
In order for us to be in Christ before the foundation of the world, we must have existed? Could God have known about our existence before the foundation of the world?
Pastor Loz
God’s choice was made at that point.
Roland
God’s choice is made at the point we believe? Is that what you mean by “at that point?”
Pastor Loz
Christ was the original elect One and we step into that corporate category when we believe.
Roland
So when Paul uses the nouns “us” and “we” in verses 3-12, about ten times, it is just a “corporate category” of people? It is not the Ephesians that Paul wrote to? It does not include all believers over all time?
Pastor Loz
Shock horror, a non-calvinist interprets Scripture, and does so differently to you! Do you even acknowledge that there are alternative possible interpretations of Scripture than those propagated by your favorite philosophical theorists?
rolnad
No shock or horror here. I acknowledge alternative possible interpretations of Scripture. If anything it seems non-Calvinists cannot acknowledge alternative possible interpretations of Scripture. Especially Dr. Flowers, he has a whole ministry dedicated to converting Christians out of Calvinism!
In my Christian reformed church I attend you can find three different eschatological views, historical premillennialism, amillennialism, and post-millennialism. I have brothers in Christ that I can read a section of eschatological verses and we can have three different interpretations or perspectives on the verses and have complete unity in Christ. Our church sees eschatology as having one core truth: one day Jesus returns to destroy the works of the devil and establish his kingdom on Earth. Everything apart from that we grant each other grace. We humbly admit our ignorance to the end times yet rejoice in the truth that Christ is returning some day!
I don’t “favorite philosophical theorists” as I read mostly theology and not philosophy.
Thanks, for reading, have blessed day.
Pastor Loz: When were you in Christ, and how were you in Christ?
Roland: According to Ephesians chapter 1, the Ephesian believers were in Christ before the foundation of the world (see verse 4). I would also add that ALL BELIEVERS were in Christ before the foundation of the world. I was in Christ before the foundation of the world by God’s own choice (see verse 4 again).
Pastor Loz: In Acts 16:7, Paul says, “Greet Andronicus and Junia…THEY WERE IN CHRIST BEFORE I WAS”. This verse alone destroys your assertion that believers were in Christ before the foundation of the world. if your assertion was true, then Andronicus and Junia would not have been in Christ any longer than Paul. Secondly, no-one was a believer before the foundation of the world. You BECOME a believer at the point in time when you believe, and not one second before. Before that, you were an UNBELIEVER. You were not born believing. Thus to follow your train of thought, the UNBELIEVING ELECT were in Christ BEFORE they believed. So you have unbelievers being in Christ, which is absolute nonsense.
Roland: Also see Ephesians 1:6, note that “He MADE us accepted in the Beloved.” Any sinner that is in Christ is MADE to be in Christ by God. 6 to the praise of the glory of His grace, by which He made us accepted in the Beloved.
Pastor Loz: Do you see what you did there? You changed the meaning of the verse. It does not say He made us to be in Christ. It says he made us accepted IN THE BELOVED. We are in Christ the Beloved from the point in time when we believe. See Ephesians 1:13
Pastor Loz: None of us existed to be in Christ before the foundation of the world.
Roland: In order for us to be in Christ before the foundation of the world, we must have existed? Could God have known about our existence before the foundation of the world?
Pastor Loz: God knew about our existence before the foundation of the world. That is completely different from us actually existing. God knows things before they happen. God knows about people’s existence before they exist.
Pastor Loz: God’s choice was made at that point.
Roland: God’s choice is made at the point we believe? Is that what you mean by “at that point?”
Pastor Loz: No, that is not what I mean. God’s choice that those who are in Christ are saved, blessed, sanctified, glorified etc. was made before the foundation of the world. He chose the corporate category, knowing which individuals would come to be in that category at the point in time when they believe.
Pastor Loz: Christ was the original elect One and we step into that corporate category when we believe.
Roland: So when Paul uses the nouns “us” and “we” in verses 3-12, about ten times, it is just a “corporate category” of people? It is not the Ephesians that Paul wrote to? It does not include all believers over all time?
Pastor Loz: It is a corporate category that consists of individuals foreknown by God. Those individuals are believers. All believes. The category in no way excludes the identity of the individuals within it. That is a false distinction calvinists make in their attempt to deny the truth of corporate election.
Roland, That’s good you guys can gracefully have different end-times views. But eschatology is one thing; soteriology is another. It’s easy to admit ignorance about and be more tolerant of different end-times views because it’s about prophecy, things that haven’t happened yet, and no one can know for sure till we get there. And it’s not as detrimental if we’re wrong about our views of when Jesus comes back.
But when it comes to our soteriological views – about things God’s already clearly revealed to us about who He is, how He operates, who Jesus died for, who can be saved, how we’re saved, how God deals with sin (and if He “ordains” – causes – sin or not), what He expects from us, etc. – the stakes are much higher. That’s why it’s more important to make sure you get this one right, because people’s souls, God’s character, Jesus’s death, and the gospel message are at stake.
Also (I am asking this gently, not with snark), what are you afraid will happen because of Dr. Flowers ministry? Really? Will it affect Calvi-god’s plans and those he predestined to heaven (or hell)? Did Calvi-god not ordain this ministry for his glory and pleasure and purposes? Is Dr. Flowers really the one in control of this ministry, or is he just clay in the Potter’s hands? If Calvinists (such as James White) give God glory for child rape, then surely Calvinists can give God glory for a blog they don’t like or agree with. (And I find it telling that you say Dr. Flowers is “converting Christians out of Calvinism.” Not out of “Christianity” but “Calvinism” – not away from “Christ” but away from “Calvin” – as if you know deep-down that they’re not the same thing, that Calvinism is something different than/in addition to basic Christianity.)
And I think that what really matters is not that we acknowledge alternative explanations of Scripture to other people, but to God, that we admit to Him that our views on this could be wrong, asking Him to correct us if we’re wrong and to lead us into truth. In my journey of comparing Calvinism with the Bible to figure out if Calvinism was right or wrong, I would regularly ask God to tell me if I was wrong, that I wanted to know His truth even if it meant finding out I’ve been misunderstanding things all along.
And although it might not seem like it (tone of voice doesn’t come across online), my less-than-“cordial” comment to you before was not meant to sound so harsh. I only realized how harsh it sounded after I reread it when it was posted. I meant it more like a “wink, wink, nudge, nudge” kind of comment, like how we might say things in a “fun” verbal sparring match with a frenemy. Contrary to what you might think, there’s something I like about you, Roland. I can sense an honesty and respectfulness in your comments, as if you’re someone who could be trusted even by someone on “the other side.” Anyway, that’s why I apologize again for my harsh/rude-sounding comment. Blessings to you!
If I serve a Calvi-god, then I guess you serve a Flowery-false-god. I think the jibes are unnecessary, but if you insist on adding them in what you write, then don’t go crying when other people say “fine, we’ll play that game”. Of course, I see non-Calvinists whining about it all the time when Calvinists just join in the same game of toss-the-insult.
Heather
And I think that what really matters is not that we acknowledge alternative explanations of Scripture to other people, but to God, that we admit to Him that our views on this could be wrong, asking Him to correct us if we’re wrong and to lead us into truth.
roland
Agree with your comment and your whole response to my comment. I came to soteriology 101 and I read Dr. Flowers’s book God’s Provision for All because I wanted to learn if there are better alternatives to Calvinism. I may not seem like it but I am open to other alternatives to Calvinism but I have yet to find one.
Heather
In my journey of comparing Calvinism with the Bible to figure out if Calvinism was right or wrong,
roland
I was saved in a non-calvinist church. I did not begin to study Calvinism until I was a Christian at least 5- years. I read bible verses in Scripture that seemed to me from just reading my Bible without any commentary from anybody, that taught Calvinism even though I had never heard of Calvinism. Texts such as Romans 8, 9-11, John 6, Ephesians 1, Acts 4:27-8. When I asked my non-Calvinist pastors what a text such as John 6:44 meant, they would say something like, “well, God wants everyone to be saved so Jesus really doesn’t mean that no one can come to the Father unless the Father draws him.” Or I clearly remember one of my pastor explaining Romans 8:29 to me as God looking down the tunnel of time, knowing who would believe in Jesus, and then predestining them to be believers. I believed what pastors said about the verses but once I came across men such as R.C. Sproul and John MacArthur, not knowing they were Calvinists, I heard them saying that Jesus is saying exactly what He means to say and no, God did not look down the tunnel of time to see our decisions, He foreknew people, and predestined people.
At first, I rejected that form of thinking because I thought, “if God only chooses some people to salvation, then that is not fair,” but as I read more and more Calvinistic authors I became convinced that Calvinism offers a biblical understanding of salvation and God. I can sympathize with a Christian or a non-christian who rejects Calvinism. I can understand why Calvinism is rejected. I just can come to personally reject what Calvinism believes about divine revelation and teaches about God and salvation.
Heather
Anyway, that’s why I apologize again for my harsh/rude-sounding comment. Blessings to you!
roland
We have a misunderstanding. I NEVER took any of your comments as rude or harsh. No need to apologize. I sincerely believe you have been cordial in our discourse.
True, vocal inflections and tone are lost in online discussions. This is why I don’t get into theological discussions on social media. This is the only place I express my theological convictions online. I actually came here to learn about provisionism not to make arguments for Calvinism. Blessings to you!
If you respond and I don’t respond, don’t take any offense as I have a very busy week ahead of me and I won’t have time to post but I will probably read any responses that come to my inbox. Thanks for reading.
Roland, I agree that there are some verses that sound Calvinist, until I studied them much deeper, viewed them in context, and crossed-referenced them with other Scriptures. Since all of these have been looked at in various places on this blog, I’ll just briefly say:
Romans 9 is about Israel and Gentiles as groups, about God choosing to punish Israel for their resistance to Jesus and to extend salvation to the Gentiles. It’s not about individual salvation.
In John 6, I agree that no one can come to God unless God draws Him, I just don’t see where it says God only draws a few, certain, pre-selected people or that “draws” means “causes to believe.” John also says (12:32) that Jesus will draw all men to Him. God works in all men’s hearts to lead them to Christ, which is why there is no excuse for not believing, per Romans 1:19-20. But He leaves the decision of how we will respond up to us, which is why Jesus could call to people, like the Jews, and yet they could resist Him, being unwilling to come to Him. If I mailed 100 invitations to a party, those who came could say they were drawn/invited. And they couldn’t have come unless I drew/invited them, But it doesn’t mean they were the only ones invited or that they were forced to come. If we come to Jesus, it’s because He drew us (because He draws all), but if we don’t come, it’s because we rejected His drawing (because God gave us the right to choose).
In Ephesians 1, whoever chooses to believe in Jesus will be “in Him” (we join the “in Him” group after we believe, Eph. 1:13), and God has predestined that everyone who is in Him will be seen as holy and blameless in His sight. The destiny of the “in Him” group has been predestined, not who ends up in that group. It’s like the destiny of a plane being predetermined, but not who gets on the plane. That’s up to us.
About Acts 4:27-8, just because God preplanned that Jesus would die and how Jesus would die doesn’t mean He had to preplan/force the people to do it or that they had no choice to do anything differently. I believe God, in His foreknowledge, knew what those people at that time would be like and what they would choose to do when put in that circumstance, and so He knew He could work it into His plans. God didn’t cause the people to be wicked to get His plans done (which is what Calvinism would say, and it’s an attack on God’s character). But He knew what they were like and what they would choose, and He incorporated it (their self-chosen wickedness/sins) into His plans.
And about “foreknew/foreknow,” I once read a Calvinist who said that he decided that whenever he saw that God “foreknew” people, he would just read it as God “forechose” them. That’s very sketchy to me, to just decide for himself that a word means something else so that it better fits his theology.
While I can see how these verses could seem Calvinist at first or when read a certain way, I think there’s a different, better, more accurate understanding of them (the non-Calvinist way) which is Scriptural, keeps the rest of the Bible intact, and doesn’t damage God’s character the way Calvinism does.
God bless. And enjoy your week!
Good post Heather!
Now when Roland tries to pit Calvinistic logic up against your scripture verses – you can reject his assertions by claiming he is pitting scripture up against logic – and you don’t allow scripture to be treated that way – therefore his arguments are UN-Scriptural and therefore invalid!
Since that strategy works for him – he should have no problem with that working for you! 😀
Spurcalleth, Just so you know, I don’t use “Calvi-god” as a jibe necessarily, but more as a way to keep it clear which version of God I am talking about, the Calvinist or non-Calvinist one. Because they are not the same. And so if I say things like “Calvi-god predestined who will be saved,” I specify “Calvi-god” because I do not believe the God of the Bible does predestine who will be saved.
And trust me, I won’t be crying about anything you say here. I don’t take your kind of insults personally. I have way too much going on in life to be that concerned about what you think.
Roland: “We have a misunderstanding. I NEVER took any of your comments as rude or harsh. No need to apologize. I sincerely believe you have been cordial in our discourse.”
Thank you. That’s kind of you. I guess it’s not so much a misunderstanding, but when you graciously overlooked the harsh-sounding sarcasm in my comment and ended your comment with a gentle “Thanks for reading and I appreciate your cordial comments and response, Heather”, it made me realize that I wasn’t at all cordial in my comment to you. It convicted me. So even though you never actually called me out on it, your gentle reply convicted me, and made me read my comment in a new light, and that made me want to apologize. I respect you enough, Roland, to say I’m sorry and to make sure you weren’t offended. Like I said, there’s something I like about you, a good-heartedness. 🙂
And thank you, Brdmod. I truly believe that Calvinists (and all of us at some point) read into Scripture things that aren’t there or come at it with certain presuppositions. That’s just human nature, because we all have our own frames of reference. (And it takes effort and a little help sometimes to realize we are doing it, to read it in a different light. And that’s why I point out these other, more-biblical ways to read Scripture, in the hopes that it helps someone see the light.) However, I think Calvinist pastors and theologians exploit that human tendency by first preconditioning people to interpret verses their way, and then leading people to “discover it,” just like they taught them. But the people don’t even realize that the Calvinist interpretation was first implanted in their heads.
Such as my pastor first telling people that “dead” means “like a dead body that can’t do anything but lay there all dead,” and then leading people to verses about how we are dead in our sins. We’ve been preconditioned to see “dead” as “just like a dead body, totally unable to do anything, even think about/want/seek God, unless and until God causes it to happen, because, after all, dead bodies can’t do anything.” And yet no one stops to question the difference between “dead bodies” and “spiritual death/dead in sin” (which means spiritual separation from God, not that we can’t think or make decisions). We read “like dead bodies” into the verse because we’ve been trained to. It’s amazing how often Calvinists do this. I’m not saying that there aren’t verses that do sound Calvinist without reading into them, but those are almost always corrected when we read it in context or in relation to other verses or with the help of a good concordance. God bless!
br.d
Its not the same thing at all – as removing words from verses and replacing them with different words necessary to make that verse say what one wants it to say.
roland
Sorry my friend but that was not commentary. That is Craig inserting words into the text that are not there. The text does not say that God foreknew human decisions but that God foreknew persons. Ten years ago I would have agreed with Craig that God foreknew our decisions and then God chose us on the basis of our decisions. I reject that conclusion on the basis that Romans 8:29 does not say, “For those decisions that God foreknew, He also predestined….” Romans 8:29 says, “For those WHOM He foreknew…”
Craig lays a non-biblical foundation for his argument that God foreknew human decisions, therefore, God has middle knowledge of all human decisions, or all possible human decisions.
Roland
Sorry my friend but that was not commentary. That is Craig inserting words into the text that are not there
br.d
Was he quoting a verse – or commenting on that verse?
br.d
Was he quoting a verse – or commenting on that verse?
roland
No, Craig did not quote the verse, Paul Helm did. Here’s a portion I transcribed from the podcast, these are Dr. Craig’s words in quotations.
“Well, the first link in the chain is foreknowledge. Right? Prognosko, Whom he foreknew and if that encompasses middle knowledge. Then there is just no problem. And I would say…”
Then he quotes Acts 4:28-29 and argues that God’s foreknowledge is Herod’s decisions and the others decisions about crucifying Christ. Dr. Craig is objecting the proposition that Romans 8:28-30 is a tricky text for the molinist but he argues it is not only if “foreknowledge” in Romans 8:29 includes middle knowledge, middle knowledge according to Craig is the decisions of creatures. He is clearly arguing that foreknowledge in Romans 8:29 is not of persons but of persons’ actions.
BTW: Dr. Craig does not believe what assume – ie. that a person is chosen based on that person’s decision.
Somehow you mixed Dr. Craig up with someone else.
Dr. Craig believes in Middle-Knowledge
Middle-Knowledge is comprehensive knowledge of what the creature WOULD choose given a Libertarian choice.
It has nothing to do with how divine decisions concerning anything are made.
So on that system divine decisions are not determined by what choices the creature will make – as you assume.
You appear to have mixed Dr. Craig’s position up with the positions of others – whom you derived from someplace else.
brdmod:
BTW: Dr. Craig does not believe what assume – ie. that a person is chosen based on that person’s decision.
Somehow you mixed Dr. Craig up with someone else.
roland
That is not what I understood from what I have read of Craig and middle knowledge and what I heard in his comments on Unbelievable podcast. Dr. Craig clearly states on the podcast that God chooses the circumstance where the person makes a particular choice according to the world God desires. It is clear that the circumstances and the “free choice” of the creature are the basis of the world God desires. So God is dependent upon middle knowledge. Dr. Craig throughout the podcast tries to guard God’s foreknowledge and libertarian freewill but the middle knowledge theory fails to do so. I wish Dr. Helm had been a little more vocal but Dr. Craig and Justin Brierly did not allow Dr. Helm as much speaking time as Dr. Craig got. Dr. Craig interrupted several times as well as Brierly. Dr. Helm was not allowed to finish some of his thoughts.
Yes, a person is chosen on the basis of that person’s decision according to the circumstances that cause the person to make such a decision in middle knowledge. In Molinism God is not free to choose persons to be in Christ that is what Dr. Helm and Calvinism objects to in Molinism.
roland
Dr. Craig clearly states on the podcast that God chooses the circumstance where the person makes a particular choice according to the world God desires.
br.d
Correct!
But its not the case that the human decision determined the divine decision.
The human decision determines the human decision.
Where in Calvinism – the human is not granted the function of choice – and the human decision is determined *FOR* the human rather than *BUY* the human
Roland
It is clear that the circumstances and the “free choice” of the creature are the basis of the world God desires.
br.d
Correct! But that doesn’t logically equate to a human functioning as the determiner of a divine determination.
Roland
So God is dependent upon middle knowledge.
br.d
Not any more “dependent” than he would be on any other type of knowledge.
A perfect mind has knowledge that TRUE cannot equal FALSE
A perfect mind has knowledge that he cannot lie to himself
The term “dependence” can be equivocal and therefore deceptive in its inferences
With the word “dependence” you seem to be inferring that that knowledge has power over him.
Thus on that way of thinking – the knowledge that he cannot lie to himself – has power over him and represents a weakness on his part.
Roland:
Dr. Craig throughout the podcast tries to guard God’s foreknowledge and libertarian freewill but the middle knowledge theory fails to do so
br.d
In you imagination – yes! :-]
But remember – as you always remind everyone here – your conclusions are absent the application of LOGIC.
You reject the use of LOGIC in the examination of any Calvinist position – because doing so is to use LOGIC to examine scripture
Which means – for you – the Calvinist position and scripture are one and the same.
Roland:
I wish Dr. Helm had been a little more vocal
br.d
I wish Dr, Helm had been more intellectually honest
1) He used the term “permission” in a deceptive misleading manner – in regard to sins and evils.
2) He evaded the meaning of the word “Author” saying he didn’t know what it meant in the context
3) When he was asked “what kind of free will does the Calvinist have” he evaded answering that question.
Dr. Craig could have easily corrected the record on all 3 of those evasions.
But in doing so he would have insulted Dr. Helms – and he is too much of a gentleman to do that.
br.d
The human decision determines the human decision.
roland
Agree, the human decision is not determining the divine decision however, Molinism does make God’s decision dependent upon the circumstances available to Him. And there is no freewill of the creature in Molinism as the creature’s decisions are determined by the circumstances the creature is in. There is no libertarian freewill in Molinism, it is just an illusion. The circumstances the creature is in are determining the creature’s decisions.
br.d
Where in Calvinism – the human is not granted the function of choice – and the human decision is determined *FOR* the human rather than *BUY* the human
roland
Yes, there is divine determination in Calvinism, as demonstrated also in the Bible, Acts 4:27-28, yet Scripture DOES NOT set human choices against God’s divine determination! Calvinism takes this revealed truth in God’s Word at its simple, plain reading. We don’t try to make “sense” of it or seek to give a “logical” explanation of how human choices and God’s divine determinations operate. There are a lot of Calvinists, so they’re maybe some who do this. I will admit ignorance of all Calvinist authors.
br.d
With the word “dependence” you seem to be inferring that that knowledge has power over him.
roland
Yes, under non-calvinist perspectives God is SUBJECT to knowledge. In Calvinism, we believe that God’s knowledge comes from His decree. His knowledge of creation and creaturely decisions.
In Molinism, God’s knowledge comes from the circumstances He sorts through in order to “create”, I would argue that God is building a world in Moliinism because He uses the “parts”, i.e., circumstances, that He uses to create the world He desires.
Non-calvinists positions portray God as a passive observer or spectator, whether it is Molinism or whether it is classical Arminianism.
Scripture does not portray God as a passive observer, see Ephesians 1 and observe how active God is in the salvation of His people.
br.d
But remember – as you always remind everyone here – your conclusions are absent the application of LOGIC.
You reject the use of LOGIC in the examination of any Calvinist position – because doing so is to use LOGIC to examine scripture
Which means – for you – the Calvinist position and scripture are one and the same.
roland
I thought I have stated this multiple times as to how I believe Scripture and logic relate.
First, I do not SUBJECT Scripture to logical tests. It seems on this blog most like to argue that Scripture must make sense or be logical in order to be true. My position is that even if it does not make sense to me or conforms to a logical test, Scripture is true because it is God’s revelation. See Acts 4:27-28 of an example of how I believe Scripture, God, reveals to us that human choices are compatible with divine determination. I don’t seek to make sense of this verse I take it as a plain and simple reading of divine revelation from God.
Yes, Herod, Pontius Pilate, the Gentiles, and Israel chose to crucify Christ yet God had determined they would do this and yes, they are still guilty and accountable for their decisions to kill Christ. That’s my position and I don’t need Calvinism to hold it. All I need is plain, simple reading of divine revelation!
Second, I do not reject logic to analyze theological and philosophical positions. I think I’m very open to logic and philosophy and the examination of theological positions. If I have portrayed myself as so, then I need to learn to better communicate my position regarding logic.
Finally, see my first point regarding my position you allege that “the Calvinist position and Scripture are one and the same.” Calvinism derives its position from text such as Acts 4:27-28 but Calvinism is not Scripture.
I add a few observations from the podcast that has been the subject of my discourse with others. The first comment shows how Molinism is not compatible with Scripture as Dr. Craig, again misquotes Scripture, inserting a word that is not there and he misinterprets God’s actions as Peter prayed them.
51:35 mark Dr. Craig misquotes Acts 4:27-28 he uses thy will and thy plan when the text says “to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose determined before to be done.” Again, Dr. Craig is reading the text disregarding God’s active hand and what God’s purpose determined before to be done. Dr. Craig makes God to be a passive observer, which is not the way the Bible presents God.
Also, at 1:03 mark Dr. Craig states that God would not exercise a type of divine coercion but that God will respect people’s wills where He will say, “I’m not going to make you go to heaven. If you choose to reject me and my grace and my love for you, then I will allow you to do so.”
Yet, Molinism does not permit libertarian freewill because God is choosing the circumstances in which God knows the creature will make such and such a decision, so that God “builds” the world He desires. The creature is not truly free as Dr. Craig attempts to argue, the creature’s decisions are determined by the circumstance that God puts the creature in.
The only position that consistently argues for libertarian freewill is a position that denies God’s perfect knowledge of future events and future human choices, decisions, and actions. A person only has true libertarian freewill if that person’s decisions are not determined and are known. If the person’s decisions are foreknown, then those decisions are not truly free in the libertarian sense, because once those decisions are actualized or realized, and they are foreknown, the must conform to the foreknowledge, of God. If they don’t conform to God’s foreknowledge, then God’s knowledge is not perfect, God is not perfect and this position is open theism.
Thanks, for reading, sorry for the long post, I won’t be back for awhile if you respond, I have a long week ahead of me, and posting on soteriology 101 is not a top priority, even if I may make it seem so!
roland: Yes, under non-calvinist perspectives God is SUBJECT to knowledge. In Calvinism, we believe that God’s knowledge comes from His decree. His knowledge of creation and creaturely decisions.
pastor loz: what does that even mean? You are setting up a false scenario where God is either subject to knowledge or He is not. It’s meaningless. Knowlegde is not something anyone is subject to, or it is subject to them. God knows because He is omniscient. He knows because He knows. And you even set up your own circular statement. God’s knowledge comes from His knowledge.
roland: The only position that consistently argues for libertarian freewill is a position that denies God’s perfect knowledge of future events and future human choices, decisions, and actions.
pastor loz: complete + utter bull. You actually limit God with that statement, because by it you claim that God CANNOT perfectly know future freewill choices. The irony. God can and does know every genuine free will choice. Because He is God. Because He is omnisicient. Inherently. Quite apart from the fact that He is omnitemporal.
roland: A person only has true libertarian freewill if that person’s decisions are not determined and are known. If the person’s decisions are foreknown, then those decisions are not truly free in the libertarian sense, because once those decisions are actualized or realized, and they are foreknown, the must conform to the foreknowledge, of God. If they don’t conform to God’s foreknowledge, then God’s knowledge is not perfect, God is not perfect and this position is open theism.
pastor loz: again, you set up a non-existent false conflict between God’s perfect foreknowledge and free will. God knows what a person will freely choose. If they would have chosen differently to what they actually did, God would have perfectly foreknown that alternative scenario. You actually don’t know the difference between foreknowledge and predetermination. God foreknows the things He predetermines, the things He doesn’t predetermine, and every counter-factual. He’s clever like that, unlike your version who can only foreknow something if He predetermined it.
Pastor Loz
Knowlegde is not something anyone is subject to, or it is subject to them.
roland
So, when you make a decision, any kind of decision, you do not need knowledge to make that decision? You don’t LEARN about something in order to make a decision?
Allow me to give you an example. Let’s say you want to purchase a home. Do you purchase a home without learning or acquiring knowledge of that home? Do you want to know price? How many rooms? Square footage?
Are you married? Did you marry your spouse without getting to know her? Was your decision to marry, if you are married, subject to what you knew about your spouse? If so, then your decision was subject to the knowledge you acquired about your spouse.
If you learn or acquire knowledge about the home you seek to purchase, then your decision is subject to that knowledge. Unless you buy homes or make decisions without knowledge.
Roland
God does not learn. If God learns, then that means He lacks something, and He is not perfect or at the very least there was a moment in time where God was not omniscient. The ramifications of this are many.
Pastor Loz
unlike your version who can only foreknow something if He predetermined it.
roland
I don’t think I have ever stated that God “can only foreknow something if He predetermined it.” I don’t believe that. God KNOWS everything BECAUSE He decreed it. I also agree that God knows all possibilities as well. God knows all that has happened, what will happen, and what COULD have happened.
Only what comes to pass is what has God decreed. I know Molinists like to point to subjunctive conditionals to justify their belief in middle knowledge. They cite verses such as Matthew 11:21. I agree with the Molinists that if the works which were done in those cities, were done in the other cities, then yes they would have repented. But the works were not done because God did not decree for the works to be done there.
Pastor Loz: Knowledge is not something anyone is subject to, or it is subject to them.
roland: when you make a decision, any kind of decision, you do not need knowledge to make that decision? You don’t LEARN about something in order to make a decision? Let’s say you want to purchase a home. Do you purchase a home without learning or acquiring knowledge of that home? If you learn or acquire knowledge about the home you seek to purchase, then your decision is subject to that knowledge. God does not learn. If God learns, then that means He lacks something, and He is not perfect or at the very least there was a moment in time where God was not omniscient. The ramifications of this are many.
Pastor Loz: You are confusing / conflating several things here. How knowledge is acquired, and how knowledge is used / why it is needed. Firstly, the fact that I acquire and use knowledge in order to make informed decisions does not make me SUBJECT to that knowledge. I could make decisions without that knowledge, if I chose to do so. It’s poor terminology.
Secondly, I don’t recall saying anywhere that God learns. God does not need to learn, because He is inherently omniscient. In and of Himself. He already knows everything there is to know, therefore there is never a point at which God does not know something. Thus God does not need to learn, because there is no new knowledge for Him to acquire. If God knows something BECAUSE He decreed it, then logically His knowledge FOLLOWS the decree and is dependent upon it. Therefore, before God made the decree, He did not know that thing. That is where calvinist thinking inevitably leads you.
Roland,
You insert a punctuation mark on Ephesians 1:4.
Ed Chapman
Roland – I have a recorded copy of that interview and took the time to re-listen to it – and you got it wrong.
Romans 8:29 comes up in the conversation at approximately minute 47.
Dr. Craig responds to that verse by pointing out that the Greek word προέγνω “Foreknew” is consistent with a form of knowledge that is complete and comprehensive and there is no lack of knowledge concerning the characteristics of created creatures.
It other words – it is consistent with Middle-Knowledge
Dr. Craig did not bring up the verse – nor did he quote the verse – he commented on a Greek word in the verse.
Any person who misquotes verses in scripture is not going to be considered an internationally recognized scholar – such as Dr. Craig is.
However – if you listen to that interview again – I would point out Dr. Helm’s speaks through both sides of his mouth concerning divine permission.
When it comes to sins he states they are permitted.
Then later in a back and forth between himself and Dr. Craig – it becomes obvious Dr. Helms is hemming an hawing on the subject.
Dr. Craig points out – in Calvinism – everything that comes to pass is divinely CAUSED
Therefore divine permission in Calvinism is as follows:
1) What is divinely CAUSED is permitted
2) What is NOT divinely CAUSED is NOT permitted
I find it very disheartening the Paul Helms – who is supposed to be scholar – should be so heavily engaged in Calvinism’s DOUBLE-SPEAK language.
One more confirmation – that Calvinist statements consistently function to MASQUERADE Calvinism – in order to make it APPEAR to be something it isn’t – and to HIDE what it actually is.
And that aspect of Calvinism for me – becomes the RED-FLAG that the Calvinist himself secretly recognizes something is wrong with it.
Roland – here is some further evidence concerning how the function of choice – as it is NORMATIVELY understood – doesn’t exist in Calvinism.
– According to the online Etymological Dictionary, to choose, means to “select from two or more”.
– The American Heritage Dictionary has: “To select from a number of possible alternatives”.
– The Merriam Webster Dictionary has: “To make a selection – to take an alternative”.
– The Online Free Dictionary has: “To select from a number of possible alternatives; decide on and pick out”.
– The online Cambridge Dictionary has: “To decide what you want from two or more things or possibilities”.
– The online KJV Dictionary has: “To pick out; to select; to take by way of preference from two or more things offered”
We should be able to see that a NECESSARY CONDITION for the function of choice – is a minimum of 2 options from which to select – and the ability to select or NOT select.
Now in Calvinism – every human selection is infallibly decreed to be specifically what it is
And no alternative of that which is infallibly decreed is possible
Therefore in Calvinism
1) There is never more than ONE option granted existence and thus made available for man to select
2) Man is granted NO CHOICE as to what that option will be
3) Man is granted NO CHOICE as to whether he will select that option or not.
In Calvinism – the function of choice occurs at the foundation of the world – where there are multiple options available to the THEOS from which to select.
So logically prior to the decree – there are multiple options available to the THEOS from which to select
And the existence of multiple options satisfies the NECESSARY condition for “Choice”
However, logically posterior to the decree – a “Choice” (past tense) has been made.
That “Choice” cannot be un-made
It cannot be re-made
The THEOS cannot go back and un-make that choice and re-do it over
That choice has become FIXED and is no longer available as a choice to make.
When the decree is RENDERED-CERTAIN – the existence of all other options – from that which was decreed – become infallibly EXCLUDED
Therefore in Calvinism
1) Man is never granted more than one option to select
2) Man is given NO CHOICE about what that option will be
3) Man is given NO CHOICE about whether or not he will select that option.
Therefore in Calvinism
1) Any human perception of multiple options available to a human from which to select – exist only as predestined illusions.
They represent alternatives of that which was infallibly decreed
And no alternative of that which is infallibly decreed has the possibility of existing.
Their EXCLUSION at the foundation of the world – is RENDERED-CERTAIN by the infallible decree
2) Any human perceptions of being the determiner of a selection also exist only as predestined illusions.
brdmod:
Therefore in Calvinism
1) Man is never granted more than one option to select
roland
So when I walk into a restaurant and there are ten different options for a main course dinner, only one of those options is available to me? Are you saying that I am not really looking at ten different options on the menu, just one? What happens if I choose two options?
brdmod:
2) Man is given NO CHOICE about what that option will be
roland
So is my option really only one option? Or are there really ten options in front of me? Let’s say that there are five other restaurants in the area but I choose the steakhouse. The five other restaurants are not really there? They’re an illusion? I could not drive towards the steakhouse and at the last second, turn towards the Italian restaurant? The steakhouse is an illusion but the Italian restaurant is not an illusion because my choice ( again that I did not make, no option either) actualizes either the steakhouse or Italian?
brdmod:
3) Man is given NO CHOICE about whether or not he will select that option.
roland
When I eventually make a choice (but according to you I’m not really making it) that choice was not made by me? Let’s say I pick the steak dinner, medium well, baked potato with sour cream, bacon, butter, chives, and sour cream, all those choices I made to build my potato to my desire and liking, was the only NO CHOICE I made from a selection that I did not opt for?
roland: So when I walk into a restaurant and there are ten different options for a main course dinner, only one of those options is available to me? Are you saying that I am not really looking at ten different options on the menu, just one? What happens if I choose two options?
This is exactly where calvinism runs into the problem of actual real life. In real life, all ten options for the dinner are genuinely available to you. In calvinism, they only APPEAR to be available to you, because regardless of how many options are on the menu, the calvinist version of God has already unchangeably ordained which one of those options you will choose, and you cannot choose otherwise than what He has decreed. Same with any choice of restaurants. In real life you actually choose the restaurant and all the menu options. In calvinism you THINK you are choosing but you are actually only following an unchanegable, pre-ordained script.
Well said!
Roland:
So when I walk into a restaurant and there are ten different options for a main course dinner, only one of those options is available to me?
Br.d
If a THEOS infallibly decrees you to select option-1 then he must make option-1 available to you, or else he is invalidating his own decree.
The decree is infallible – which means it cannot be invalidated. So whatever option you are infallibly decreed to select must be available for you to select. And in order for option-1 to be available to you it must exist. So along with the decree that you will infallibly to select option-1 is the additional decree that option-1 will exist and thus be available for you select.
Consequently – the existence of option-1 is RENDERED-CERTAIN
And the event of you selecting option-1 is RENDERED-CERTAIN.
Those represent that which has been infallibly decreed.
And any alternatives of the infallible decree are NOT possible because they falsify the infallible decree – which is not possible.
So all other options (because they represent alternatives of that which is infallibly decreed) are not granted existence.
And that which does not exist within creation is not available to the creature.
Additionally – the event of you selecting them is not granted existence.
Now on the issue of perceptions – look at it this way.
A THEOS decrees that you will infallibly select option-1
That THEOS is a perfect being – and he does not have FALSE Perceptions.
He knows that he decreed you to infallibly select option-1
He knows that he made option-1 available for you to select
He knows he brought the event of you selecting option-1 into existence.
He knows any alternative of that which he decreed is NOT possible.
He knows he did not decree you to select any option other than option-1
He knows any alternative of you selecting option-1 will have no existence.
He knows the event of you selecting anything other than option-1 will have no existence.
Therefore he knows option-1 is the only option he made available to you to select
And his PERCEPTION of what he knows is perfect and cannot be wrong.
So if your PERCEPTION disagrees with his PERCEPTION then your perception must be FALSE
And a FALSE PERCEPTION is what we call an illusion.
SPURCALLUTH
NOVEMBER 14, 2021 AT 10:28 PM
Hi Heather. The problem I had with BRDMOD was that he might know some Calvinists, heck, he might know many Calvinists, and he might think that none of them want to understand Scripture, but he has never interacted with me and therefore does not know me. Based on his zero knowledge of me, he decided that I don’t care what Scripture says,
br.d
He decided you didn’t care about what scripture says.
And you discerned that with your SUPER DIVINE ESP powers – which give you divine knowledge of what is going on inside peoples minds!
Too funny!!! ;-D
Well, gee, br.d, I guess if someone tells me they won’t talk to me about what Scripture says, I come to the conclusion that they won’t talk to me about what Scripture says FOR A REASON. I guess I must be insane to think that people do things for reasons.
Well you made a rational statement that time!
Yes there was a reason.
And I did clearly communicate it to you.
But then you ended with another IRRATIONAL conclusion.
Do rational people think it insane to think that people do things for reasons?
Again – I would ask you to consider whether some of these responses are emotional – and why one would do that to one’s self.
brd.mod, I honestly don’t understand why you keep asking me why I would do “that” to myself? What do you mean? Do you mean “why would you have emotions”? I have emotions because I am human. Do you mean “why would you have emotional attachment to soteriological doctrine”? Again, because I’m human. I assume these are not the questions that you have in mind, because it would be very strange of you to question why I act like a normal human. So what is your question supposed to mean? I’m not asking this to be argumentative, condescending, or anything like that. I really just want to know what it is that you are asking, because you have now asked it more than once and I still have no idea how to answer your question. I want this to be a place where I can (minimally) civilly and maybe even(maximally) as a friend discuss matters of soteriology. So far, I don’t think either I or anyone who has been responding to me have been doing a particularly good job of that. And I think the first place to start is to try to communicate clearly.
That being said, it is late where I live, so I will only be able to read your response in the morning. May God bless you and keep you. Some people here say I believe in a Calvi-god; I guess that’s the God that I pray will bless and keep you. I hope that’s good enough for now. 🙂
Thank you spurcalluth!
Very much appreciated!
And sincere blessings to you also!
br.d
Emotions are often self-sabotaging.
They are a way of shooting one’s self in the foot.
I did appreciate your interaction with the other good people who interact here.
Perhaps with you and I – its an issue of dramatic difference in how we approach things.
If you are happy to interact with others here – and you find doing so valuable – then that is good – because that is what SOT101 is for.
And I’m very glad to see it!
SPURCALLUTH wrote Well, gee, br.d, I guess if someone tells me they won’t talk to me about what Scripture says, I come to the conclusion that they won’t talk to me about what Scripture says FOR A REASON. I guess I must be insane to think that people do things for reasons.
Pastor Loz: In calvnist philosophical theory, there is only one reason that anyone does anything. And that is because their version of God unchangeably ordained it. All other “reasons” are just illusions.
I reject your interpretation of Calvinism, but thanks for the input.
Spurcalluth, do you reject the Westminster Confession Of Faith, where it states that God unchangeably ordains whatsoever comes to pass Do you reject the fact that “whatsoever comes to pass” includes absolutely everything that happens, including every sin, and every objection by a non-calvinist to calvinist teaching?
Hi Pastor Loz. What I reject is the implication that God decreeing everything implies that God decrees that man does not have creaturely free will. I’ve come up with an illustration to explain creaturely free will. If you like, I’ll tell you how I understand it. If you don’t like, you can tell me that you’re not interested.
spurcqlluth; Hi Pastor Loz. What I reject is the implication that God decreeing everything implies that God decrees that man does not have creaturely free will. I’ve come up with an illustration to explain creaturely free will. If you like, I’ll tell you how I understand it.
Yes by all means feel free to share your illustration. I look forward to seeing how man has a genuine choice between two or more alternatives in your illustration, and his choice is not limited by God’s decree.
So the way I understand creaturely free will is as follows: Suppose it is raining outside. Before I leave the house, I have some options: I can put on a raincoat, I can take an umbrella, I can walk in the rain, I can wait for the rain to subside. What I cannot do is will the rain to end. God can do that, of course, because He has the kind of will that is not limited by circumstances, but we have the kind of will that has to submit to certain sorts of circumstances. I make this disclaimer, because there are some kinds of circumstances that we have a limited amount of control over. For instance, when I wake up on a Thursday morning, I can choose to go to work or I can choose to remain in bed and potentially lose my job. I cannot will it to be Friday morning instead. God can will whatsoever He wills whenever He wills. Now, having said all of this, you can see that my idea of the interaction between God’s will and my will is substantially different from how you interpret Calvinism. Okay. If my view of God’s will is not Calvinistic, but instead something else, that’s no skin off my teeth. I don’t have to compulsively agree with Calvin in everything. Maybe that makes me a non-Calvinist, I don’t know. For instance, I am a credobaptist, and Calvin had very little patience for credobaptists (he would’ve called them anabaptists). I think there are places, significant ones, where I do agree with Calvin, and that’s why I call myself a Calvinist, but if that is an inaccurate description, then I’d like to find out what a better description would be.
Hello spurcalluth
If you are trying to LIVE as a Calvinist – then you will be both affirming and denying the doctrine.
That is the only way a human can actually LIVE as a Calvinist.
The doctrine stipulates “WHATSOEVER” comes to pass – does so as the direct consequence of an infallible decree.
The term WHATSOEVER means “Without Exception”
Thus every impulse that comes to pass within the Calvinist’s brain are AUTHORED by an external mind and come to pass irresistibly within his brain.
Which means – he has no say in the matter of any impulse that comes to pass – within his brain or his body.
And since it is psychologically impossible to LIVE that way – the Calvinist is in a constant state of claiming to affirm the doctrine while denying it.
The Non-Calvinist doesn’t have that problem because he’s not trying to LIVE as a Calvinist.
So it makes perfect sense that you would reject a Non-Calvinist interpretation of Calvinism.
Blessings!
Roland:
Molinism does make God’s decision dependent upon the circumstances available to Him.
br.d
Nope!
Simply because he is the one who determines what those circumstances will be.
Rolanda
And there is no freewill of the creature in Molinism as the creature’s decisions are determined by the circumstances the creature is in.
br.d
What a Frankenstein you have created in your mind concerning this!!!
– The Circumstances are determined solely and exclusively by the THEOS
– The THEOS merely permits the creature to
1) Have the function of choice – where multiple options are made available from which to select
2) The creatures is “MERELY” permitted to be the determiner of that selection
Roland:
There is no libertarian freewill in Molinism, it is just an illusion
br.d
You don’t even realize how self-contradicting your Frankenstein image of this is!!
If it were the case that the human decision was solely and exclusively determined by the THEOS – then yes – the function of choice for the human would be an illusion.
But in that case – all of your other assertions would LOGICALLY be FALSE
Which would make it the case that you are utterly contradicting yourself
Roland:
The circumstances the creature is in are determining the creature’s decisions.
br.d
This is another part of your Frankenstein image of Molinism
with Molinism – just as it is in Calvinism -the circumstances determine the limitations made available to the creature.
Where Molinism deviates from Calvinism – is where those limitations are NOT EXHAUSTIVE as they are in Calvinism
Remember – Calvinism is “Exhaustive” Divine Determinism – in which absolutely NOTHING is left UP TO the creature.
Roland:
[According to Calvinism] Scripture DOES NOT set human choices against God’s divine determination!
br.d
Now you are Denying your own belief system – because in Calvinism there is no such thing as humans having the function of choice at all.
Remember – in Calvinism:
1) Any instance in which you PERCEIVE alternatives from that which has been infallibly decreed (i.e. multiple options) as available for you to select is an predestined illusion
2) Any instance in which you PERCEIVE yourself as the DETERMINER of any selection is a predestined illusion
Roland:
Calvinism takes this revealed truth in God’s Word at its simple, plain reading
br.d
Yea right!
The Calvinist holds the proposition that ALL things without exception are solely and exclusively determined by an external mind
And he claims that to be divine sacred TRUTH derived from scripture
And then he goes about his office AS-IF the divine sacred TRUTH derived from scripture is FALSE
And that is supposed to be a Holy Spirit Inspired belief system!
Too funny!
If the Calvinist interpretation of scripture is TRUE – then scripture teaches the believer to be DOUBLE-MINDED 😀
Roland:
We don’t try to make “sense” of it or seek to give a “logical” explanation of how human choices and God’s divine determinations operate.
br.d
And that is one of the reasons – every Calvinist is forced into the pattern of claiming his doctrine as TRUE – while treating it AS-IF it is FALSE :-]
The DOUBLE-MINDEDNESS of Calvinism.
Roland:
Yes, under non-calvinist perspectives God is SUBJECT to knowledge.
br.d
So on your thinking – his knowledge that he cannot lie to himself is a weakness – because he is SUBJECT to it.
That’s what we get for waving off logic! :-]
Roland:
we believe that God’s knowledge comes from His decree.
His knowledge of creation and creaturely decisions.
br.d
Here is an excellent example of Calvinism’s deceptive language pattern.
Your first sentence is an EXPLICIT statement which asserts that all divine knowledge is the CONSEQUENCE of the decree
Which is TRUE in Calvinism
Your second statement is an INFERENTIAL statement which infers two FALSEHOODS:
1) That divine knowledge is derived from observation of the creature
2) That in Calvinism creatures have the function of choice
And these statements appear to come out of you so automatically that your mind is oblivious to the DOUBLE-SPEAK
Roland:
I would argue that God is building a world in Moliinism because He uses the “parts”, i.e., circumstances, that He uses to create the world He desires.
br.d
Sure – no problem!
Just remember – those are FEASIBLE or POSSIBLE worlds.
In other words – he knows all of the POSSIBLE circumstances he could decree come to pass – and then out of those multiple options – he chooses which circumstance he wants to come to pass.
Now if you examine that last statement I just made – what I just described is a LIBERTARIAN choice.
Nothing different there – then there is in Calvinism
Roland
In Molinism, God’s knowledge comes from the circumstances He sorts through in order to “create”,
br.d
Here is where you fall into equivocal language again – by the words “comes from”
And what you are inferring commits the fallacy of non-sequitur
The divine knowledge of all possible circumstances available from which to select does not logically equate to his knowledge “coming” from those circumstances.
That would be like saying his knowledge “comes from” what he can create
In other words – what he can create INFORMS him of what he can create.
There is very little that is RATIONAL in that conclusion.
Roland:
Non-calvinists positions portray God as a passive observer or spectator
br.d
AH!
Here is where you distinguish what John Calvin called “MERE” permission.
Calvin’s god does not “MERELY” permit anything.
In Calvinism:
1) What is divinely CAUSED is permitted
2) What is NOT divinely CAUSED is NOT permitted
Therefore Calvin’s god is not a “passive observer or spectator” of sins and evils.
He is the AUTHOR of every sin and evil – because they are FIRST-CONCEIVED in his mind
He then decrees them to infallibly and irresistibly come to pass
And gives humans no choice in the matter of anything.
Where on the Non-Calvinist system – “MERE” permission does exist.
And you don’t have the “Author of evil” consequence.
Roland:
First, I do not SUBJECT Scripture to logical tests.
br.d
Here is where you conflate an INTERPRETATION of scripture with scripture itself
You INFERENTIALLY don’t acknowledge Calvinism is an INTERPRETATION of scripture
You INFER Calvinism and Scripture as one and the same thing
Thus – you do not subject the Calvinist INTERPRETATION to logical tests
Roland:
The only position that consistently argues for libertarian freewill is a position that denies God’s perfect knowledge of future events and future human choices, decisions, and actions.
br.d
If that is TRUE – then Calvin’s god does not have the function of choice either.
Because
1) if you remove Libertarian choice – you are left with Determinism
2) With Determinism his decisions are determined by factors outside of his control
br.d
What a Frankenstein you have created in your mind concerning this!!!
roland
I’m only following the Frankenstein monster of John Frame’s conclusion regarding libertarian freewill in Molinism. Frame writes: “on Craig’s view (William Lane Craig) God considers all possible worlds by his middle knowledge and then chooses to create one of them. In the world he chooses to create, someone named Peter exists, who, in these created circumstances, will deny Christ three times. Note that I said “will,” not “could” or “might”. Once God creates a world (including a world history) that includes Peter’s denial, that denial is inevitable.”
Frame continues:
“So what room is there in this scenario for libertarian freedom? Once Peter is created, his denial is inevitable – determined, one might say Craig has employed the concept of middle knowledge in order to maintain libertarian freedom together with divine foreknowledge. But at the moment of Peter’s terrible decision, how can he be said to have libertarian freedom? Rather, he can only deny Jesus because he is living in a world in which that denial is an ingredient. God determined before Peter was born that he would betray Jesus.”
I can’t remember if I was having this conversation with you regarding Dr. Craig’s and Dr. Helm’s discussion on a podcast but this is what Dr. Helm was getting at when Dr. Craig was talking about God creating worlds in which God knows the creature’s freewill decisions and circumstances. Dr. Helm, denying Dr. Craig’s assertion that God loves each and every individual, states that God, in Molinism, is more concerned with worlds and circumstances than love for the individual. In Molinism God has created worlds that are feasible and circumstances that are desirable to God’s will. This is why according to Dr. Frame, Peter’s actions are just an “ingredient” in the whole recipe (worlds and circumstances) that were created by God according to Molina.
br.d
This is another part of your Frankenstein image of Molinism
with Molinism – just as it is in Calvinism -the circumstances determine the limitations made available to the creature.
roland
Who makes “the circumstances determine the limitations made available to the creature”? God does in Molinism. God is determining the circumstances in which the creature will make the decision that God finds desirable to His will. That is exactly why middle knowledge is an unnecessary complication in knowledge. There is no need for middle knowledge because the knowledge that is in middle knowledge can be either in God’s necessary or free knowledge.
“When God knows possible worlds, does he not also, by virtue of that knowledge, also know all possible free creatures and their possible actions?” John Frame “The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God” Sorry I don’t have page references as I’m reading from an electronic version of Frame’s book that only has locations.
Libertarian freewill in Molinism is an illusion.
Roland:
I’m only following the Frankenstein monster of John Frame’s conclusion….
Br.d If his conclusion is what you stated – then it is a Frankenstein image of Molinism :-]
Roland: Frame writes: “on Craig’s view (William Lane Craig) God considers all possible worlds by his middle knowledge and then chooses to create one of them. In the world he chooses to create, someone named Peter exists, who, in these created circumstances, will deny Christ three times. “
Br.d Not because Peter is decreed to infallibly and irresistibly deny Christ – but because Peter is “MERELY” permitted to make that choice
Roland: Note that I said “will,” not “could” or “might”. Once God creates a world (including a world history) that includes Peter’s denial, that denial is inevitable.”
Br.d That is where you misrepresent Molinism.
You shouldn’t be complaining about Calvinism being misrepresented – when you do the very thing you complain about.
As I said – in Molinism – Peter is “MERELY” permitted to be the determiner of his choices.
The circumstance is determined by divine decree – not Peter’s choice.
Roland: Frame continues – “So what room is there in this scenario for libertarian freedom? Once Peter is created, his denial is inevitable –
Br.d Sorry that is FALSE.
It would only be inevitable if Peter’s choice was infallibly decreed – which it isn’t in Molinism
Roland: one might say Craig has employed the concept of middle knowledge in order to maintain libertarian freedom together with divine foreknowledge.
Br.d Almost but not quite!
Middle Knowledge is a part of divine omniscience – which facilitates perfect knowledge of what the creature WOULD do – given the creature is “MERELY” permitted to be the determiner of his choices.
Roland: But at the moment of Peter’s terrible decision, how can he be said to have libertarian freedom?
Br.d Because he was “MERELY” permitted to make that choice.
Which by definition is a Libertarian Choice
Roland: Rather, he can only deny Jesus because he is living in a world in which that denial is an ingredient.
Br.d. That would be TRUE in Calvinism – but not in Molinism.
In Molinism – Peter’s choice is not determined *FOR* Peter.
It is determined *BY* Peter
Roland: God determined before Peter was born that he would betray Jesus.
Br.d: This is simply an attempt to affirm Calvinism at the expense of misrepresenting Molinism.
What you need to notice here is that all of these statements are CLAIMS with no evidence
If Frame can show through LOGIC that his claims are TRUE – then we have a different issue
But so far – he provides NO EVIDENCE
That is in contrast to my posts to you which clearly lay out valid logic which shows that according to Calvinism’s doctrine of decrees – there is no such thing as an alternative of that which is infallibly decreed – therefore the infallible decree excludes all but one option for the creature.
And that removes the necessary condition for “choice”
Roland: Who makes “the circumstances determine the limitations made available to the creature”? God does in Molinism.
Br.d: Correct!
The circumstances are determined *FOR* the creature – but the creatures choices are determined *BY* the creature.
Roland:God is determining the circumstances in which the creature will make the decision that God finds desirable to His will.
Br.d FALSE.
The circumstances are determined – but those circumstances do not determine the creatures choices.
Roland: That is exactly why middle knowledge is an unnecessary complication in knowledge.
Br.d That’s because – your version of Molinism is an attempt to warp its shape into the shape of Calvinism.
Calvinism is EXHAUSTIVE Divine Determinism
Molinism is SEMI-Divine Determinism
Roland: “When God knows possible worlds, does he not also, by virtue of that knowledge, also know all possible free creatures and their possible actions?”
Br.d In Calvinism he knows what the creature WILL do because he determines what the creature will infallibly and irresistibly do
In Molinism – he knows what the creature will do by perfect knowledge of the characteristics of the creature.
By having perfect knowledge of the characteristics of the creature – he knows what the creature WOULD do in any circumstance.
Roland: Libertarian freewill in Molinism is an illusion.
Br.d In Calvinism – the human function of choice is an illusion
It is the Calvinist’s secret strategy for robing a portion of Calvin’s god’s divine sovereignty.
But Molinism is SEMI-Determinism
Calvinism is EXHAUSTIVE Determinism.
That is the difference.
But I can understand the Calvinist wanting to distort Molinism into Calvinism’s image – out of jealousy.
Again Roland – the difference between your presentation and mine is – I’ve take pains to lay out logical arguments which clearly show through logic – the logical consequences of the doctrine of decrees.
So my post provides EVIDENCE by virtue of clear sequential logic
Your post presents bold claims completely void of any LOGICAL evidence.
The fact that you swallow claims without evidence simply because Frame says them – tells me how easy it is for someone to manipulate your mind.
I suggest you read Proverbs 15:14
Ooops – that is Proverbs 14:15
Roland wrote: Roland: Non-calvinists positions portray God as a passive observer or spectator
Now I know for sure that you are absolutely clueless about what non-calvinists believe. Revealing your ignorance like that doesn’t do you any favours.
Pastor Loz
Now I know for sure that you are absolutely clueless about what non-calvinists believe. Revealing your ignorance like that doesn’t do you any favours.
roland
Could you help me out by answering a few questions for me?
How does God relate to knowledge? What do you believe the Bible teaches about God and knowledge?
I appreciate your response. I’m curious to know, I’m not looking for an argument, I don’t know what you believe, it would me to understand your position or belief if you told me what it is, thanks.
Before I became a Calvinist, I believed and was taught by my non-Calvinist pastors that God knew everything about man’s actions, decisions, thoughts, etc. then He created the heavens and the earth. God created, He knew all things before they were created, and that is why He is omniscient. God knew what we could do, what we would do, and what we did do in everything. I still believe almost the same thing but I now believe God knows because He decreed. I did not believe that before because I was never taught that God decreed everything into existence in creation.
Roland, I don’t want to get in the middle of a conversation between you two, but how do you then explain the verse where God tells the king of Israel that they let go a man God determined should die? Or the verse where God says that the people made the righteous sad when God Himself did not make them sad? Just wondering. (I could look up the references if you can’t find it, but I am not at my computer right now.)
Heather
Or the verse where God says that the people made the righteous sad when God Himself did not make them sad? Just wondering. (I could look up the references if you can’t find it, but I am not at my computer right now.)
roland
I couldn’t find the first verse about the king and God determining the man to die but he was let go. I did find Ezekiel 13:22 “Because with lies you have made the heart of the righteous sad, whom I have not made sad; and you have strengthened the hands of the wicked, so that he does not turn from his wicked way to save his life.
I’m going to guess that your question arises from the portion of the text that reads: “whom I (God) have not made sad.”
How does a Calvinist interpret this text? I would say that this text is perfectly compatible with Calvinism. According to the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF) Chapter 3 Paragraph 1 Of God’s Decree, a portion reads like this “nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.”
I believe and confess that God has decreed all things, whatsoever comes to pass and I also believe that God does not violate man’s will nor liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather they are established by God’s decree.
You might be thinking or asking, as I have in the past, how can a Calvinist say God has decreed all things or determined all things, is the primary cause of all things but there are Bible verses such as Ezekiel 13:22? There it says God did not make them sad. First, I would take it and understand the verse in its plain reading, immediate context. If I was to teach from this text my understanding, application would derive from the fact that God is not always the IMMEDIATE cause of an event. That’s why WCF says what it says regarding God’s decree, evil, sin, the creature’s will, liberty, contingencies, second causes, etc. Here, in Ezekiel 13:22, God is not the cause of the righteous’s sadness, the foolish prophets are the immediate cause.
Second, I believe Scripture is in harmony. There are no contradiction in Scripture. So, I also take the verses that show God being the immediate cause of some event such as creation.
I hope it is not confusing as I find it difficult to communicate these concepts in writing. I believe what Ezekiel 13:22 says, there, God did not cause their sadness. However, there are verses that do say God brings calamity. I would further say that God can bring calamity directly on someone or He can use another person or some circumstance. He can do the same with blessing. He can bless someone directly or use someone else to bless or use some circumstance. This to me is the appeal of Calvinistic thinking. It acknowledges that God is overall and is active or can be active in all. Sorry for the long response but thanks for asking and reading.
Isaiah 45:7
7 I form the light and create darkness,
I make peace and create calamity;
I, the Lord, do all these things.’
Roland, The other reference is 1 Kings 20:42.
And thank you for taking the time to answer this. But in my opinion, Calvinists let historical confessions of faith (written by other men, not God-inspired like Scripture is) teach them how to interpret Scripture according to what the confession assumes. Calvinists read Scripture through the lens of the confession, even when it doesn’t make sense, like the whole “second cause” thing – which really just means (in Calvinism) that God predestines something (first/ultimate cause) but then causes the person to do it as the “second cause,” like a controller programming a robot to do an action. It’s a convoluted, fancy, nonsensical explanation to try to hide the fact that God (in Calvinism) is the cause of everything, even sin and rebellion and unbelief. I think we could destroy just about any biblical teaching/truth if we started adding secondary layers and double meanings and “two different types of…” into Scripture when it’s not clearly there on its own. And that’s where the contradiction comes in. It’s not in Scripture itself; it’s from people adding layers that aren’t there, that alter God’s character and the plain teaching of His Word. Just my opinion. God bless!
Heather:
But in my opinion, Calvinists let historical confessions of faith (written by other men, not God-inspired like Scripture is) teach them how to interpret Scripture according to what the confession assumes.
roland
This was also a genuine concern of mine when I first began to study and embrace Reformed Christianity. Why confessions and catechisms? As a Reformed Christian, along with most Reformed Christians, we never seek to replace Holy Scripture with our confessions and catechisms, we view them as aids to interpret Scripture, great study guides to Christianity, and they are like mini systematic theologies. And YES, they are written by men. And YES (emphasis of importance and recognition, don’t take it as yelling) we not only let the historical confessions of faith teach us but we do so affirmatively CONFESSING the teachings as part of our historical faith and practice of Christianity.
First, there are difficult Scriptures to interpret. That’s one reason why Reformed Christians use confessions and catechisms
2 Peter 3:15-17
15 and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation—as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, 16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are SOME THINGS HARD TO UNDERSTAND, which UNTAUGHT and UNSTABLE people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.
17 You therefore, beloved, since you know this beforehand, beware lest you also fall from your own steadfastness, being led away with the error of the wicked;
So, as a Christian, I believe, along with my fellow Reformed Christians, that WE all need to be taught because some things in Scripture, specifically Paul’s letters, are hard to understand. For this reason, that we need to be taught, God gives men as pastors, teachers, etc. to the Church. We recognize historical Christians such as Augustine, Calvin, Luther, early Church fathers, as teachers of the Church.
Ephesians 4:11
11 And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers,
And why did God give these offices to the Church?
12 for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, 13 till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; 14 that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting, 15 but, speaking the truth in love, may grow up in all things into Him who is the head—Christ— 16 from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by what every joint supplies, according to the effective working by which every part does its share, causes growth of the body for the edifying of itself in love.
Heather
Just my opinion.
roland
Agree with you, holding to a confession as an aid to understand the Bible is an “opinion,” as in something that is not commanded by Scripture. We are commanded to believe God in His Word but we are not commanded to believe men’s writings outside of God’s Word but extra-biblical writings can be of help as long as they are in accordance with Scripture. Thanks for reading, calvi-God (as in a blessing from the supreme, sovereign and omnipotent God!) bless!
Aids to interpret scripture:
Many years ago the writings of Plato were considered “Aids to interpret Scripture”
Plato was called the “Midwife” – because his writings were said to aid in “Bringing Forth” the correct understanding of concepts within scripture – which the reader would not otherwise acquire.
We should be able to see the consequence of such a practice.
The writings of Plato – served as PRESUPPOSITIONS which the reader treated as CANON
The reader convinced himself he was comparing “Scripture” with “Scripture”
But the process involved using the “Scripture” of Plato – to compare with “Scripture” of the Bible
The process requires treating the writings of Plato as CANON
So the process entails raising PRESUPPOSITIONS which had their origin in Plato – and making those CANON within the readers mind.
The reader then compares the CANON of Plato to the CANON of Scripture.
And thereby derived a SUPERIOR understanding of Scripture
This practice is equivalent today – to the American voter turning on CNN and using them as an “Aid to Interpret” current events.
The fact that CNN is distorting and manipulating information in order to control the audiences’ “Interpretation” of current events is of no concern to the audience – because they have put their TRUST in CNN
Their minds have been conditioned to treat CNN as a TRUSTED source
So when CNN tells them lies – they swallow those lies without question.
And any alternative news source is not only not TRUSTED but held in disdain.
After their minds have swallowed the lies from CNN a condition known as confirmation bias sets in
They cannot allow their minds to accept any information that contradicts CNN
So when CNN manufactures 4 years of lies concerning the current president – the audience is oblivious they are being fed lies
And after the lies become completely and totally obvious to everyone else – the CNN audience will NOT RECEIVE THE TRUTH because their minds are captured in the snare of confirmation bias.
This is the consequence of trusting men.
Heather,
You might want to bring up the following to Calvinists:
Jeremiah 32:35
And they built the high places of Baal, which are in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire unto Molech; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my mind, that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin.
Jeremiah 19:5
They have built also the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings unto Baal, which I commanded not, nor spake it, neither came it into my mind:
Jeriemiah 7:31
And they have built the high places of Tophet, which is in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my heart.
I’d love to see the Tiny Tim tip toeing on that.
Ed Chapman
Ed Chapman: Heather, You might want to bring up the following to Calvinists:
Jeremiah 32:35 And they built the high places of Baal, which are in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire unto Molech; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my mind, that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin.
Jeremiah 19:5 They have built also the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings unto Baal, which I commanded not, nor spake it, neither came it into my mind:
Jeriemiah 7:31 And they have built the high places of Tophet, which is in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my heart.
Ed Chapman////
Pastor Loz: I think it would be helpful if Roland could offer a precise calvinistic definition of “neither came it into My mind / heart”. With or without the aid of creeds and confessions.
Did God unchangeably decree for these things not to come into His own mind?
Pastor Loz,
You had said:
” I think it would be helpful if Roland could offer a precise calvinistic definition of “neither came it into My mind / heart”. With or without the aid of creeds and confessions.”
I remember reading “confessions” of certain topics that are considered “Orthodox” to whatever denomination it is. And that denomination refuses to question those conclusions. These “confessions” are several hundreds of years old. The Catholics, almost 2000 years (Doctrine of Trinity).
Since I began studying the bible, a lot of these “confessions”, I just have to scratch and shake my head thinking, “Where did these people come up with these goofy conclusions?” I can’t wrap my head around “orthodox”. Dead people decided FOR YOU, not allowing you to have a mind of your own.
Calvinisim has got to be the most idiotic interpretation of scripture of them all. I can’t understand why they refuse to quesiton a man that put his pants on the same way that I do.
Ed Chapman
chapmaned24
I remember reading “confessions” of certain topics that are considered “Orthodox” to whatever denomination it is. And that denomination refuses to question those conclusions. These “confessions” are several hundreds of years old. The Catholics, almost 2000 years (Doctrine of Trinity).
roland
Would you be in agreement or disagreement with the Apostles’ Creed (I know it was not written by the Apostles but it contains the Apostles’ doctrine which is the doctrine they received from Christ), the Nicene Creed and its statement of orthodox faith of the early Church, its opposition to Arianism (Arius denied Christ’s equality with God the Father, he also believed that Jesus was created by God), and its affirmation of Christ’s divinity. What about the Athanasian Creed? Would you be in agreement with it as well?
chapmaned24
Since I began studying the bible, a lot of these “confessions”, I just have to scratch and shake my head thinking, “Where did these people come up with these goofy conclusions?”
roland
I’m curious to know which “confessions” cause you to come to the conclusions, “Where did these people come up with these goofy conclusions”?
GOOFY CONCLUSIONS? Affirming belief in the God the Father, Almighty maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible is a GOOFY CONCLUSION?
Affirming that Jesus Christ is God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten not made, being of one substance with the Father is a GOOFY CONCLUSION?
Affirming belief in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life, is a GOOFY CONCLUSION?
Due to my limited ability to respond at the moment, I’ll have to respond to each on separate replies.
First, I’m in disagreement with the apostles creed. I’m non-denomination. When I attend various churches, I’m always curious about the WE BELIEVE statements.
The first question I ask myself is… who is WE? And how did WE come to the conclusions to firmly and boldly believe the WE BELIEVE statements.
Therefore, I BELIEVE in individual creeds, where a person can pinpoint why he or she believes what they believe.
And I certainly do not depend on dead people to decide for me. I like debating the living, instead of the dead.
And regarding your response to pastor Loz, you basically passed on your conclusions to what others have said, and basically they said that those Jeremiah references don’t really mean what they say, therefore, pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.
So, what’s my creed about Jesus? My creed is that he is the ONLY God. I do not believe in the Nicean Creed that discusses 3 people playing the role of one God. God is a spirit, as Jesus noted in John chapter 4. And when I know that we humans are a spirit, dressed in a body, I learn even more about Jesus. Your spirit is the source of life of your body (James 2:26). In other words, you are a ghost in a body. Jesus is the body of God, not a separate person from the father. And yes, I know the pushback about Jesus throwing his voice when God said “This is my son…”. Finally, Revelation 1:8-18 verifies that Jesus is the ALMIGHTY. I’ve got a lot more just in that topic alone. Now, church fathers… they got Matthew 18 wrong, they got Grace wrong, purgatory wrong, birth control wrong, divorce and remarriage wrong, eschatology wrong, etc., etc. Listen to church fathers? Ha!
Ed Chapman
Oh, and you know what else church fathers got wrong. Communion, and what they call transub… whatever that word is. Dude, read the chapter. It’s about ethics and manners of how to conduct yourself at a church banquet. That’s it. Not about grape juice and a cracker. And they fooled the protestants in thinking its Communion. And you people boast about exegesis. Ha!
Oh that is funny!!
Thanks chapman – for that!! 😀
Pastor Loz
Ed Chapman////
Pastor Loz: I think it would be helpful if Roland could offer a precise calvinistic definition of “neither came it into My mind / heart”. With or without the aid of creeds and confessions.
roland
I am not intellectually or spiritually apt to answer such a question. But I know men who are.
“Does the phrase ‘nor did it enter my mind’ attribute ignorance to God? ‘Mind’ here is lev, meaning ‘hear.’ Heart is a frequent word in Scripture, but only rarely does it refer to God. In reference to men, phrases with lev (Hebrew for heart) that are translated ‘come into the mind’ or ‘come into the heart’ indicate not just the presence of an idea in the mind, but an intention or desire of the heart, as in 2 Chronicles 7:11 and Nehemiah 7:5. In Jeremiah 32:35, ‘nor did it enter my mind’ is parallel to ‘I never commanded.’ So these passages do not assert divine ignorance, but rather deny in the emphatic terms that human sacrifice was God’s intention or the desire of his heart.” John Frame The Doctrine of God
“In reply, we argue that it is ridiculous to say that God had no idea that people would ever commit such sins, for God forbade child sacrifice in the law of Moses centuries before Jeremiah. The statements in Jeremiah about this horrible practice, ‘which I commanded not, nor spake it, neither came it into my mind’ (Jeremiah 19:5), mean that God never desired it of his people. Such atrocities are blatant violations of the revelation of God’s heart, mind, and will for his people, not something inconceivable to him.”
Joel Beeke from Reformed Systematic Theology Volume 1 Revelation and God.
In the citation above Dr. Beeke is objecting to the argument that God does not foresee all the sins that people will commit.
This answer is from two prominent Reformed theologians and I didn’t have to resort the aid of creeds and confessions!
Pastor Loz: I think it would be helpful if Roland could offer a precise calvinistic definition of “neither came it into My mind / heart”. With or without the aid of creeds and confessions.
roland: “Does the phrase ‘nor did it enter my mind’ attribute ignorance to God? ‘Mind’ here is lev, meaning ‘heart.’ Heart is a frequent word in Scripture, but only rarely does it refer to God. In reference to men, phrases with lev (Hebrew for heart) that are translated ‘come into the mind’ or ‘come into the heart’ indicate not just the presence of an idea in the mind, but an intention or desire of the heart, as in 2 Chronicles 7:11 and Nehemiah 7:5. In Jeremiah 32:35, ‘nor did it enter my mind’ is parallel to ‘I never commanded.’ So these passages do not assert divine ignorance, but rather deny in the emphatic terms that human sacrifice was God’s intention or the desire of his heart.” John Frame The Doctrine of God
“In reply, we argue that it is ridiculous to say that God had no idea that people would ever commit such sins, for God forbade child sacrifice in the law of Moses centuries before Jeremiah. The statements in Jeremiah about this horrible practice, ‘which I commanded not, nor spake it, neither came it into my mind’ (Jeremiah 19:5), mean that God never desired it of his people. Such atrocities are blatant violations of the revelation of God’s heart, mind, and will for his people, not something inconceivable to him.”
Joel Beeke from Reformed Systematic Theology Volume 1 Revelation and God.
In the citation above Dr. Beeke is objecting to the argument that God does not foresee all the sins that people will commit.
This answer is from two prominent Reformed theologians and I didn’t have to resort the aid of creeds and confessions!
Pastor Loz: All of that is irrelevant since only Open Theists argue this means God did not foresee the events, and I am not aware of anyone here arguing from an open theist point of view.
roland
Pastor Loz, here’s a post from Ed Chapman. He sounds like an open theist as these are the texts open theists often cite to prove their open theism. He brought them up, he may have posted them to you as well as when I replied, it replied to you. I think Heather may have brought these verses up as well.
Ed Chapman: Heather, You might want to bring up the following to Calvinists:
Jeremiah 32:35 And they built the high places of Baal, which are in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire unto Molech; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my mind, that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin.
Jeremiah 19:5 They have built also the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings unto Baal, which I commanded not, nor spake it, neither came it into my mind:
Jeriemiah 7:31 And they have built the high places of Tophet, which is in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my heart.
Roland,
Since I only study the Bible, I’m always perplexed at new terminology that I never heard before, such as, “Open Theist”. I’m not down with these terminologies. I’m just down with common sense of reading comprehension. And if you determine that too be “Open Theist”, then stop be it. I don’t identify with organized religion terminologies. Just read, comprehend on your own, and tell me what you think it means, as a 5th grade student would, who has no clue what the definition of Open Theist actually means.
Ed Chapman
Roland says: “However, there are verses that do say God brings calamity. I would further say that God can bring calamity directly on someone or He can use another person or some circumstance. He can do the same with blessing. He can bless someone directly or use someone else to bless or use some circumstance. This to me is the appeal of Calvinistic thinking. It acknowledges that God is overall and is active or can be active in all.”
I agree that God can bring calamity (or blessings), that He can use either in His plans. But it’s one thing for God to bring calamity, but it’s another for Him to predestine/control/cause sin that He commands us not to do. Causing calamity (for whatever purpose of His) doesn’t destroy His holiness, justice, and trustworthiness, but causing (though Calvinists won’t call it that, but it’s what it is: causing) the sin He commands us not to do does. And that, to me, is what makes Calvinism repulsive, dangerous, and demonic.
I, too, believe God is overall and active in all, sometimes causing things (maybe calamity, maybe blessings, but never sin or evil ) and sometimes just allowing things (our decisions and actions, including sin. which we choose to do within the boundaries of the real free-will He gave us, not the fake “Calvinist” free-will which is being “free” to do only what God predestined you to do). And God is working in and over all things to incorporate our actions and choices (even ones He didn’t preplan/want/cause) into His overarching plans, working it all out for good and for His glory. He is a very big God who can handle any “curveball” thrown His way, weaving it into His plans. Whereas Calvinism’s god has to be the preplanner/controller/cause of everything, even sin, to make his plans work out. If there was even one piece of dust he didn’t actively control, he wouldn’t be god. This not only makes him a small god but an untrustworthy, unjust, unholy god for causing the sins he commands us not to do (punishing us for it) and for being glorified by it. Not in spite of it, but by it.
Until a Calvinist realizes the damage Calvinism does to God’s character/Word (which they overlook in their effort to uphold their view of “sovereign”), they’ll never see what’s wrong with it or begin seeing what Scripture really teaches. Their view of God’s “sovereignty” – which is (though they might deny it) “God preplans/controls/causes all things, even sin, or else He can’t be God” – allows them to overlook the most horrible, unbiblical, God-dishonoring aspects of their theology. Because in Calvinism, a “sovereign” God can do whatever He wants, even causing child rape (but punishing people for it), for His glory. It’s tragic, in my opinion, that this theology appeals to people. It’s heartbreaking.
Thanks for your thoughtful replies, Roland. I will be busy for awhile now (and I don’t get the notifications that say when there is a reply), so I am signing off for a bit and you can have the last word. God bless. And have a healthy, safe holiday season! (It’s been fun, thanks!) 🙂
Roland: Non-calvinists positions portray God as a passive observer or spectator
Pastor Loz: Now I know for sure that you are absolutely clueless about what non-calvinists believe. Revealing your ignorance like that doesn’t do you any favours.
roland: Could you help me out by answering a few questions for me? How does God relate to knowledge? What do you believe the Bible teaches about God and knowledge? I appreciate your response. I’m curious to know, I’m not looking for an argument, I don’t know what you believe, it would me to understand your position or belief if you told me what it is, thanks.
Pastor Loz: I believe the Bible teaches that God is omniscient. And His omniscience, which includes exhaustive foreknowledge, and knowledge of all counter-factuals, all possibilities and which of those possibilities are actualized is not dependent upon anything external to God. It is not dependent upon learning, because God already knows all there is to know. It is not dependent upon God’s decree, because that would mean His decree came first and His knowledge would follow what He had decreed. God knows purely and simply because He is God. That is the only reason He needs. Anything else diminishes His inherent omniscience.
For God to know all things because He decreed them would also mean He knew of every sin that demons and humans commit precisely because He unchangeably ordained for them all to happen. And you can try to wriggle out of the logical conclusion to this, but it is unavoidable – that would mean that God is morally evil, meticulously predetermining every sin that He forbids, warns against, rebukes and punishes. That is NOT the holy God of the Bible.
THE ENSNARED MIND OF THE IDEOLOGUE
Imagine you have a road map, and there are roads, rivers, bridges, etc which exist in real life, but do not exist in the map, and are therefore not represented by the map.
In the U.S. Army, soldiers are frequently sent out with maps and instructed to pencil in roads, rivers, bridges, etc, not reflected on the map. They were instructed to bring that information back to headquarters so that it could be used to update the map.
But the ideologue mind does not work that way. The ideologue would never consider updating the map because his concern is honoring the map and defending its recognition.
A person becomes an ideologue when that person insists on strict adherence to what exists on the map, instead of what exists in real life. That’s what happens to a person when they become entrapped by an ideology.
A characteristic one can observe, is the pattern of the ideologue’s communication being like a kind of broken-record. The ideologue pays strict adherence to “scripts” created by the ideology. The purpose of the script is to defend, promote and affirm the honor and recognition of the ideology.
Since the purpose of the script is not to portray reality, but to defend, promote, and affirm the ideology, the script will in all probability become self-contradicting. And those contradictions can be illuminated by logic.
The mind of the ideologue must reject any logic which reveals contradictions, because the script has become the sacred and divine language of the ideology. And that which is sacred and divine is not to be subjected to logic.
Updating the map or rejecting the script becomes unthinkable because they are sacred and divine. Examining the scripts with logic becomes unthinkable because to do so would be to subject that which is from above – to logic which is from below.
Thus the mind of the ideologue remains captured by his honor, love, and defense of the map and the sacred scripts which have become its language.
Interesting thoughts about ideology. My question to you is: is it your opinion that we should reject the map, defend the map, or change the map? A second question is: does it matter what the map is? I can imagine that it might, for instance, there is a big difference between the map being the Bible and the map being the Institutes of the Christian Religion (the book Calvin wrote). Of course, I don’t want to assume what your answers would be, so please don’t let me prescribe to you what you should answer (by giving examples, for instance), but rather please tell me what we should do with the ideology, in your opinion.
When a map is not completely accurate – the Non-Calvinist approach would be to update it.
In this analogy – scripture would be a part of the landscape – and the map one’s understanding of it.
So all theologies would then represent a given understanding of the landscape.
In the case of Calvinism’s map – one problem the Calvinist has – is a map that contradicts itself.
And the movements of the Calvinist – because he follows a map which contradicts itself – will quite naturally resemble the movements of a rocking horse.
Traveling in the direction of Exhaustive Divine Determinism and thinking he’s doing just fine.
Until he gets close enough to its face to and starts to realize how unpalatable he finds it.
Then he travels in the other direction away from it
But that direction is what he holds in disdain – so he can’t travel very far in that direction before he finds it unpalatable
So he switches back in the direction of Exhaustive Divine Determinism again.
And he continues in his Rocking-Horse travels throughout his life as a Calvinist – one minute affirming – and the next minute denying the doctrine
It’s certainly an interesting analogy. One problem I have is that it seems rather arbitrary, from a philosophical point of view, to assign Scripture the role of landscape rather than map. Isn’t Scripture a light unto our feet and a lamp unto our path (rather similar to a map) and our life the landscape? Or if it is, can you explain why Scripture has to be landscape as well? Can you be ideological about Scripture, or is that similar to saying that you are an idealist if you think things are real? I’d like you to flesh out this train of thought if you can.
br.d
Scripture must be a part of the landscape – because it represents that which is divinely given along with the rest of the landscape.
The map represents a record of man’s understanding and interpretation of the objects found within the landscape.
Unless you want to argue that scripture is not divinely given?
spurcalluth
Can you be ideological about Scripture?
br.d
Exactly!
Every theology has a different understanding and interpretation of the landscape.
And as the map of each theology is created – the objects recorded on that map represent aspects of that understanding and interpretation.
It makes sense that Scripture can be part of the landscape because it is divinely given, but wouldn’t Psalm 119:105 still mean that it should be interpreted as a part of the map? Also, I think you misunderstood my question about people being ideological about Scripture. I did not mean that people are ideological about their interpretation of Scripture. Rather, I was wondering where the idea of ideology ends. Can someone be ideological about WHAT is Scripture, not necessarily about HOW TO INTERPRET Scripture? If not, why not? I remember someone here saying that they don’t listen to old dead guys. Well, Scripture was exclusively penned by old dead guys. Not a single human writer of Scripture is still alive today. Wouldn’t that mean that Scripture today is not Scripture from 2000 years ago?
spurcalluth
but wouldn’t Psalm 119:105 still mean that it should be interpreted as a part of the map?
br.d
Psalm 119:105 as well as any other part of scripture is not divinely given?
For some reason you seem to want scripture to be divinely given and not divinely given.
spurcalluth
Can someone be ideological about WHAT is Scripture, not necessarily about HOW TO INTERPRET Scripture?
br.d
A person’s perception of WHAT scripture is – is no less an interpretation than a person’s perception of WHAT scripture says
spurcalluth
Scripture was exclusively penned by old dead guys.
br.d
You might want to slow and and think before you write.
They were not dead when they were inspired by the Holy Spirit.
Have you not read – “He is the God of the living, not the dead.”.
spurcalluth
Not a single human writer of Scripture is still alive today.
Wouldn’t that mean that Scripture today is not Scripture from 2000 years ago?
br.d
You may not know it – but the Hebrew scribes had a way of validating a newly created copy of a book in the O.T.
And if one letter was off in the whole manuscript they would burn the copy.
And on the reliability of the transmission of the original text down through the years – textual scholars conclude – the purity of the text is of such a substantial nature that it is not jeopardized – even by its variants.
The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God will stand forever.
Hi brd.mod. I think you misunderstand me. I hold to the full divine inspiration of the Scriptures, and I don’t think that it is just a book written by old dead white (just to throw in a bit of CRT calumny in there, because these days people will insult holy things for completely idiotic reasons) guys. I believe Scripture is Divinely breathed out according to 2 Timothy 3, and is absolutely authoritative. What I am asking is whether you think there is any philosophical, rather than theological, reason to believe that the Bible is part of the landscape and not part of the map.
My comment about the old dead guys was a slant attack on the idea that because someone has been dead for some centuries, they cannot be of any value to us today. Some of the people here think that Calvin, the Westminster divines, and the puritans are dismissible because they died. That sounds like a completely bogus and misguided argument to me. By that reasoning, we may dismiss Isaiah because (although, as you say, God is the God of the living, yet) he died centuries ago. I am not equating Calvin with Isaiah in terms of what they wrote, but I am equating them in the sense that they were men just like us, and working lungs is not the hallmark of sound logic, as some on this site would like to infer.
Spurcalluth,
You had said:
“My comment about the old dead guys was a slant attack on the idea that because someone has been dead for some centuries, they cannot be of any value to us today. Some of the people here think that Calvin, the Westminster divines, and the puritans are dismissible because they died. That sounds like a completely bogus and misguided argument to me. By that reasoning, we may dismiss Isaiah because (although, as you say, God is the God of the living, yet) he died centuries ago. I am not equating Calvin with Isaiah in terms of what they wrote, but I am equating them in the sense that they were men just like us, and working lungs is not the hallmark of sound logic, as some on this site would like to infer.”
My response:
The whole bible is the LOGOS of God, and that is Jesus’ words written, not the writer, such as Isaiah, or David, etc. Jesus lives, David is DEAD AND BURIED.
Acts 2:29
Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day.
Our church fathers got a lot wrong, including Calvin, the Westminster Divines, the Puritans, yadda yadda yadda. The bible’s words are correct, it’s the people who interpret them that are whacko’s.
Remember that next time you drink grape juice with a saltine. I’ve got some TUNA for that snack.
Ed Chapman
Hi Ed. That’s a lot of funk that I smell coming from what you’re shoveling. Did Isaiah take up a pen (or quill, or stylus, or whatever writing implement it was) and write down the book of Isaiah, or did he not? If you say he did, then that’s a dead guy’s writing that you’re interacting with. If you say he did not, then pray tell when did the book of Isaiah bodily descend from heaven?
spurcalluth,
You had said:
“That’s a lot of funk that I smell coming from what you’re shoveling. Did Isaiah take up a pen (or quill, or stylus, or whatever writing implement it was) and write down the book of Isaiah, or did he not? If you say he did, then that’s a dead guy’s writing that you’re interacting with. If you say he did not, then pray tell when did the book of Isaiah bodily descend from heaven?”
My response:
“2 Timothy 3:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God
There isn’t a book of Calvin written in the scriptures.
Ed Chapman
For all the DOUBLE-SPEAK and DOUBLE-TALK accusations flying around, a lot of it is coming from you. Don’t call others DOUBLE-SPEAKers when you are guilty of it yourself, or your hypocrisy will be found out. If not by me, then by someone else, and worst of all, in all cases by GOD.
spurcalluth,
What? What double speak? If you have something to accuse, bring it! Lay it out for all to see, regarding my alleged hypocrisy of double speak.
Acts 25:19
But had certain questions against him of their own superstition, and of one Jesus, which was dead, whom Paul affirmed to be alive.
Revelation 1:18
I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore.
And
Acts 2:29
Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day.
Where is the double speak? Is David alive? Life requires a body, and to date, the resurrection hasn’t happened yet. Except for Jesus.
Therefore, it is up to you to DISSECT the words of Jesus when he said that he is the God of the Living, and find out what he meant about that.
If you didn’t study Acts 2, David, in Psalms, was talking about Jesus, and not about himself, and that is what the explanation of Acts 2:29 was all about. Because if you read Psalms, you’d kinda get an idea that David was speaking of himself, but he wasn’t.
He was speaking of Jesus in a spiritual prophetic way.
So how is Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob LIVING? That is what you have to answer. David won’t LIVE again until the resurrection. Therefore, you have a lot of studying to do to figure out what Jesus meant by what he said. Of those who have died, Jesus is the ONLY one living. Revelation 1:18. Can anyone else also proclaim Revelation 1:18 for themselves?
Where is the double speak?
Ed Chapman
“And I certainly do not depend on dead people to decide for me.”
“David won’t LIVE again until the resurrection.”
“Because if you read Psalms, you’d kinda get an idea that David was speaking of himself, but he wasn’t.”
These all are quotes from you. You admit that David wrote Psalms. You further admit that David is dead now. Lastly, you admit that you don’t listen to dead people, which includes David. Conclusion: You don’t believe ANY book in the Bible (all of them were written down by men now dead) and still want to call yourself a Christian. I demand by the Living God that you take one of these admissions of yours back. You can laugh me off, but you can’t laugh off your Creator on the Day of Judgment.
spurcalluth,
You had said:
“You admit that David wrote Psalms”
My response is the same as my last, in that scriputre is INSPIRED BY GOD, meaning that NO, DAVID DID NOT WRITE PSALMS, the Holy Ghost did THROUGH David.
Ed Chapman
Alright, when did the physical book that was copied, from which your English Bible book of Psalms was translated, physically descend from heaven instead of being written by David? This is the double-speak that I accuse you of. You don’t have anything of worth to add to this discussion, and I just want to make that very clear to everyone.
Uh, the HOLY SPIRIT is EVERYWHERE. If you can find a way to negate out 2 Timothy 3:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, then you would be correct. The purpose of the prophets, and David was a prophet, was to speak the words of God, not thier own words. Calvin was not a prophet of SCRIPTURE. All Calvin is doing is giving his opinion, and his opinion can be challenged, whereas David’s writings cannot be challenged.
Oh my goodness, there! Right there! You said Calvin’s opinion can be challenged, but DAVID’S WRITINGS cannot be challenged!!!! Can you be so blind that you call it David’s writings IN A CONVERSATION ABOUT WHETHER THEY ARE DAVID’S WRITINGS and still deny that David wrote them? I don’t know for a fact that Calvin’s opinion is right, but I know well enough now to keep far away from whatever you are peddling, because apparently it makes you completely spiritually blind.
You sure can’t comprehend, can you? Why can David’s writing not be challenged? Because they are not the words of David. As Jesus asked someone, John 8:43.
You say that the Holy Spirit wrote Psalms through David. Although that is true, you are lying if you say that David did not write Psalms. You are claiming that there was no pen in the hand of David with which David, consciously and with free will, wrote the words that have been translated as “The LORD is my shepherd…”. You want to argue for free will, but when it comes to Scripture, you become a more horrific determinist and violator of free will than the worst Calvinist strawman you have ever constructed. Why the double-speak? Why must you insist on being a hypocrite? Repent, man, before God makes you regret your hard-heartedness!
Yes, I argue Free Will, UNLESS it’s pertaining to JEWS. In my “OPINION”, Romans 9 is about the Jews, where Paul is giving the example of what God did with the Pharaoh, and the PURPOSE was not regarding salvation, aka SOTERIOLOGY 101, but to show God’s POWER. Therefore, God shows his power thru the destruction of the Jews, by means of using them. And he uses other nations as his battering ram against the Jews, and why? Because they are the only ones under the law of Moses, and their judgement comes during THIS lifetime, and if your read Romans 9-11 properly, you will see that they get mercy because of it. They are the elect. And because they are the elect, they are BLIND, as Romans 11 and many others shows, going all the way back to Deuteronomy *(Romans 11 references). The problem with Calvinism, is that they take what was meant for the Jews only, and make it a doctrine for EVERYONE. Only a FEW Jews are slated for GRACE during THIS life, and the rest remain blind. And it’s not due to what they have done, either. Paul wants them to be saved in this life, so that they don’t have to go thru the FINAL judgement of Revelation 8-16 ON EARTH *(THIS LIFE). Regarding the next, they get mercy because of what God put them thru during THIS LIFE. Gentiles don’t go thru what the Jews go thru. I know I said a mouthful here, and it will take a while to sink in, but that’s my take. And I know that most REFORMED will come back with, FOR THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE. But here is the thing, Jews CAN’T come to Christ until Jesus unblinds them to see Jesus as the Christ. But Gentiles are NOT BLIND. Calvinism makes it out that everyone blind, just because the Jews are. That’s not true. And last, in the bible alone, there are MANY things that are in that bible that APPEAR to be DOUBLE SPEAK. How do I know? Well, tell me what the PROMISED LAND AND PROMISED SEED are. Do it from an OT Expository Preaching manner only. When you are done, what does the NT say? It’s NOT THE SAME as what you discovered in the OT, I can tell you that. The end result is DOUBLE SPEAK.
The funny thing about Calvinists rejection of Libertarian Freedom is – by what functionality are their brains permitted to determine TRUE from FALSE on any matter – if not by Libertarian functionality! :-]
Talk about shooting oneself in the foot!
brdmod,
You had said:
“The funny thing about Calvinists rejection of Libertarian Freedom is – by what functionality are their brains permitted to determine TRUE from FALSE on any matter – if not by Libertarian functionality! :-]
Talk about shooting oneself in the foot!”
My response:
Let alone how to answer a waitress, Soup or salad? Baked, Mashed or Fries? Medium or Large? Rare or well done?
It is hilarious!
Ten easy lessons in how to hold a doctrine as sacred divine TRUTH
And then having to treat that sacred divine doctrine *AS-IF* it is FALSE – in order to have any sense of NORMALCY! ;-D
It might be hilarious, who knows these days, right? I don’t know if, in my over-emotiveness, I properly made my point. My point is that there surely are degrees of freedom, and just because I don’t think we have complete freedom like our Creator has, does not mean that I believe in the absolute absence of any freedom. I honestly don’t care if you call me a Calvinist or not. Calvin was a guy about 500 years ago that wrote pretty good commentaries on the Bible. That’s how I know him, anyway. He was not a prophet, an only-begotten Son of God, or whatever else you think that Calvinists think he was. I disagree that he was a man who put his pants on just like me, because I’m not sure what kind of clothing they had back then, but it sure wasn’t denims. But I agree with the sentiment that the statement is intended to convey: put him in a church today, teach him contemporary English, and he wouldn’t look that much different from Johnny Mac or RC what’s-wrong-with-you-people Sproul.
You know what, I’m going to a little better than that. I’ll say that he was irresponsible with his physical health and that he was also a pretty lousy husband and father from what I could gather about his history. I think I would think pretty badly about a man of the house that spent all his time preaching and very little of his time taking care of the needs of his wife and children. And these are not slight faults. I could make excuses for him if I wanted to (it was a different time, they were fighting theological wars with their pens, yada yada yada) but I don’t think the excuses work particularly well. So if you think that just because I think I agree with his view on soteriology, that therefore I cannot bring myself so far as to criticize the man and try to do better, treating his work ethic as a cautionary tale, then you are mistaken. To get back to my original point, though, I believe we have a creaturely-free will that is compatible with God’s sovereignty. I think some people call this compatibilism. You can call it whatever you like.
spurcalluth: My point is that there surely are degrees of freedom, and just because I don’t think we have complete freedom like our Creator has, does not mean that I believe in the absolute absence of any freedom.
The critical point is whether we have genuine freedom to accept or reject the gift of salvation. If we do, then we can justly be held responsible and accountable for that choice. If we don’t then we can’t. But calvinists want it both ways.
“Compatibilism” is a myth. It is no less deterministic than so-called “hard” determinism. All it does is to introduce an extra link in the deterministic causal change. Here’s why…
1. God unchangeably ordained that man would fall, such that man could not choose otherwise.
2. He unchangeably ordained that thenceforth, all people would inherit a sinful nature.
3. He unchangeably ordained that this unchosen, inherited sinful nature would determine all of their desires.
4. He unchangeably ordained that they would always choose in accordance with those desires.
5. Thus the inescapable conclusion of 1-4 is that He unchangeably ordained that they would sin.
“Compatibilism” jumps in at point 4 and says people choose to sin because they choose what they desire. However they conveniently neglect to mention how points 1-3 inevitably lead to point 4.
Okay, I’m happy with (what I assume is) your proposal: don’t call me a compatibilist. In fact, I’ll do you one better: don’t call me a Calvinist. The name tag you stick on me doesn’t really change what I believe in any way. I don’t think I agree with your point 1 anyway, so I guess that would make me a non-Calvinist.
Without being disrespectful I would have to say you come across as more of a Confusionist… What is it about point 1 of my chain that you don’t believe? Do you believe that Adam and Eve could genuinely have chosen not to sin, that the fall was not in any way decreed, unchangeably ordained by God?
I appreciate the attempt at being respectful, although I am not sure that you succeeded in the end. I believe that Adam and Eve had the real, undeterministic choice to sin or not to sin. Just to be clear, I am not a follower of Confucius, lol.
Do you believe that men have a genuine choice (as opposed to a calvinistic illusion of choice) to accept or reject the gift of salvation? If you DON’T believe they have that choice, do you believe that they are still responsible and accountable for rejecting the gospel (a gospel that was actually never intended for and is not backed by the atonement for them) and are therefore justly condemned to hell?
To be honest, I don’t think the Calvinist “illusion of choice” is as illusory as you seem to think. But yes, I do believe that people have the choice to accept or reject the gift of salvation. I believe that, since all men everywhere are commanded to repent and believe, they will be held accountable if they do not repent and believe. I don’t think that God owes everyone, or anyone for that matter, the gift of salvation. That would be real double-speak: calling it a gift and at the same time demanding that God owes it to them. It would also completely contradict the fact that salvation is by grace, because what is paid due to being owed, is not grace but salary. Do you believe in the grace of salvation or the salary of salvation?
spurcalluth: I don’t think the Calvinist “illusion of choice” is as illusory as you seem to think. I do believe that people have the choice to accept or reject the gift of salvation. I believe that, since all men everywhere are commanded to repent and believe, they will be held accountable if they do not repent and believe. I don’t think that God owes everyone, or anyone for that matter, the gift of salvation. That would be real double-speak: calling it a gift and at the same time demanding that God owes it to them. It would also completely contradict the fact that salvation is by grace, because what is paid due to being owed, is not grace but salary. Do you believe in the grace of salvation or the salary of salvation?
In consistent calvinism, that choice is a complete illusion. The non-elect are unable to choose to accept and the elect are unable to choose to reject the gift. I call it a gift because that’s what the Bible teaches. It is undeserved and unearned, and the act of accepting it by faith is not a meritorious work. Salary doesn’t come into it. No biblical non-calvinist believes that God owes anyone salvation, but they believe He has graciously and sovereignly chosen to make it genuinely available to all and enable all to receive it.
Okay. Do you believe that God was obligated to make salvation available for everyone? For anyone? For everyone if He made it available for some?
SC: “Okay. Do you believe that God was obligated to make salvation available for everyone? For anyone? For everyone if He made it available for some?”
I actually answered that question in my last response, since I said that it is an undeserved, unmerited gift that God does not owe to anyone, Thus anything He does in terms of providing, offering enabling is a love choice that He freely makes, not out of any obligation. The only obligation God has is to be true to His Word.
Okay, thanks for the clarification.
For the Calvinist – I would turn that question around
Does the Calvinist believe that Calvin’s god is obligated to create/design the vast majority of human souls for eternal torment in the lake of fire – and to hold them morally accountable for the sins and evils which he himself creates/designs them to do and makes them do irresistibly?
I can’t answer for “the Calvinist”, whoever he or she may be. I can only answer for what I believe, and can then tell you that I suspect that Calvinism says the same. If it does not, my suspicion is wrong and “the Calvinist” would have to correct me on that.
I believe that God is the One who makes the rules and that He is not obligated to some external set of rules on which He depends. To say that He is obligated would imply that He has a “superintendent” GOD (this time with three capital letters to show superiority) WHO is looking over His shoulder and making sure that He follows the rules HE set for Him. That is of course absurd.
However, God (and here we dispense with the all-caps vs only one capital letter distinction) acts according to His nature, and He has the nature of a just judge. If He sends anyone to hell, it is justly done, and we know that He does send some to hell. Since you apparently know that it is the majority of human souls that end up there, you must have some estimates of the numbers. Can you give me an estimate (percentage-wise, or whatever method you prefer) of the number of people in hell? I’m just curious, and since we have established that you know this number, you can maybe indulge me in my curiosity. Since those that are in hell were sent there justly, I don’t believe that they have zero accountability, and therefore I don’t believe that God irresistibly makes them sin their entire lives. I do believe that some things that they do that are sinful, were planned by God for good. Unless you want to go down the rabbit hole of denying Genesis 50:20, thereby denying the divine inspiration of the books of Moses, and thereby renouncing Christ as a liar because He endorsed the Torah, you have to believe that as well. So, is this the place where you want to confess to believing that Christ is Satan himself, or is that not what you believe?
spurcalluth:
I believe that God is the One who makes the rules and that He is not obligated to some external set of rules on which He depends…
br.d
Which is simply another way of saying – he is not in subjection a domain of “Determinism” which does include external rules on which he would depend.
So – you’ve just eliminated Determinism as the domain to which he is subject to
And when we eliminate Determinism as that domain in which he is subject to – we are left with Libertarian functionality as part of his divine image.
So he is NOT obligated to create/design the vast majority of human souls for eternal torment in a lake of fire
Nor is he obligated to create/design people as INSTRUMENTS to infallibly and irresistibly commit sins and evils.
And that is why John Calvin says – the reason Calvin’s god does that is -quote “For his good pleasure”
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)
The Institutes comes in many shapes and sizes, but I have not seen one that is less than 1000 pages yet. Where in the Institutes does he say this?
If you go to http://www.ccel.org and to the copy of the Institutes there – you can then paste the sentence into the search field and find it.
Or you could just as easily paste that statement into google and it should pull it up one or more Calvinist sites that way.
Oops, I kinda forgot that documents these days are searchable. This comes from not growing up with computers.
spurcalluth
I don’t think the Calvinist “illusion of choice” is as illusory as you seem to think
That’s because the Calvinist doesn’t find that aspect of the doctrine emotionally palatable.
But when the Calvinist takes the time to think it through logically – he can realize it is in fact TRUE that the function of choice for humans in Calvinism is non-existent.
Look at it this way:
1) Calvin’s god is at the foundation of the world – deliberating over what he is going to determine come to pass with Calvinist_X
2) He sees all of the possibilities available to himself from which to select – for every event within Calvinist-X’s life
3) And for every event – he makes a selection out of those options.
For example – he can decree that Calvinist-X will be born with blue eyes – or brown eyes.
He can decree that Calvinist-X will be born in the U.S. or in Europe or in Germany
He has any number of possible options from which to select for Calvinist-X
4) Out of those possible options – for every event within Calvinist-X’s life – he makes a selection.
For example, he decrees Calvinist-X’s eyes will be blue, and decrees that Calvinist-X will be born in the U.S.
5) So in this process – he is making a selection out of an array of possibilities – for every aspect of Calvinist-X’s life.
6) Each selection out of those multiple options – represents the expression of his divine will concerning Calvinist-X
7) And for every option that he chooses to select – he establishes the existence of that option with a decree – making it come to pass infallibly
8) But as soon as he has made a selection – blue eyes for example – what happens to the other options that he chose not to select?
If he decrees Calvinist-X will be born with blue eyes – then what has he done with the option of Calvinist-X being born with brown eyes?
He’s made his selection.
He’s established that selection with a divine decree
That option which he selected becomes FIXED by decree – and will come to pass infallibly
Which means – all alternatives which in his selection he rejected – are infallibly EXCLUDED
9) So now lets apply that model to an event in Calvinist-X’s life.
Lets Calvin’s god decrees that Calvinist-X will commit a certain sin at Time-T
Calvin’s god also had the possibility of decreeing Calvinist-X would NOT sin at Time-T
Calvin’s god had both options – sin or NOT sin at Time-T – available to select from.
Out of those options – he choose the option of making Calvinist-X commit that sin at Time-T
10) What happens to the other option of Calvinist-X NOT sinning at Time-T?
Calvin’s god has EXCLUDED it as an option – and chosen have Calvinist-X sin at Time-T.
Then Calvin’s god makes that option which he selected RENDERED-CERTAIN – and it is now infallible.
Question:
Is the option of not sinning at Time-T available to Calvinist-X?
Answer:
No
Because that option was divinely rejected at the foundation of the world.
And since it was divinely rejected – it has no possibility of existence.
CONCLUSION:
It is decreed that Calvinist-X will commit a sin at Time-T
Calvinist-X committing that sin at Time-T is now FIXED by infallible decree – to come to pass infallibly
Does Calvinist-X have any choice in the matter of whether he will sin at Time-T?
NO!
That choice was made at the foundation of the world
And that option was divinely rejected.
Therefore Calvinist-X is granted only one single option.
Committing a sin at Time-T is the only option Calvinist-X is granted.
Calvinist-X however – may have the PERCEPTION that he had a choice to NOT sin at Time-T
But Calvin’s god knows that option was divinely rejected – and thus never available to Calvinist-X
So Calvinist-X’s PERCEPTION of “Choice” is thus a predestined illusion.
Okay, now do the same with Jacob’s brothers sending him to Egypt as a slave. And then contrast it with what you think happened. That way we can tell which option makes nonsense of Genesis 50:20.
I’d appeal to argumentum-ad-too-stupid-to-rememberum to say that I don’t remember choosing an eye colour before being conceived, unless you’d rather refute that argumentum. I’d be happy to be proved less stupid than I think.
The model fits for both situations simply because both are selected at the foundation of the world as an expression of the divine will – and FIXED to come to pass infallibly before you exist.
Unless you want to argue that you are granted the power to alter that which is infallible?
I’m sorry to see that you have not been able to prove me less stupid than I thought. I must confess that I have no idea what your reply means.
Of course you don’t
Your response is emotional in nature – how be it – posturing Latin language for fallacies – in order to hide behind.
1) Multiple options exist for the divine will to select from at the foundation of the world – concerning every event that will come to pass.
2) You do not exist at the foundation of the world. Thus the determination of your eye color as well as every sin you will commit at any Time-T are both equally made before you are conceived.
Thus your emotional response with the flourish of “argumentum-ad-too-stupid-to-rememberum” backfires on itself.
3) At the foundation of the world – the divine will makes its selection out of the options that are available
4) In the case of the options of you committing any sin at Time-T – the selection of that option entails the REJECTION of all alternative options.
5) Thus for every decree – there are two things established
6) The event of you committing a sin at Time-T is THE divinely selected option representing the expression of the divine will
7) In the process of selecting that one option as the expression of the divine will – all alternatives to that one option are simultaneously REJECTED
8) The future existence of the option that is selected is RENDERED-CERTAIN
9) The future NON-existence of all other options is also RENDERED-CERTAIN.
10) Any event that is NOT granted existence – is NOT available to the creature.
CONCLUSION:
Calvinism’s doctrine of decrees logically eradicates all alternatives from that which is infallibly decreed.
All alternatives from that which is infallibly decreed have no possibility of existence.
That which has no possibility of existence is NOT available to the creature.
Thus per the doctrine – every event which comes to pass – is FIXED at the foundation of the world.
Which makes it the case that for every event – only one single option is available to the creature.
And the creature is given NO CHOICE about what the option will be
And the creature is given NO CHOICE as to his role in that option.
I really did not think that anyone would take “argumentum-ad-too-stupid-to-rememberum” as posturing. I certainly did not mean it as posturing. I meant it as a bit of self-deprecating humour. Apparently that nuance got lost in the written medium. I apologize if I seemed to be posturing, that was not my intention.
That’s ok
I understand.
At least I was able to lay out the logical consequences of the doctrine of decrees for you – so that you could see – the infallible decree does not give room for any deviation from that which it infallibly grants into existence.
And since multiple options (a minimum of 2) is a necessary condition for the function of “Choice”
And since the doctrine of decree does not grant more than one option to the creature for any event.
Thus per the doctrine if follows – the function of “Choice” is reserved solely and exclusively as the expression of the divine will – in the exercise of divine sovereignty. Sovereignty which is not shared with the creature.
A seed planted! :-]
So are you saying that in Genesis 50:20, God is admitting to be the worst sinner in existence, and in fact infinitely far more evil than Satan could ever be? I am yet to hear what you think of Genesis 50:20, and I am eager to hear what it is that you have to say about that verse.
What we are talking about is what logically follows with Calvinism’s doctrine – not what is stated in scripture.
One is required to differentiate between the two.
Any Calvinist who attempts to lay out logical arguments – say concerning Arminianism for example – does so by taking Arminian doctrine to its logical conclusions. That Calvinist clearly recognizes in doing so – he is differentiating from what is stated in scripture.
But when it comes to a Non-Calvinist performing the same analysis of his doctrine – he all of a sudden can’t differentiate between the two.
We can probably chalk that up to confirmation bias.
Look, I could not conceivably care less what two theological camps that have been at each others’ throats for over 400 years have to teach or not teach. My interest is in what Scripture means. I only care what these camps teach in so far as it affects how I understand Scripture. Genesis 50:20 is used as a paradigm prooftext by Calvinists. I don’t really care what Calvin thought it meant. I am interested in what it means and what was intended by it. So please dispense with the Calvinist-Arminian backbiting and rhetoric talk, and tell me what you think the verse means. Because if I have to hear once more what a Calvinist says about decrees that involves double-talk and logical fallacies and denying human responsibility, I might scream. Who cares what the abstract concept “Calvinist” has to say about the matter? I’d much rather know what God says than what “Calvinist” says.
spurcallluth:
Genesis 50:20 is used as a paradigm prooftext by Calvinists. I don’t really care what Calvin thought it meant. I am interested in what it means and what was intended by it.
Because if I have to hear once more what a Calvinist says about decrees that involves double-talk and logical fallacies and denying human responsibility, I might scream. Who cares what the abstract concept “Calvinist” has to say about the matter? I’d much rather know what God says than what “Calvinist” says.
roland:
Welcome to soteriology101! My personal experience has been that it is difficult to get the meaning out of a text from posters. I’ve written multiple times that I don’t need Calvin to tell me that God is sovereign, intervenes without human permission into human affairs just as Genesis 50:20 shows us. Non-calvinists can disprove Calvinism all they want but there is Scripture that shows what Calvin taught, trying to communicate that on this website is very difficult, at least for me, I have failed to do so.
spurcallluth, and Roland,
If you both would READ THE WHOLE STORY about the story of Joseph from beginning to end, then maybe Genesis 50:20 would make sense to you both, instead of just trying to figure it out from one verse.
Does either of you see Jesus in that story, INSTEAD OF JOSEPH?
Does either of you see THE JEWS in that story, instead of his 11 brothers?
This is PROPHESY of Jesus and the Jewish people.
Consider the dreams of Joseph at the beginning. Consider that they threw him in a PIT. Spiritually, what does the word PIT represent? Hell. That is a spiritual setting of the crucifixion of Jesus.
After Joseph “rose from the pit”, so to speak…many years later he became the second in command of Egypt (seen spiritually as the SON OF GOD), and he was able to FEED HIS “BRETHREN”, aka his brothers who put him in the PIT.
He HID himself from them (they didn’t recognize him).
And in the end, Joseph couldn’t take it anymore hiding from them, and he FINALLY revealed himself to his brothers and FORGAVE THEM, and had mercy on them, because Joseph was in a position to surely punish them.
Guys, that’s a prophesy of Jesus. Seriously.
And now consider the Genesis 50:20. The Jews thought evil against Jesus, but God meant it for GOOD. What good came out of crucifying Jesus?
Again, PONDER THIS:
What good came out of crucifying Jesus?
Instead of trying to prove Calvinism’s doctrines, the BLINDNESS that you see just in the story of Joseph is ONLY FOR THE JEWS, not the Gentiles. And Joseph’s brothers did not see Joseph as their brother.
This STORY of Joseph is known as…FROM THE PIT TO THE PALACE, a Prophesy of Jesus. The palace is a SPRITUAL depiction of Jesus on the throne of his father (played by the Pharaoh, in the case of Joseph).
The problem with REFORM or Calvinism, you all seem to be way to carnal in your EXPOSITORY preaching that you love so much. Ugggggghhhhhhh! I can’t stand expository preaching. You can’t learn anything from it.
Ed Chapman
chapmaned24:
Does either of you see Jesus in that story, INSTEAD OF JOSEPH?
roland:
No but I can see some similarities between Jospeh and Jesus but there are also differences.
chapmaned24:
Does either of you see THE JEWS in that story, instead of his 11 brothers?
roland
No,I don’t see THE JEWS in that story.
chapmaned24:
He HID himself from them (they didn’t recognize him).
roland
This is why Reformed preachers practice expository preaching. You are reading WAY TOO MUCH into the historical account of Joseph. You can end up with a lot of false doctrine and false practice by this type of interpretation.
chapmaned24:
This STORY of Joseph is known as…FROM THE PIT TO THE PALACE, a Prophesy of Jesus. The palace is a SPRITUAL depiction of Jesus on the throne of his father (played by the Pharaoh, in the case of Joseph).
roland
This sounds like the allegorical interpretations of the early church fathers. They believed that the Bible is to be understood in an allegorical sense.
chapmaned24:
The problem with REFORM or Calvinism, you all seem to be way to carnal in your EXPOSITORY preaching that you love so much. Ugggggghhhhhhh! I can’t stand expository preaching. You can’t learn anything from it.
roland:
How is expository preaching carnal?
How does expository preaching result in not learning anything from it?
Do you know what it means to practice expository preaching?
Then you are as blind as the Jews are. The whole purpose of the Hebrew scriptures is prophecy of Jesus. Not local events of the disobedience of Jews, or the life and times of Joseph.
chapmaned24:
Then you are as blind as the Jews are. The whole purpose of the Hebrew scriptures is prophecy of Jesus. Not local events of the disobedience of Jews, or the life and times of Joseph.
roland:
Do you believe the Old Testament is a historical account of God’s redemptive work before Christ’s incarnation?
Do you believe the only significance of Old Testament historical accounts are the prophecy of Jesus?
Do you believe there is any value for the Christian in the Old Testament historical accounts apart from Christ?
Is all the Old Testament prophecy?
I’m not looking for an argument or trying to make one, I’m just curious to your position regarding the Old Testament. I can agree with your statement, “The whole purpose of the Hebrew scriptures is prophecy of Jesus,”with a minor objection to the use of the word whole, I would prefer primary. I would say that the primary purpose of the Hebrew scriptures is prophecy and the person and work of Christ. But, I would not dismiss the events of Joseph’s life as not having any significance as historical accounts. You seem to think they should be dismissed as historical accounts but their significance is only found in their prophecy of Jesus.
Roland,
I am going to answer YES to all of your question back to me.
And the reason:
If you were to ONLY do a EXPOSITORY PREACHING method of the book of Genesis, regarding Abraham, without looking at the NT at all, tell me what the Promised Seed is. When you are done, tell me what the Promised Land is.
I tell you what, I’ll answer that for you.
Expository (CARNAL)
Promised Seed:
Isaac
Promised Land:
The physical land of Canaan, with SPECIFIC borders.
NEXT
From the NT, which is supposed to RE-INTERPRET your EXPOSITORY to s SPIRITUAL interpretation we find the following:
Promised Seed:
Jesus (Galatians 3:16)
Promised Land:
Heaven, or, ETERNAL LIFE in Heaven
Keep in mind that the promised land is something that is an INHERITANCE.
Circumcized Jews get the physical land of Israel. Christians get HEAVEN.
The purpose of circumcision was to designate WHO gets the promised land, Ishmael, or Isaac. Isaac was the promised seed in that regard.
Jesus is OUR promised seed.
That’s the difference between EXPOSITORY hermeneutics, and spiritual hermeneutics.
So, bottom line, YES to all of your questions. I look at both expository and spiritual, not just expository.
So yes, Jonah was a bad man because he didn’t want to go go Ninevah. But his disobedience prophesied Jesus’ 3 days and 3 nights.
Ed Chapman.
Hi Roland. Ed Chapman thinks expository preaching is carnal because he cannot force his gnosticism into the text if people go through the text systematically. Heretics have always hated expository preaching, because they hate what lies behind expository preaching: Scripture.
Interesting that you said you will never ever interact with me and then immediately prove that to be a lie by interacting with me again. Is the rest of your life also a mass of lies, or do you reserve that for the times that you talk about God and holy things?
I’d much rather be a Calvinist that believes the Bible than a gnostic like you. You don’t believe a word of the Bible, but then you try to pretend like you are the most holy, righteous, accomplished theologian of them all. No wonder you don’t want to interact with anything that was written by writers of the past. You are refuted by them all, and you can’t stand it. Well, don’t think that just because you restrict your interactions with people of today, you will not be called out for your gnosticism. If you don’t repent of it, you will spend eternity in hell, and God will be righteous in sending you there.
spurcalluth
I’d much rather be a Calvinist that believes the Bible than a gnostic like you.
br.d
Boy does that one backfire on the Calvinist!!!!
You probably don’t know the degree to which scholars of Augustine conclude he was never delivered of the GNOSTIC elements in his theology.
Augustine is also considered one of the greatest conduits of the Syncretism of NeoPlatonism into Christian doctrine.
Augustine corresponded by letter to a close friend Nebridius, who praises how Augustine’s letters: “speak of Christ, Plato and Plotinus
Augustine was a disciple and ardent admirer of the pagan teacher Plotinus all through his life
It is recorded that he recited the great teachings of Plotinus on his death bed.
Where do you think Calvinism’s DUALISTIC system of “good-evil” comes from – if not from Gnosticism?
The “yin-yang” of Calvinism.
Spot on assessment of the “ex” Manichaean Gnostic Augustine, who Calvin clearly and openly adulated.
If ever there was an example of Gnosticism it is calvinist’s secret esoteric knowledge of the “secret will of God” (obviously not secret to them) and how this contradicts His explicitly stated will. Plus the Gnostic ability to show how passages of Scripture don’t really mean what we simple believers think they mean, and how words don’t actually possess their normative dictionary definitions.
Apron, compass and special handshake anyone?
OK, I see I have fallen in with people who think that just because someone’s philosophical system starts off with bad assumptions, they cannot have anything of worth to say to anyone. That’s great. Let’s just burn down anything Western and pretend like the past 2000 years did not happen, and let’s just destroy every benefit that we’ve gotten in the meantime. Let me know when you’ll be smashing your computer to pieces, Paster Loz, so we can synchronize our return to bronze age technology.
You must think you are talking to a Roman Catholic or a Catholic-lite here. I am no fan of the nature-grace dualistic religious ground-motive, and because I do not hold to it, I can easily admit that Augustine, as a Platonist, had a very faulty worldview. Now that I have renounced Augustine’s philosophical system, what are you gonna do? Tell me again that Augustine’s philosophical system was faulty? Okay, I renounce it again. We can keep going around this circle over and over again if you like.
And your boy Calvin wrote: “Augustine is so wholly within me, that if I wished to write a confession of my faith, I could do so with all fullness and satisfaction to myself out of his writings.”
My boy Calvin? I don’t think you know what you’re talking about. I don’t have any children, and if I did, they would not have been dead for 400 years. I’m not that old. But if you want to foist Calvin on me, then I guess I’ll just call you an Arminian, and we can punch strawman all day long. As Captain America said, “I can do this all day”.
It’s what we call a figure of speech. Maybe one day if you grow up will learn about them. The point remains the same, that Calvin pretty much “channelled” Augustine (careful that’s another figure of speech), and much of what you say is derived from Calvin, so there’s no need to foist him on you.
You want to be careful about talk of channeling, we might notice whom you are channeling. Much of what I say might be derived from Calvin. After all, he called Jesus God, he believed in a Trinity, he said that God was good. Am I supposed to deny everything that Calvin said? Where would you like me to start: he said Jesus was crucified, died, was buried, and rose again on the third day. Which one of those would you like me to deny? If none, then you admit the fact that some of what Calvin said was good stuff.
spurcalluth
Am I supposed to deny everything that Calvin said?
br.d
Most Calvinists today follow a cherry-picking process in that regard.
They thought-block the unpalatable aspects of the doctrine.
We have lots of Calvinists here to posture as the GOLDEN-STANDARD of Calvinism
When in fact what they have is more Calvinism on the outside – Arminianism on the inside.
But Calvin had a heavy obligation to defend the doctrine – so he couldn’t be seen back-pedaling the doctrine.
Even though he moves into some back-pedaling DOUBLE-SPEAK when it comes to Calvin’s god’s role in evil
Enjoy punching Calvinist strawmen. One day when you want to return to talking about reality, hit me up.
It’s also funny that you refuse to learn something that you didn’t know before, that refutes Calvin doctrine. You remind me of a Jehovah’s Witness I knew years ago. Stubborn. He was right about one thing. There is no quote in the Bible that Jesus explicitly said, “I am God”. Therefore if anyone tries to prove that Jesus is God, he would not listen, and revert back to, “There is no place in the Bible that Jesus explicitly said. “I AM GOD”. You are no different. You refuse to see versus that are contrary to your belief system.
No, what I refuse to see is what you keep trying to inculcate. You keep wanting to convince me that the Bible is a pack of lies and that Joseph was not Joseph, Moses was not Moses, Genesis is not historical and Jesus was disobedient just like Jonah. I won’t be convinced of any of those lies, and you can’t make me be convinced of any of them. This apparently irks you greatly. Also, what happened to “I won’t interact with you, spurcalluth”? Apparently the man behind the curtain making EX CATHEDRA statements is just a little liar who can’t help but show that his (your) lies are in fact lies.
The pattern of speaking EX CATHEDRA is a noted pattern of Calvinist behavior.
It most often appears in the form of throwing out proof-texts.
Those who do not accept Calvinist proof-texts are god haters etc etc etc.
spurcallluth, and Roland,
Addendum to my last:
In other words…it is thru the Jews that we learn about Jesus, thru the ACTIONS of the Jews is PROPHESY of Jesus.
Take for example if you will, you expository preaching loving people…
Jonah. WHo has ever heard a sermon on Jonah? In essance, the following is a sermon on Jonah in a very short explanation:
Preacher:
Jonah was a bad man because he didn’t want to go to Ninevah. So be OBEDIANT to God.
That’s it in a nutshell.
But you know what? His DISOBEDIENCE prophesied Jesus. In the bible, the PURPOSE of prophets is to prophesy about Jesus, not about CURRENT EVENTS in Ninevah.
Matthew 12:39, 16:4, Luke 11:9
But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas:
Other than that, WHERE DID JONAH PROPHESY ABOUT JESUS? He didn’t. His actions of disobedience is what prophesied about Jesus.
What good came out of the disobedience of Jonah?
This has NOTHTING to do with Calvinisms doctrines of ANYTHING.
Ed Chapman
chapmaned24:
Other than that, WHERE DID JONAH PROPHESY ABOUT JESUS? He didn’t. His actions of disobedience is what prophesied about Jesus.
roland:
It is a huge hermeneutical error to equate Jonah with Jesus. Jonah was a disobedient prophet. Jesus is the great prophet who obeyed His Father even unto death. Like I wrote in my other post to you, allegorical interpretations of Scripture can lead to many erroneous conclusions.
If I would make any connection between Jonah and Jesus, it would be that Jonah was sent to Nineveh, non-Jews, and that the Gospel of Jesus Christ is for both Jew and Gentile so that we may be one in Christ. They both preached to Gentiles.
Roland,
You had said:
“It is a huge hermeneutical error to equate Jonah with Jesus. Jonah was a disobedient prophet.”
You just proved my point. First of all, no, it’s not a huge hermeneutical error at all. It’s proper.
Whatever you have been taught regarding hermeneutics, uh, let me be blunt…they don’t have a clue.
Note the words, “all”, as in “ALL THE PROPHETS”. Jonah is included in that.
Luke 24:27
And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.
Luke 24:44
And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.
Jesus called Jonah a PROPHET. The SIGN OF JONAH was prophesy of Jesus.
Matthew 12:39
But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas:
Matthew 12:40
For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
Your hermeneutics teachers need some SPIRITUAL education.
Ed Chapman
chapmaned24
Note the words, “all”, as in “ALL THE PROPHETS”. Jonah is included in that.
Luke 24:27
And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.
roland
I don’t believe I communicated that I did not believe what Luke 24:27 says, you didn’t even mention it in your post earlier.
chapmaned24
Jesus called Jonah a PROPHET. The SIGN OF JONAH was prophesy of Jesus.
roland
I agree with you. The sign of Jonah was a symbol of Christ’s resurrection. That’s what Jesus said and I believe what Jesus said about Jonah as a sign.
What you mentioned above are statements from Jesus about the Hebrew Scriptures and what they say about Jesus. Jesus never said anything about Jospeh being Jesus and the 11 brothers being the Jews. That’s where you committed the error.
I did not commit any error regarding Joseph. Jesus does not have to mention Joseph by name. When Jesus used the word ALL, that also covers Joseph.
He didn’t mention prophets by name in the Law of Moses, either, did he?
The word ALL covers all prophets, and Joseph was a prophet.
Besides, that prophesy has yet to come to fruition. Not only that, Paul, in his writings, explains it in Romans 11.
It’s not that hard to figure out. Your side just REFUSES to see it.
Ed Chapman
This is exactly where your gnosticism leads you: into professing that Jesus is a sinner, disobedient to God. And this is why you had better repent as soon as you can, because God could strike you down any moment for the blasphemy that you preach about Jesus.
brdmod:
What we are talking about is what logically follows with Calvinism’s doctrine – not what is stated in scripture.
roland
The reason why I am a Calvinist is because of what is stated in Scripture. I understand the logical concerns and problems of Calvinism. Logically, Calvinism does lead to God being the cause of man’s sins. But Scripture says otherwise, Scripture does not follow logic in the sense that Scripture is not subject to logic.
One reason, and the only reason I need, I reject non-Calvinist interpretations and understandings of Scripture is that their premises, their presuppositions are not biblical. All non-Calvinists begin with the unbiblical concept of libertarian freewill. Nowhere in Scripture is man presented as being or having libertarian freewill. There is always something that at least affects man’s freewill in some sense or degree.
I don’t see any non-calvinist on here who defines free will as a will that is completely free from any constraints. However the freedom to genuinely choose between accepting and rejecting salvation is most certainly in the Bible and is what makes people responsible and accountable for their choice. John 5:40 is just one example. Jesus justly rebukes His audience because they REFUSE to come to Him. That is a CHOICE.
As for your comment about Scripture and logic, that is something you simply hide behind as a pseudo-spiritual excuse for your inability to reconcile the irreconcilable contradictions your philosophical theory creates, like the common appeal to “mystery” or “paradox” where none exists
Pastor Loz,
You had said:
“I don’t see any non-calvinist on here who defines free will as a will that is completely free from any constraints.”
and
“John 5:40 is just one example. Jesus justly rebukes His audience because they REFUSE to come to Him. That is a CHOICE.”
My response:
Jesus didn’t come but for the lost sheep of the House of Israel. They were already followers of God via the Law of Moses (*WORKS). Jesus is THE LAW OF FAITH (GRACE), and his followers are ALSO following God.
Why did they (JEWS) refuse? Romans 11 explains:
Romans 11:5, 7-8
Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.
7 …and the rest were blinded.
8 (According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear;) unto this day.
Now, consider verse 7 above:
John 9:39-41
39 And Jesus said, For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind.
40 And some of the Pharisees which were with him heard these words, and said unto him, Are we blind also?
41 Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth.
Jews can’t come to Jesus UNTIL…verse 39.
Gentiles are NOT blind, and can come to Jesus freely, but not the Jews. The Jews are still God followers in the law of Works (Moses), until the end of time, when that which is perfect come. And, according to Romans 11, receive MERCY, because of that blindness that God himself put on them (Deuteronomy 29:4).
Yes, the Pharaoh was “used” by God, as well as other nations as a battering ram against Israel to judge Israel. But the focus is always Israel, not the Gentiles, regardless of who God “uses”.
Ed Chapman
Roland:
The reason why I am a Calvinist is because of what is stated in Scripture.
br.d
Not quite!
The reason you are a Calvinist is because your mind has been conditioned to see Calvinist presuppositions when you read scripture.
Even when a the verse has absolutely nothing to do with that presupposition.
Sometimes I think the Calvinist mind can be conditioned to see a Calvinist presupposition in a road sign! :-]
Roland:
I understand the logical concerns and problems of Calvinism.
Br.d
That is hilarious!
Because every time you start to become face to face with a logical implication your mind follows the following pattern:
1) Thought blocking anything that does not affirm the doctrine
2) Raising the doctrine up and making it equal to scripture – so you can argue that logic cannot be applied to it.
Roland:
Logically, Calvinism does lead to God being the cause of man’s sins.
br.d
Not only the cause
But per the doctrine – Calvin’s god is the AUTHOR of all sins and evils – because per the doctrine – he FIRST-CONCEIVES all sins and evils in his mind at the foundation of the world – and makes them come to pass irresistibly within the human brain and body – and gives man NO CHOICE in the matter of what he will infallibly/Irresistibly be and do.
Roland
But Scripture says otherwise
br.d
A clear indicator where scripture and Calvinist doctrine don’t line up! 😀
Which of course – any recollection of – your mind has been conditioned to THOUGHT-BLOCK
Roland:
, Scripture does not follow logic in the sense that Scripture is not subject to logic.
br.d
Not quite!
For you – scripture follows and is subject to logic [ IF and only IF] that logic is Calvinist logic!
Roland
One reason, and the only reason I need, I reject non-Calvinist interpretations and understandings of Scripture is that their premises, their presuppositions are not biblical.
Br.d
That’s because you raise Calvinist doctrine up on a pedestal – make it CANON – making it equal to scripture
Roland:
All non-Calvinists begin with the unbiblical concept of libertarian freewill.
br.d
Too Funny!!
The very freedom – you assume you have every time you perceive yourself as being granted the function of choice! 😀
Calvinist logic claims Libertarian functionality does not exist – while the Calvinist assumes it exists for himself.
Roland: Nowhere in Scripture is man presented as being or having libertarian freewill.
br.d
No where in Calvinism – is man presented with more than one option – because all human actions have been pre-selected at the foundation of the world – where the existence of one single option is RENDERED-CERTAIN – and thus the NON-EXISTENCE of all Alternative options is RENDERED-CERTAIN.
And since multiple options is a necessary condition for the function of “Choice” then it logically follows – the function of choice does not exist for the Calvinist.
As a psychological consequence – the Calvinist goes about his office *AS-IF* his doctrine is FALSE – in order to claim he has been granted the function of choice.
And since the Calvinist claims – is doctrine is from scripture – he essentially goes about his office *AS-IF* scripture is FALSE.
Roland
There is always something that at least affects man’s freewill in some sense or degree.
br.d
DUH!
Anyone who thinks otherwise – probably lives in an asylum! :-]
bbr.d
DUH!
Anyone who thinks otherwise – probably lives in an asylum! :-]
roland
Leighton Flowers advocates for libertarian freewill. Does that mean he lives in an asylum?
If humans don’t have libertarian freewill, then what kind of freewill do we have?
You seem to advocate for libertarian freewill, are you now saying humans don’t have libertarian freewill?
Roland
Leighton Flowers advocates for libertarian freewill.
br.d
And so doesn’t the most of Calvinism – as it pertains to a function Calvin’s god uses to make his choices about what will come to pass.
Roland
Does that mean he lives in an asylum?
br.d
No because Dr. Flowers is smart enough to know the irrational version of Libertarian functionality you have in your mind is a Calvinists IRRATIONAL straw-man.
Here is a question for you on the topic of Libertarian funcion:
Since Libertarian function doesn’t exist for you – by what LIBERTY is your brain granted the function of determining TRUE from FALSE on any matter? :-]
Roland
If humans don’t have libertarian freewill, then what kind of freewill do we have?
You seem to advocate for libertarian freewill, are you now saying humans don’t have libertarian freewill?
br.d
Roland – every time you perceive your brain as granted the LIBERTY of determining TRUE from FALSE – RIGHT from WRONG – LEFT from RIGHT – UP From DOWN – you are asserting a Libertarian Function.
The difference between you and I on this subject is – Calvinism doesn’t permit you to call a spade a spade. :-]
br.d
Roland – every time you perceive your brain as granted the LIBERTY of determining TRUE from FALSE – RIGHT from WRONG – LEFT from RIGHT – UP From DOWN – you are asserting a Libertarian Function.
roland
You did not answer my question as to what kind of freewill humans possess.
br.d
The difference between you and I on this subject is – Calvinism doesn’t permit you to call a spade a spade. :-]
roland
In your version of Calvinism. :-]
br.d
Roland – every time you perceive your brain as granted the LIBERTY of determining TRUE from FALSE – RIGHT from WRONG – LEFT from RIGHT – UP From DOWN – you are asserting a Libertarian Function.
roland
You did not answer my question as to what kind of freewill humans possess.
br.d
You apparently didn’t even read my statement before responding to it.
You claim Libertarian functionality is unbiblical
And in the process – you are shooting yourself in the foot – because it is the very functionality you constantly assume you are granted.
Therefore – the difference between you and I on this subject is – Calvinism doesn’t permit you to call a spade a spade. :-]
roland
In your version of Calvinism. :-]
br.d
Since you are the one who can’t call a spade a spade on this subject – then that makes it your version of Calvinism :-]
br.d
You apparently didn’t even read my statement before responding to it.
You claim Libertarian functionality is unbiblical
And in the process – you are shooting yourself in the foot – because it is the very functionality you constantly assume you are granted.
roland
The concept of libertarian freewill is unbiblical. Humans possess freewill, not in a libertarian sense as in free from any desires, but in a sense as freewill relates to their nature. All humans have desires, circumstances, biological, physiological, emotional, attributes that AFFECT our decisions. No human ever makes a decision without some sort of external influence. None.
I do not claim Libertarian functionality. I claim what the Bible claims, that humans are sinners who outside of Christ are slaves to sin and that we make our decisions within that parameter, our fallen nature. Within that fallen nature despite the noetic effects of sin, we make REAL CHOICES, ACTUAL CHOICES. When I decide to get a drink of water God is not moving my arms as in holding them by my wrists, God is not squeezing my hand around the glass, I choose to move, to hold, and to drink. I’m doing these things freely within my human nature.
roland
The concept of libertarian freewill is unbiblical.
br.d
So speak the WHOLE truth and declare this then:
Every time I Roland – have a perception that my brain is granted the LIBERTY of determining TRUE from FALSE – RIGHT from WRONG – LEFT from RIGHT – UP From DOWN – I am perceiving something that is unbiblical which does not exist.
And as a Calvinist who holds that Whatsoever (including my perceptions) are determined by infallible decrees – then I Roland must conclude that it has been infallibly decreed that I go through my life having thousands of FALSE perceptions of LIBERTARIAN functionality
<<>>
Forget glasses of water. This is not WaterDrinking1010, it’s Soteriology. In the calvinist philosophical theory, unregenerate man is NOT able to make a genuine choice between accepting or rejecting the gift of salvation, yet the calvinist god punishes them for not accepting. He punishes them for failing to do something that he unchangeably ordained they would be unable to do. This is why calvinists have to redefine the word justice.
Pastor Loz
In the calvinist philosophical theory, unregenerate man is NOT able to make a genuine choice between accepting or rejecting the gift of salvation, yet the calvinist god punishes them for not accepting.
roland
According to Jesus, no man can believe unless they are of His sheep. No man can hear unless they are of His sheep.
John 10:25-30
25 Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in My Father’s name, they bear witness of Me. 26 But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep, as I said to you. 27 My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. 28 And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of My Father’s hand. 30 I and My Father are one.”
Jesus told the Jews that they did not believe because they were not of His sheep. How does one become a sheep of Jesus? According to proponents of libertarian freewill, man is capable of freely choosing to believe in Jesus. Belief comes first, then the person becomes a sheep of Jesus. But according to Jesus, the cause of a person’s unbelief is that they do not belong to Jesus, they are not a sheep of Jesus. Only Jesus’s sheep hear His voice, no others. Jesus’s sheep hear His voice, He knows them, they follow Him, He gives them eternal life, He preserves them, they are given to Him by the Father. Sinners believe in Jesus because those sinners belong to Him.
I know you are going to appeal to an alternative interpretation.I know you are going to say that I am proposing a false alternative. I am not interpreting the text, all I am doing is reading it. These are the words of Jesus stated plainly and clearly for us to read and understand.
Pastor Loz
In the calvinist philosophical theory, unregenerate man is NOT able to make a genuine choice between accepting or rejecting the gift of salvation, yet the calvinist god punishes them for not accepting.
roland
According to Jesus,…….
br.d
Roland – you evaded the point.
And once again you are reliant upon the Calvinist practice of READING a concept of determinism into the text which is not in the text.
How is that not subjecting scripture to Calvinist logic?
br.d
Roland – you evaded the point.
And once again you are reliant upon the Calvinist practice of READING a concept of determinism into the text which is not in the text.
How is that not subjecting scripture to Calvinist logic?
roland
I simply copied and pasted Jesus’s words onto my post. How am I reading determinism into the text? I did not even write that Jesus determines all things. I offered Jesus’s words as proof that our salvation is dependent upon belonging to Jesus and not upon our libertarian freewill. I am writing that in order for a sinner to believe in Jesus, they must belong to Jesus, they must be one of His sheep. Belonging to Jesus comes first, then believing comes second, according to Jesus, not John Calvin.
Roland
I offered Jesus’s words as proof that our salvation is dependent upon belonging to Jesus and not upon our libertarian freewill.
br.d
Ok then – bite the bullet and also offer Jesus’ words as proof that your brain is not granted the function of determining TRUE from FALSE,
Because the Calvinistic INTERPRETATION of that text AUTO-MAGICALLY assumes Exhaustive Divine Determinism
And Exhaustive Divine Determinism does not grant the human brain the LIBERTY of determining anything for itself.
When it comes to Libertarian functionality – the Calvinist is like a farmer who drives his tractor around trying to convince people tractors don’t exist. :-]
br.d
Ok then – bite the bullet and also offer Jesus’ words as proof that your brain is not granted the function of determining TRUE from FALSE,
roland:
It is impossible for me to offer words that Jesus never used. Jesus never said that humans are not granted the functioning of determining TRUE from FALSE. But He did have much to say about our fallen human nature and its inability to do what God commands apart from God’s work in the person.
Roland
I am not interpreting the text, all I am doing is reading it.
br.d
Any Bible professor hearing that statement would laugh himself off his chair! :-]
I’m not interpreting the road conditions – the taxi driver said – I’m reading the road conditions! 😀
brdmod
I’m not interpreting the road conditions – the taxi driver said – I’m reading the road conditions! ��
roland
I’m not reading the stop sign officer, I’m interpreting it according to my presuppositions that stop does not mean stop and your failure to offer more than two alternatives to the word stop is logically wrong. LOL!!!
It is apparent that you understood something that is laughable – but ts not apparent that you can apply that understanding to your argument.
Simply put – the human brain INTERPRETS data in order to comprehend it.
And scripture is data in the form of language
If your brain does not interpret it – then your brain doesn’t comprehend it.
brdmod:
Simply put – the human brain INTERPRETS data in order to comprehend it.
And scripture is data in the form of language
If your brain does not interpret it – then your brain doesn’t comprehend it.
roland:
True but not all data in literary form needs to be INTERPRETED. If it needs to be interpreted then it is an assumption that the author failed to communicate their data in a plain manner as to be understood. As a Reformed Christian, I along with other Reformed Christians, believe in a doctrine called the perspicuity of Scripture. We believe that God has plainly communicated enough in His Word that a person can have some basic understanding of what God is saying in His Word. True, some Scripture requires interpretation to have a better understanding but not all. You seem to believe that all Scripture requires interpretation. It sounds like you are saying that all Scripture fails to communicate its meaning therefore requiring human interpretation in order for its readers to understand the text’s meaning.
Cite one Scripture that does not require interpretation.
Pastor Loz
Cite one Scripture that does not require interpretation.
roland
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth Genesis 1:1
If the Bible is not clear enough to be understood, then how can you even be sure you know what the gospel is or that you are giving it correctly? Isn’t a belief in the clarity of Scripture implicit in every teaching and preaching of the gospel?
When Paul and Silas told the Philippian jailer what he must do to be saved, the jailer understood and believed. Paul and Silas were firm in their words, Gospel words, believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved, you and your family. The jailer did not ask for an interpretation of Paul and Silas’s words. The words are simple enough to be understood, believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved.
If the Bible is not clear enough to be understood, then how can you even be sure you know what the gospel is or that you are giving it correctly? Isn’t a belief in the clarity of Scripture implicit in every teaching and preaching of the gospel?
When Paul and Silas told the Philippian jailer what he must do to be saved, the jailer understood and believed. Paul and Silas were firm in their words, Gospel words, believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved, you and your family. The jailer did not ask for an interpretation of Paul and Silas’s words. The words are simple enough to be understood, believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved.
PL I clarified what I said, and you know I did, since you already responded.
And I am talking about one Scripture Calvinists use to support TULIP
Pastor Loz
And I am talking about one Scripture Calvinists use to support TULIP
roland
There is not one Scripture that Calvinists use to support TULIP. If you read through the Canon of Dort, you can see that the five points of the Canons are actually a response to the five points proposed by the Arminians. The Canons of Dort are polemical and affirmative in their writings. They denied the Arminian doctrines and they affirmed what Scripture teaches regarding salvation. One verse can be provided for each letter of the acronym. But not one verse to prove all five points of doctrine at once.
Pastor Loz
And I am talking about one Scripture Calvinists use to support TULIP
roland There is not one Scripture that Calvinists use to support TULIP. If you read through the Canon of Dort, you can see that the five points of the Canons are actually a response to the five points proposed by the Arminians. The Canons of Dort are polemical and affirmative in their writings. They denied the Arminian doctrines and they affirmed what Scripture teaches regarding salvation. One verse can be provided for each letter of the acronym. But not one verse to prove all five points of doctrine at once.
PL: Just to clarify, I meant one verse that supports any part of TULIP
STOP could not really mean STOP, because God would never allow a government to infringe on our libertarian free will like that.
Pastor Loz: In the calvinist philosophical theory, unregenerate man is NOT able to make a genuine choice between accepting or rejecting the gift of salvation, yet the calvinist god punishes them for not accepting.
<<>>
<<>>
Please do yourself and ALL OF US a favour. Stop deluding yourself into claiming that “I am not interpreting the text, all I am doing is reading it.” You actually followed the verse with your interpretation. You brought your Calvinistic pre-suppositions to the text AS YOU “JUST READ” IT. There is no such as thing as just reading the text, unless you are God Himself. Your self-delusion and/or dishonesty on this is astounding. It’s actually classic cult like behaviour, the product of indoctrination.
Firstly, you interpreted “you do not believe” as “you CANNOT believe”. It’s right there in what you wrote. Jesus’s sheep are those who believe. It’s really that simple. But you INTERPRET that as Jesus’ sheep are those who were eternally pre-determined to believe.
Non-biblical Calvinists believe that man is ENABLED BY GOD to choose to believe in Jesus. John 6:44, John 12:32, John 5:40. And of course you conveniently avoided address the fact that in your theory, God punishes the non-elect for failing to do that which He unchangeably ordained that they would fail to do.
Pastor Loz,
You had aksed spurcalluth the following:
“Do you believe that Adam and Eve could genuinely have chosen not to sin, that the fall was not in any way decreed, unchangeably ordained by God?”
My response to your question to him is, I’m all free will regarding that example. Why?
Because God make us WEAK. 1 Cor 15:42-46 explains:
Our bodies are:
1. Planted as a dying body
2. Planted in dishonor
3. Planted in weakness
4. Planted as a natural body (made of dirt)
And that natural dying weak dishonorable body came first, before Adam sinned, not as a result of Adams sin:
Verse 46
Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.
God knew that Adam would sin, due to the NATURE of the WEAK dishonorable dying natural body that he clothed them with. It’s not that God decreed them to sin, it’s that he knew they would based on that weak dying body.
The spiritual body is:
1. Raised eternal, immortal
2. Raised in glory
3. Raised in power
4. Raised as a spiritual body
And verse 46 again, the weak natural body came first.
This is part of my explanation as to why I don’t believe in “Original Sin”. The other part has to do with a TREE OF LIFE that God had to block after the fall, because Adam could have obtained eternal life in a fallen state, so that tree had power, both before, and after the fall, so God blocked access to it.
Ed Chapman
Are you saying God set them up to fail or am I misunderstanding you?
Hello Lorenzo Heighway and welcome
Lorenzo Heighway
Are you saying God set them up to fail or am I misunderstanding you?
br.d
In Calvinism – per the doctrine – Adam’s sin was the only option Adam was granted.
It is not possible for fallible creation (including man) to disobey an infallible decree
Absolutely, based on the weak, dying, dishonorable body that he clothed us all with according to 1 Cor 15:42-46…for all have sinned.
Do an experiment. Put a chocolate bar in your children’s room, tell them not to eat it.
But here is another thing. God never told Adam about that Tree of Life. Had he known, he probably would have went there instead. But God did block that tree after the fall, because that tree had power, even after the fall. That tree wasn’t a metaphor. It was real.
Ed Chapman
So you reckon that unless you can will God to no longer be God, you cannot know true from false. Either you must be the Creator, or you cannot tell true and false apart? Sounds like the lisping of the devil in Genesis 3 to me, but have your fun.
Some more double-speak from our local double-speak expert. First you say that the Bible only appears to be busy with double-speak, but then you end up affirming that the end result of Scripture as a whole is double-speak. Tell me, is it double-speak or only the appearance of double-speak that you find in the Bible, because you have double-spoken so successfully that I don’t know what to make of it.
spurcalluth,
You had said:
“Some more double-speak from our local double-speak expert. First you say that the Bible only appears to be busy with double-speak, but then you end up affirming that the end result of Scripture as a whole is double-speak. Tell me, is it double-speak or only the appearance of double-speak that you find in the Bible, because you have double-spoken so successfully that I don’t know what to make of it.”
My response:
I had said:
“tell me what the PROMISED LAND AND PROMISED SEED are. Do it from an OT Expository Preaching manner only. When you are done, what does the NT say? It’s NOT THE SAME as what you discovered in the OT, I can tell you that. The end result is DOUBLE SPEAK. ”
But you didn’t do it, did you?
Ed Chapman
No, I didn’t do it. Believe it or not, I am not your slave. You don’t just bark commands and I fearfully obey, hoping I won’t get a beating. What an arrogant, evil attitude for you to take!
WHAT IS DOUBLE-SPEAK:
William Lutz, an American linguist, in an interview on CSPAN concerning his book DoubleSpeak states:
“Doublespeak is language designed to evade…..to make the unpleasant appear pleasant, the unattractive appear attractive, or at least tolerable.
Basically, it’s language that pretends to communicate, but really doesn’t.
It is language designed to mislead, while pretending not to.
Doublespeak is not a slip of the tongue or a mistake in use of language. It’s exactly the opposite. It is language used by people who are very intelligent, and very sophisticated in the use of language. And know that you can do an awful lot with language.
Doublespeak is not a matter of subjects and verbs agreeing; it is a matter of words and facts agreeing.
Basic to doublespeak is incongruity, the incongruity between what is said or left unsaid, and what really is.
It is the incongruity between the word and the referent, between seem and be, between the essential function of language—communication — and what doublespeak does — mislead, distort, inflate, circumvent, obfuscate.
Double-speak works by taking advantage of the inherent implicitness of meaning conveyed through everyday language.
It takes advantage of the fact that normal everyday language use is fundamentally cooperative.
Doublespeak exploits these principles to do just the opposite: to appear like honest communication while actually HIDING INCRIMINATING FACTS. “
WHAT IS LYING BY OMISSION:
Lying by omission, otherwise known as exclusionary detailing, is lying by either omitting certain critical facts or by failing to correct a misconception.
An example of lying by omission is found in the consistent repetition of specifically crafted talking-points which omit critical facts.
Talking-points so designed result in guaranteeing unaware recipients are mislead.
Frequently communicators who lie by omission justify doing so by arguing the omitted facts are not critical within the communicator’s mind.
However – when facts are not omitted the recipient is not mislead.
Therefore such facts may not be deemed critical to the communicator, but this serves to indicate, misleading people an acceptable practice.
brdmod,
The following is a “doubletalk” comedian on the Huckabee show on Fox a few years ago…Try to understand what he is saying:
https://youtu.be/tDorQPnkbfw
Ed Chapman
By the way, I’ll take you up on that offer of tuna 🙂 I’m a post-grad student; few offers of free food slips past me unnoticed and unused. So be careful about offering free food; you might just get taken up on the offer.
spurcalluth,
My favorite four letter “F” word is “Free”! Especially when the next F word is used, “Food”. LOL.
Since I am a Christian who has some contact with the outside world, I have picked up another four-letter F word that I think people say shouldn’t be used. I am a married man, so this other four-letter word really encapsulates one of the things I really like…Anyway, few things are so nice as curling up at a warm Fire.
Pastor Loz: “Firstly, you interpreted “you do not believe” as “you CANNOT believe”. It’s right there in what you wrote. Jesus’s sheep are those who believe. It’s really that simple. But you INTERPRET that as Jesus’ sheep are those who were eternally pre-determined to believe.”
Great point, Pastor Loz. Yes, they assume that “being a sheep” precedes belief, that God first chooses who will be sheep, and then He makes them believe. Calvinists do this all the time – reading into verses Calvinist things that aren’t there – without even realizing it. Such as, they interpret Romans 3:11 “no one seeks God” as “no one CAN seek God unless God causes it.”
They interpret “draws him” (“No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him”) as “prechosen and then forcibly, irresistibly converted” (but they won’t admit to “forcibly”), and then they say that no one else had a real, true offer of salvation or the ability to believe because God didn’t “draw” them.
They interpret “hardens” as “God chose before the beginning of time to harden that person’s heart without any influence from them, and definitely not as a response to their choices/decisions.”
They interpret “sovereignty” (a word not even in the King James) to mean not just that God is all powerful and in control over all, but that He always uses His power all the time to control everything that happens … or else He can’t be God.
They interpret “dead in sin” to mean the same as “physically dead like a dead body, unable to do anything, even think or make decisions,” even though there is nothing in the Bible to support this comparison. (So, in Calvinism, we can’t choose to seek God or believe in God on our own, but somehow we can still choose to sin and reject God. What a joke!)
Whenever they see “the elect” or “predestined,” they interpret it as “prechosen to be saved,” instead of reading it in context.
When they read that God caused a calamity, they automatically apply it to sin/evil too.
When they read that God used men’s wickedness for His plans, they read it as God causing men’s wickedness for His plans.
They interpret “God causes all things to work together for good” as “God causes all things. Period.”
To a Calvinist, “ordains/decrees” means “preplanned, caused, controlled by God, and nothing different could have happened.”
They don’t even realize that they have put on Calvinist glasses (that they let Calvinist pastors and theologians strap the Calvinist glasses on them) and that they are reading Scripture through it. That’s why it’s so hard to reason with them, to get them to see things any differently. A prisoner can’t be set free if they don’t believe they are in a prison. A cult-member can’t be set free from a cult if they can’t see they’re in a cult. A Calvinist can’t be set free from Calvinism if they won’t admit they could be wrong. And they won’t admit it because they’ve been well-trained to “see” Calvinism in the Bible, to support it with all sorts of out-of-context verses and talking points and double-speak and double-meanings to verses (that aren’t really in the Bible), and they’ve been preconditioned to believe that their theology is the most intelligent, God-glorifying, humble way to understand the Bible. No wonder Calvinism has such a hold on many Christians, even many well-meaning ones. It’s sad.
TESTIMONY OF AN EX-CALVINIST – CALVINISM’S DOUBLE-TALK LANGUAGE
Ronnie W. Rogers – Southern Baptist pastor
I admit that [when I was a Calvinist] I was as guilty as any Calvinist for my quotidian reliance upon DOUBLE-TALK.
My desire now is to help Calvinists see their use of this subtle rhetorical skill so that they may see the “disquieting realities of Calvinism,”
Thereby enabling them to accurately determine whether or not they are a Calvinist.
Added to the problem of DOUBLE-TALK is that so many who claim to be Calvinists, or Calvinistic, have so nuanced their Calvinism that it is no longer Calvinism, but rather a very personalized non-Calvinism Calvinism
Sure is a whole lot of intellectual (VULGAR LANGUAGE EXCLUDED) going on here. Excuse the French but it’s just a lot of (VULGAR LANGUAGE EXCLUDED) I see in these comments. You guys are working too hard.
His sheep hear His voice. This is the great controversy that frustrates free-willers, who are unable to hear His voice. Not Calvinism or any 5 point theology or pet doctrine. John 10 demonstrates the Alpha and Omega, creator of the universe incarnate speaking to those men who were unable to hear His voice or see His shape. He tells them “You don’t believe because you are not of my sheep.” He didn’t say “You are not my sheep because you don’t believe.”
In other words He looks them in the eyes and says “I can see you everlastingly and I wasn’t sent to die for you. I’m not going to shed one drop of my precious blood for you.”
In the end, there will only be Jacob and Esau. Those He has everlastingly loved and those He has passed by in the covenant of grace with His darling, well-pleasing Son. “For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.”
Malachi 3:6 KJV
“Jesus answered and said unto them, This is {the work of God}, that {ye believe on him} whom he hath sent.”
John 6:29 KJV
Your only hope, and my only hope is that we hear His voice, and not the voices of “thieves and robbers.” John 10:8
“who hath saved us, and called us with an {holy calling}, not according to our works, but according to his own {purpose} and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,”
2 Timothy 1:9 KJV
Hello Sinner Saved and welcome
I excluded the vulgar language from your post.
This is a Christian web-site which reflects the ethics of those who follow Jesus Christ.
I always find it interesting when people pop-in here – who AUTO-MAGICALLY assume everything that comes out of their mouth – is EX-CATHEDRA!
The fun part – is patiently watching – the inevitability of self-contradiction as integral in their thinking. :-]
Blessings
br.d
Siner Saved,
It’s quite interesting that you mentino John, where it is said that his sheep hear his voice. Why do I say that? Because Jesus was not talking to Gentiles at all here.
John 10:16
And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.
Gentiles are “OTHER SHEEP”.
But Romans 11 explains the SHEEP, not the OTHER SHEEP, to wit:
Romans 11:5
5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.
But this goes with:
Romans 11:8
8 (According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear;) unto this day.
Which is a reference to:
Deuteronomy 29:4
4 Yet the Lord hath not given you an heart to perceive, and eyes to see, and ears to hear, unto this day.
When Jesus said:
John 6:44
No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
Jesus was talking to Jews, not Gentiles. They were already God followers of the Law of Works (Moses). And JESUS is given those who the father slated for Grace, FROM THOSE GOD FOLLOWERS of the law of WORKS.
Romans 11:5-7
5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.
6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.
7 What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded.
So as you can see in verse 6, the believing Jews were transfered from works to grace. So you have to ask yourself, when were Gentiles ever in the WORKS catagory to begin with? Gentiles were NEVER in the works catagory.
Gentiles are not blind, Jews are. They can’t come to Jesus unless Jesus unblinds them to see, to wit:
John 9:39-41
39 And Jesus said, For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind.
40 And some of the Pharisees which were with him heard these words, and said unto him, Are we blind also?
41 Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth.
Are you getting it yet? You quote what Jesus said, but what Jesus said is not directed to you at all.
Again, when were Gentiles ever under the Law of Moses? In other words, when were Gentiles ever in the catagory of WORKS, which you mention by quoting 2 Timothy 1:9? What works have we ever done as Gentiles?
Ed Chapman
I’m confused. Are you saying that OTHER SHEEP are not sheep? As far as I can tell, we know exactly two things about other sheep: 1.) They are sheep. 2.) They are other.
So when Jesus says “My sheep hear My voice”, He is talking about sheep. Since other sheep are sheep, they hear His voice. Unless you want to prove that other sheep are instead pterodactyls and not sheep at all, as it would seem. Please provide evidence that other sheep are actually pterodactyls.
No, I’m saying that other sheep are the gentiles. We are not the sheep that Jesus was discussing. Jesus didn’t come for us. He said that he didn’t come but for the most sheep of the house of Israel. Matthew 15:24, 10:6. He did not come for his OTHER SHEEP. For he said, on John 10:16 that we gentiles are not of the Jewish fold, and that we shall hear his voice. Up to that moment, he didn’t speak to us gentiles yet. Finishing the verse, THEN there will be one fold.
Oh, you figure that Jesus did not come for us? Well then, why in the world are we spending so much time thinking about theology? Eat, drink, for tomorrow we die, and there is no hope of salvation for us anyway, so we might as well just fornicate and drink ourselves to death.
I’m not responding to you anymore, as you don’t take anything serious. Have a nice life of ignorance.
So nice of you to label your position the position of KNOWLEDGE (you bloody gnostic) and mine the position of ignorance.
Thank you. You know, you are getting my knowledge for free. Men have died trying to obtain my knowledge. (See Fast Times At Ridgemont High).
Did you kill them or did they just die because they couldn’t handle the knowledge of a god? I’m asking because you worship yourself.
Sinner saved’s replies are so juvenile, more like playground insults than intelligent, thoughtful, biblical-based replies, that they’re not even worth responding to.
Sinner saved, Do you really think you’re accomplishing anything worthwhile here? And just wondering, but have you ever seen this “Jesus died for me, me, me” video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMmNf7PN0bc? You might relate. (I think it was Br.d who shared it in another comment, right? Delightful.)
Heather,
You had said:
“Sinner saved’s replies are so juvenile, more like playground insults…”
A couple nights ago I logged onto my GAB account. BIG mistake. I hadn’t been there for almost a year. SOMEHOW I got onto a group that claimed to be Chrisitan, but HATED Jews, and I mean with a VILE hate. I made a comment defending the Jews, and all the demons claiming to be Christian came out of the woodwork like rats, attacking me, and the Jews even more.
What do you suppose their eschatology was? Preterist. I felt like I had just visited a den of demons with those people. I felt ill over it. I could not believe what I was hearing.
And I know that there are REFORMERS, and Calvinists who buy off on that vile preterist theology, too.
Ed Chapman
Oops, my “sinner saved’s juvenile replies” comment was supposed to be lower down the list, under all his juvenile replies. I must have hit the wrong reply button.
Ed Chapman, I wonder how many so-called Christians are going to have a rude awakening come judgment day. It’s sad.
Sinner saved: “In other words He looks them in the eyes and says “I can see you everlastingly and I wasn’t sent to die for you. I’m not going to shed one drop of my precious blood for you.”
I think that you will remember these words of yours with horror and shame when you stand before the Lord in the end.
“Herein is our love made perfect, that we may have {boldness} in the day of judgment: because as he is, so are we in this world.”
1 John 4:17 KJV
I will only know boldness before God because of His doing and dying in (my) place. I pray you will be taught of God and abandon your false Christ. Not one soul is in hell right now for whom He died.
Not one sinner is in hell right now full stop. Study more.
Sinner Saved,
Seems to me that you are the one following a different Jesus. Jesus died for EVERYONE, not just a select few. You have NO CLUE how to interpret the Bible. I see that when you mention Esau. I’ve had my interactions with THOSE people before. You are in a cult, plain and simple.
Ed Chapman
Ed Chapman,
You could study the text for a millennium, but if our Lord and God does not sovereignly reveal to you “these are they which testify of me (Christ)” then His holy book will forever remain closed to you and you will continually twist his word to your own destruction. John 5:39
Blessings only inside the ark,
One of His sheep
Sorry to bust your narcissistic bubble, but Jesus provided salvation for all and applies that salvation to all who believe. 1 Tim 4:10 is a verse that no Calvinist has been able to explain away. There are two common Calvinist attempts to do so and they both fail miserably. The “temporal Saviour” argument and the “only Saviour” argument. The latter is half true because Jesus is the only Saviour. But it doesn’t explain this verse, since in your philosophical theory, Jesus cannot be described as the Saviour of those who do not believe in any way at all. And before you reach for the standard straw man accusation of universalism, remember the difference between atonement and salvation, provision and appropriation. And read ROM 3:25 also
Pasor Loz,
I do not disagree with you regarding salvation to all. I’m simply insisting, in my narcisistic way, that Jews CAN’T come to Christ, until Jesus unblinds them to see him as Christ.
But they will, and they will be saved JUST LIKE THE REST OF US.
Let me say that again…the Jews CAN’T come to Christ until Jesus allows them to see him as Christ.
Ed Chapman
Apologies Ed, my comment was.supposed to be directed to sinner saved
Ahh. No problem.
Sinner Saved,
I do not define the “sovereignty” of God the same way that you do. John 5 was to the Jews, not you. The conversations of Jesus in the 4 gospels are not directed at the “OTHER” sheep, which is you, a GENTILE.
There is a difference between the Sheep that Jesus was discussing, and the OTHER SHEEP which Jesus spoke about. Gentiles are the OTHER SHEEP.
JEWS:
Romans 11:8 (Deu 29:4)
8 (According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear;) unto this day.
GENTILES:
Romans 15:21
But as it is written, To whom he was not spoken of, they shall see: and they that have not heard shall understand.
JEWS:
Romans 15:8
Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision (JEWS)
GENTILES:
Romans 15:16
That I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles
In other words…stay in your lane as a Gentile.
Ed Chapman
I pray the Lord will have mercy on your souls. That you would bend the knee to the Christ of scripture and not Baal, the God of your imaginations.
Calvin’s god is not the God of the Bible. According to former President Thomas Jefferson, the Calvin god is a malignant demon. I agree.
Ed Chapman
This is called psychological projection.
The ego projects onto others – what is going on with itself! :-]
“And he said, I will make all my goodness pass before thee, and I will proclaim the name of the LORD before thee; and will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will shew mercy on whom I will shew mercy.”
Exodus 33:19 KJV
This is the God you hate. The one you call “calvin’s god.” Never read Calvin. Don’t care to either. But this pathetic, impotent god (little g) you worship, is a figment of your imagination. You don’t hate Calvinism. You hate the Christ of scripture who “{shall} save {his people} from their sins.” Matthew 1:21
The one who gave his life a ransom for “many.” All men without distinction (gay, straight, gentile, Jew, fat, skinny, rapists, ISIS members and choir directors ), not all men without exception.
Just one question, sinner…
When were you under the Law of Moses? HIS PEOPLE were the ones given the law of Moses, not YOU!
The strength of sin is the law. That is in 1 Cor 15, last verse. You were never under the law to begin with. They are the only ones under the OLD Covenant.
See Romans 5:13, 4:15.
Your ignorance of scripture is showing. There is a lot of cults out there who alll they talk about with other Christians is BAAL. Whoopti-do-da! YOu are a false accuser towards the BRETHREN. Be gone before a house comes down on you!
Ed Chapman
A gnostic warning someone that a house might come down on them? Must be Ed Chapman. Arch-heretic who believes that Jesus did not come for gentiles, who believes that God’s people are only the Jews, and therefore on the basis of Matthew 1:21 must believe that no gentile will be saved. And then you have the temerity to call someone an accuser of the brethren! Newsflash, gnostic, you aren’t part of the brethren! And you never will be until you repent!
Where is it written in any academic literature anywhere concerning Gnostics – that they believed a house would fall on someone?
Did you manufacture that out of thin air???????? 😀
Nope. I am accusing Ed Chapman of being a gnostic. Because he apparently has hidden knowledge that the rest of us Christians never got.
And your knowledge of the “secret will” of God (that conveniently happens to contradict His explicit will) is not esoteric, gnostic knowledge known only to acolytes of the calvinist system?
Okay, since you want to play that game, I’ll play it. You’re an Arminian, no matter what you say. I said several times that I am not whatever you people call a Calvinist, but since you don’t want to take my word for it that I’m not, I also won’t take your word for it that you are not an Arminian. Let’s play!
Nicely dodged my question. Am I a classical Arminian, a Wesleyan Arminian, or a Provisionalist? I’m sure you know the difference. So now, back to your estoric, gnostic knowledge of the “secret will” of God. Tell us more about that.
I never said I know secret will of God, but you want to keep lying, so lie yourself into hell, you son of the devil!
spurcalluth
I never said I know secret will of God
spurcalluth
but you want to keep lying, so lie yourself into hell, you son of the devil!
br.d
The fun part of statements like this is the total disconnect in the Calvinist’s mind.
The first part of the statement makes an assertion – and the second part functions as a denial of the first part! 😀
What are you talking about? How is the second statement a denial of the first? This is what happens when you love lies so much because the father of lies is also your father. You brother of lies, do you even know what a negation is? The negation of “I never said I know the secret will of God” is “I at one time said that I know the secret will of God”. But because you hate truth, you can’t even use basic logic. SAD.
I have no idea why you keep calling me a gnostic. Jesus explicitly said that he did not come but for the lost sheep of the house of Israel. He didn’t preach to gentiles. He told his disciples not to go to the gentiles. You don’t believe Jesus own words? Are you calling Jesus a gnostic?
Right, because John 3:16 says that God so loved the Jews, right? Not the world, just the Jews. Never mind that Jesus sent his disciples out into the world. Never mind that Jesus died for the gentiles too. No, Ed Chapman says Jesus only came for the Jews, and that is the end of it. In your mind, it is “Let God be a liar, and Ed Chapman speak the truth”. That’s gnosticism pure and simple, and I’ll call you a gnostic until you repent.
LOL! the ultimate irony, coming from one who changes John 3:16 to “for God so loved the elect”! Just when I thought I had heard it all…
You’ve heard me expound John 3:16? When and where???
Now is your chance to expound it. Alternatively you can dodge the issue.
Why should I expound it? You claim you already know my exposition. You haven’t answered where you heard it, but I’m sure you will, because otherwise you are a liar.
OK, you chose to dodge the issue. We can all see that.
You dodge my question as to when and where you heard me expound John 3:16, and then say that I dodge. You are right, we all can see what is happening. You call yourself a pastor? Why can’t you leave people well alone and just throw yourself in hell? Why must you drag others with you with your incessant compulsive lying???
Whenever you are ready, let’s hear your interpretation of John 3:16. All that emotional whining isn’t gonna get you off.
So that you and your lies won’t stand vindicated, I will tell you who what I believe “world” in John 3:16 refers to. I believe it refers to every individual man, woman, and child, Jew and gentile, who ever lived, lives now, and will live in the future.
Finally. And was God’s love for that world a salvific love?
Now you are trying to get off without having to show that you were speaking the truth. I have answered your question: You asked me who the world is, and I told you. Now you tell me where, before this comment section, you have previously heard me say what I believe world means. Or are you just going to stick with your lie and pretend nobody can see it?
So is it a salvific love or not? Simple question. I’ll while you get over your outrage.
Why don’t you want to even admit that you were lying? I thought you’re a pastor. Do you have no love for the One who is the Truth? We can deal with your wild goose chase in due time, but why won’t you even for a moment admit that you had no idea what I believed about John 3:16 before I told you? Because you must demonize me by calling me a Calvinist and you would look bad in front of your other non-Calvinist cronies if you admit that you can’t just magically turn commenters into Calvinists? If you have to take care for the souls of your congregation, can’t you even take care for your own soul?
How about this one… who was given the law of Moses, in which, when Jesus would speak things in the law, the prophets, and the psalms would know? Gentiles, or Jews? Did God order your ancestors to sacrifice at a temple and see a priest? Were you ordered to participate in the passover feast? Jesus came for those under the law of Moses. Period. He did not come but for the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Did he, or did he not say that?
Right, we’ll just call God a liar in John 3:16, shall we Ed? No, we shall not! You will, but I won’t. You want to run away to another passage and call this one a lie? I’m not going to let you do that without telling you that YOU are the liar.
Was Nicodemus a Gentile? No one began preaching to Gentiles until Acts 10. Gentiles were not looking for a Christ. When did the christ preach to a crowd of gentiles informing them about John 3:16?
You son of the devil, you will deny the very words of God because He did not AT FIRST speak it to whom your heart desires. You are your own god, and the devil that you are, you will give account to God for such blasphemy. Begone, you servant of Satan!
I never denied the words of God. I deny your version of the words of God.
One always knows one is dealing with an amateur when that person conflates their interpretation of scripture with scripture itself.
No Biblical scholar raises his interpretation up onto a pedestal essentially making it CANON
Like Roland does for example
Hiding behind the fallacious straw-man that any logical examination of Calvinism would be to subject scripture to the scrutiny of logic.
Any scholar who tried to use Roland’s silly argument would be immediately rejected at the table of dialog over any discussion of scripture.
Scholarship does not make room for such dishonest tactics.
But we find this tactic as the first tool almost all Calvinists who visit here – pull out of the tool-box.
Obviously it works for those who lack sufficient qualifiers to defend their positions.
So they must rely on subtle dishonesties in order to retain an appearance of credibility.
Yes, well, modern scholarship is apparently also honest and unbiased to such a degree that it is unwilling to call Muhammad a false prophet, so I wouldn’t be too keen to just accept anything that calls itself scholarship these days. Unless you agree that Muhammad was a true prophet? Or that no Jihadi crying out Allahu Akbar is a true Muslim? Or that abortion is a reproductive right? Or that Marxism will be the political salvation of the people? Or that white people are inherently racist? Or that it is impossible for black people to be racist? All these are the considered conclusions of the consensus of modern scholarship. Maybe it is not such a nice thing to be invited to sit at the table where these people sit. I should maybe clarify: I am not an obscurantist, I just have a healthy dose of skepticism for what the consensus of modern scholarship says.
Two points on your response to scholarship
1) It is another non-sequitor
On your argument if a person is not perfect then they can’t be used as a standard at all for anything.
I hardly think you would be silly enough to follow that line of reasoning in any area of your own life.
There may be some area in which you are compromises – and based on that – per your argument here – no one should trust you as a standard for anything.
2) Christian scholarship does not spend its time in processing inquisitions against religions outside of Christianity.
A Bible scholar is certainly no going to accept Muhammad as a prophet of God any more than a licensed physician accepts Acupuncture as a legitimate medical practice. Never the less – you don’t see doctors on crusades making public accusations against it.
But if you ask your doctor for his opinion he’ll gently tell you he doesn’t see it as legit.
Your reasoning would have us throw the disciplines of scholarship into the trash simply because they don’t behave like you happen to want them to on a certain issue.
I have suspicion you would not want to be held to that standard by anybody else.
I’m sorry to say – your response on the topic of scholarship collapses in on itself.
Well, I think you completely misunderstood my point. My point is not that scholarship is trash. My point is that scholarship is a mixed bag. Some of it is trash. Some of it is treasure. Like Richard Feynman said: “Science is the organized skepticism in the reliability of expert opinion.” He was right.
Oh, so it is MY version of the words of God that John 3:16 says “For God so loved the WORLD”? Well, even if it is mine, I still stand by it and you are welcome to start believing them as well, oh Pastor Wolf.
You are responding to the wrong person and in any event your childish ad hom is wasted. So does God love the world with a salvific love, or just some general non-salvific “benevolence” that nevertheless unchangeably ordains the majority of humanity to go to hell for doing what they were unchangeably ordained to do?
I wasn’t responding to you, that far you are correct. I pressed “Post Comment” a bit too hastily to clean up my comment. As for the rest, do you really think that there are only two ways to love someone; either you must love them enough to promise them eternal life and not deliver on your promise, or you must love someone so much that you save them from hell while consciously deciding to send other people to hell? By that reasoning, I don’t love my wife and you don’t love your flock. I know I love my wife. So I don’t think that benevolence is some ephemeral ghost of a nothing that means nothing and does nobody any good. I think those who we will see in heaven, were obviously loved with a salvific love (since they are saved). As for the others, I don’t know. I know that when God says He hated Esau and people say God never hated anyone, it is safer to go with what God said. If other people say that God hated Esau, but it means something other than actual hatred, I don’t know what to say. It makes a lot of sense (God does not actually want us to hate our fathers, mothers, wives, etc., does He?) but then, isn’t there a way to say non-actual hatred that is more clear than “Esau I hated”? On the other hand, if God hated Esau so much, why make Esau in the first place? God isn’t under any obligation to create stuff He hates, not even people-stuff. If you have a complete solution to this question, I am very happy for you, but I still have to think through the question a lot before I can tell you that I think I know the solution.
Thanks for your honest and thoughtful reply. My view is that no definition of love includes unchangeably ordaining someone to eternal torment for doing what they were unchangeably ordained to do. Especially since the word for love used in this verse is “agape”
I think I agree with you about the definition of love. I’m not sure what I think at the moment about the claimed incompatibility of an unchangeable decree and actual, genuine human freedom, and the syllogisms I’ve been given here don’t really help, since they just give me the feeling of oversimplification, but I agree that forcing humans to sin and then punishing them for sin would not be an act of Divine love.
Spurcalluth
forcing humans to sin and then punishing them for sin would not be an act of Divine love
br.d
Did anyone here say anything about humans being “forced” in Calvinism?
A father who wants to kill his blind daughter does not have to rely on physical force – to make her walk of a cliff to her death.
All he need do is create the conditions which guarantee she is given no other options – and cannot do otherwise than blindly walk of the cliff to her death.
We have the same model of Fatherhood we have in Calvinism – as it pertains to the “Evil” side of Calvinism’s DUALISTIC system.
With Adam for example – Calvin’s god by infallible decree – gives Adam only one option – eat the fruit.
Per the doctrine:
1) there MUST have been an infallible decree that Adam eat the fruit – because whatsoever comes to pass is the consequence of an infallible decree
2) It is logically impossible for any alternative of that which is infallibly decreed – to come to pass.
3) No future event can have existence without an infallible decree
4) Therefore the only event that was granted existence – was the event of Adam eating the fruit. The event of Adam NOT eating the fruit was NOT granted existence.
So in Calvinism we have a consistent model of divine control – which decrees people to infallibly be and do [X] – in order to justify sending them to hell for the [X] they were infallibly decreed to be and do
Most Calvinists when then they understand that as the issue – put their brain immediately into THOUGHT-BLOCKING mode – and don’t allow themselves to come to grips with it – for the same reason a stock investor refuses to let go of his collapsing stock investment.
You’re assuming realism about the abstract objects “events”. What happens when, like William Lane Craig, you deny the existence of abstract objects?
spurcalluth
You’re assuming realism about the abstract objects “events”
br.d
That fails also
Calvinism is predicated on the proposition that WHATSOEVER comes to pass requires a necessary condition – i.e. the infallible decree
In order for it to come to pass – that Adam does NOT eat the fruit – the necessary condition would be an infallible decree to that effect.
If that is the case – then per the doctrine – Adam NOT eating the fruit is what is granted existence – and Adam eating the fruit is NOT granted existence.
As James White would say:
-quote
We know the content of the decree by looking backwards
In other words – the Calvinist knows the content of the infallible decree – by observing what has come to pass.
For the Calvinist – the Bible record is that it came to pass – Adam did eat the fruit
Therefore – Adam eating the fruit was granted existence – and Adam NOT eating the fruit was EXCLUDED as an option – and granted no existence.
You keep talking about the Calvinist, sometimes throwing in Dr James White’s name. Is “the Calvinist” just your cutesy nickname for James White?
spurcalluth
Is “the Calvinist” just your cutesy nickname for James White?
br.d
Are you really serious!
Don’t you want to engage in conversation as an adult?
I am serious; I am just getting really exasperated that you keep telling me about the Calvinist this, the Calvinist that, the Calvinist the other, instead of actually talking about what I believe, despite my making it abundantly clear that when you say “the Calvinist does X”, you are talking about someone other than me. If you want a conversation, have a conversation with a person and not with your preconceived NPC.
The foundational core of Calvinism is Universal Divine Causal Determinism.
Sometimes called Exhaustive Divine Determinism
It would be possible for me to say “The Universal Divine Causal Determinist” – instead of saying “The Calvinist”.
But its more practical to say “The Calvinist”.
And when I give quotes from Calvinists – those quotes are – by their author – officially representative of “The Calvinist”
There are many people who want to embrace a very cherry-picked version of Calvinism – in order to claim themselves Calvinists.
And this is recognized within the Calvinist fold – even with Calvinist ministers who are considered less than fully Calvinist by other Calvinist ministers. There are many Calvinists who are essentially Arminians wearing Calvinism like a Sunday suit.
brdmod:
The foundational core of Calvinism is Universal Divine Causal Determinism.
Sometimes called Exhaustive Divine Determinism
roland
The foundational core of Calvinism is the Word of God as much as you continually perpetuate a strawman version of Calvinism, we Calvinists know what true Calvinism is.
brdmod;
And when I give quotes from Calvinists – those quotes are – by their author – officially representative of “The Calvinist”
roland
You and most others on this blog cherry pick quotes and take the quotes out of context. A lot of times you guys cannot provide the source for the quotes.
brdmod
There are many Calvinists who are essentially Arminians wearing Calvinism like a Sunday suit.
roland
Another vague and overly broad assertion without any evidence. How many Calvinists do you know that are essentially Arminians wearing Calvinism like a Sunday suit?
I doubt any true Arminian would be able to wear a Calvinist suit for long as non-calvinist despise Calvinist doctrines. This website and Leighton Flowers are evidence of this as Calvinism is referred to as a doctrine of demons and Calvinists are not even considered Christians by some on this website.
There is a distinct difference between the two languages
PURE Calvinist language is PURE and uncompromising “Deterministic” language
PURE Arminian language is PURE and uncompromising “Libertarian” language
When I bump into a Calvinist whose language is more Libertarian then Deterministic – while claiming to be a Calvinist – then that is an indicator of someone who is essentially an Arminian. Thus wearing Calvinism as a Sunday suit.
brdmod:
When I bump into a Calvinist whose language is more Libertarian then Deterministic – while claiming to be a Calvinist – then that is an indicator of someone who is essentially an Arminian. Thus wearing Calvinism as a Sunday suit.
roland
James wrote if the Lord wills, we shall…Our life, actions, decisions, etc. not ultimately up to us. If the Lord wills, the Calvinist can confidently confess this, the libertarian freewill proponent cannot, they can only say, “If we will, we shall…”
James 4:13-16
13 Come now, you who say, “Today or tomorrow ]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.
You are reading a presupposition into that verse – which it does not state.
Yes – it is TRUE that we humans don’t have foreknowledge
Every NON-Calvinist understands that.
But you are evading my point.
Libertarian function – by definition – is function in which the human brain is granted the function of determining TRUE from FALSE, RIGHT from WRONG, LEFT from RIGHT, UP from DOWN.
Determinism in contrast stipulates that such things are determined by factors outside of your brains control.
Your brain is therefore NOT granted the function determining TRUE from FALSE
So if you claim Libertarian function is unbiblical – then bite the bullet and claim your brain is not granted the function of knowing whether or not anything is TRUE or FALSE
Roland
The foundational core of Calvinism is the Word of God
br.d
Yea – that’s why all of academia recognizes Calvinism as Universal Divine Causal Determinism / Exhaustive Divine Determinism / Theological Determinism – rather than “The word of god”
What a hoot! ;-D
All academia doesn’t. There are Calvinistic academics. Why do you think you need to lie to prop up what you believe to be the truth?
There is just no communicating with you. I am a finite being. As such, I have to come to grips with the fact that there is only finitely many ways in which I can tell you that I am not what you represent as a Calvinist. I think I might have exhausted all those ways by now. If you still think I am “the Calvinist” after all we’ve said to one another, I don’t think I can communicate to you that I am not. Let me know, do you think there is any good that can come from a continued conversation between me and you? Are you someone that can be communicated with, or are you just the emperor of Opposite World?
Since the whole thread is supposed to be about calvinism, it would seem reasonable to expect that people who come here to debate have a clear position on calvinism, or are honestly seeking the truth. If you subscribe to the 5 points of TULIP, then whether you label yourself as a calvinist or not, soteriologically you align with calvinism and the underpinning principles such as universal divine causal determinism.
True, that is what you can expect debaters to do: take one of the two main positions under consideration. However, I checked the top of the webpage again, and it says Soteriology101, not DebatingSoteriology101. I’m not here to debate. I’ve debated a bit over here, I’ll admit, but my main purpose here is to think about Soteriology and to interact with other people who think about Soteriology. So, I don’t think it is reasonable to assume that everyone who visits this webpage must needs be a debater trying to bolster up Calvinism or a defender of the doctrines of Leighton Flowers. If that is exclusively the kind of people you want here, maybe you should rename the website to something like TulipsVsFlowers101.
So what new thoughts, ideas, questions have you acquired about soteriology since being here?
Well, to be fair, I have been here only for the duration of this comment thread, but what I’ve learnt is I need to still work a lot on my temper (not a soteriological issue, but certainly something important to learn). I’ve also learnt that some people (including a Calvinist; I was surprised by that) believe that the logical consequence of Calvinism is that God is the author of sin (again, not strictly speaking a soteriological issue, but definitely getting much warmer). I’ve learnt that pulling apart a theological position into several logical steps so you can really examine it properly is important. I think it was brdmod that did that with the statement “God decreed everything beforehand”. Man, I wish I could tell you I’ll get closer to soteriology than this in listing the things I’ve learnt, but I can’t.
If you have time, I recommend watching a 2 part video by Jerry Walls called “What’s Wrong With Calvinism”.
I’ll keep it in mind. Thanks for the recommendation. What do you think of Mike Winger?
Personally I find Winger OKish but quite irritating. Steve Gregg is a lot better.
Steve Gregg? Isn’t that the “kill the gays; kill Obama; kill any man that pees sitting down” guy?
Doesn’t sound like him if you search Steve Gregg Calvinism on YouTube you will get the right one. He has debated directly with James White as well as producing his own videos
Okay, if I get a chance, I’ll look him up. I first have to finish the videos by Jerry Walls on What’s Wrong with Calvinism first.
I started watching Jerry Walls. About 11 minutes into What’s Wrong with Calvinism, he defines libertarian free will. The problem is, his definition is incoherent. He says “A free action is one that is not determined by prior causes or conditions”. I have several questions (to quote JonTron, lol). Is it a condition for a free action to take place that there be a free actor? Is it a condition for a free action to take place that time exists? Is it a condition for a free action to take place that a free actor has enough potency to perform the free action? I’m sure more will occur to me if I continue thinking about this statement. So, is his definition correct or is it maybe shorthand for a longer, more accurate formulation?
A condition / pre-requisite is not a determinant. Neither is an influence.
That doesn’t say much to someone who isn’t using your dictionary. Could you please define terms?
A condition or pre-requisite is something that needs to be in place, so that something else is able to occur or be performed. So a free actor is a pre-requisite that needs to exist in order for a genuine choice to be made. They don’t need to be totally free, just sufficiently free to make a real choice between two or more genuinely available options.
However being a free actor in no way determines which option they will actually choose. Likewise, there can be a whole range of factors that can potentially influence the choice they make, but none of these factors determine the choice they will make.
Calvinists tend to live in a mechanistic, deterministic universe and are unable or unwilling to distinguish between cause and effect versus influence and response, or between enabling and causing (an example of the latter being their misinterpretation of John 6:44).
True, the existence of a free actor does not determine WHICH free action will be acted, but it does determine the possiblity THAT a free action can be taken. As long as there is no free actor, there is no free action either. Therefore, the existence of a free actor DOES play a determining role, whether Leighton Flowers and Jerry Walls want to admit it or not. It is a metaphysical necessity for a free action to occur that there be a free actor. So Dr Walls’s definition of a free action makes no sense.
“determining a possibility” = an oxymoron.
You claim that “determining a possibility” is an oxymoron. Care to elaborate on that claim? If you do, please don’t just justify that claim here, but immediately submit it to Harvard, Oxford, and Stanford for your chance to get a Ph.D., several honorary doctorates, and probably a couple of prizes in professional philosophy as well, as you will be debunking all of analytic philosophy.
I think I saw the answer to one of my questions there: After “A free action is one that is not determined by prior causes and conditions”, Jerry (Dr Walls? I don’t know his academic credentials and I don’t remember if they showed it at the start of the video) starts the next sentence with “As he…”. So clearly a free actor is a prior condition for there to be a free action. So I strongly suspect that his definition is shorthand for something more accurate.
A couple of points you might be interested in
1) Here is Calvinist Vincent Cheung on the subject of “Author of Evil”
-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, and some kind of
freedom that in their minds would render man culpable, and yet still leave god with total sovereignty…….When someone alleges that my view of divine sovereignty makes god the author of sin, my reaction is “So what?”
2) A certain percentage of what Calvinists are taught to accept as TRUTH exist only in the form of SEMANTIC REPRESENTATIONS
The current controversy over the issue of “Transgender” sports provides a good example:
An interesting percentage of people who are insisting on its justification – just happen to be biological men wanting to compete against biological females in order to win at sports competitions.
Arguments we can observe in this controversy include:
1) “We SAY we are female – therefore we are”
2) “We DEFINE ourselves as female – therefore we are”
These are SEMANTIC REPRESENTATION arguments
If a people group “SAYS” or “DEFINES” something as TRUE – then it is to be accepted as TRUE.
You will find this same pattern of argumentation in Calvinism:
John Calvin
-quote
“We [Calvinists] “DEFINE” ourselves as self-determining ……we “SAY” our choices are voluntary” (A defense against Pighius pp 69.70)
This is an aspect of Calvinist thinking that is not well recognized by Calvinists.
They are taught certain talking-points – such as “We DEFINE ourselves as self-determining” and “We SAY our choices are voluntary” and they simply assume those as statements of faith – and that is what establishes their TRUTH-VALUE.
But under scrutiny these argument collapse.
Per the doctrine – 100% of whatsoever comes to pass is solely and exclusively UP TO a THEOS at the foundation of the world – who leaves ZERO% left over to be UP TO any creature.
So how does is it possible for your “Self” to determine anything – when ZERO% of your “Self” is UP TO you to determine?
And how do you “volunteer” something – where it is the case that ZERO% of that something is UP TO you to volunteer?
So a portion of what the Calvinist is taught to accept as TRUE – simply boil down to “WE SAY” arguments.
Many Calvinists find “WE SAY” arguments within reformed confessions.
And they accept certain declarations as unquestionable TRUTH
And they are not emotionally prepared to allow those declarations to be put under scrutiny because they are emotionally invested in them.
I’m interested in the philosophy of mathematics. What I read there is a lot of “We define…” or “A [such and such] is called [new terminology]…” but these statements don’t make me think that all of mathematics is false. Do you have a vendetta against definitions? Or are you trying to make another point, such as that the definitions that Calvinists make, different from those of mathematicians, are not logically consistent with the system (in the case of the Calvinists, the system being the external world)?
The problem I pointed out with definitions – is the fact that their purpose is simply to supply a facade
I can define myself as a billionaire and get certain people to accept that is TRUE.
And under property scrutiny it will be obvious that is not the case.
In order to prevent that from being discovered – I simply avoid any such scrutiny.
Similarly – people groups – such as found with Transgender sports embrace their definitions as TRUTH
The Calvinist version of that entails embracing those definitions as divine TRUTH
Oh, I see the parallel that you are drawing between Calvinists and other groups of people. I thought you didn’t have a problem with definitions per se. I see I was correct. So it is the other possibility that you are suggesting: they make definitions that don’t correlate with reality. Now here comes the “million dollar question”: How do we learn about reality, so that we can compare other things with it? How do we fill in the J in JTB (justified true belief)?
br.d
Reality for humans is totally reliant upon perception.
And human perceptions can be unreliable.
But we have the tool of logic given to us – which can greatly improve our ability to separate TRUE from FALSE
If you are familiar with Syllogisms for example – then you know there are a total of 256 possible forms.
All of which lead to a FALSE conclusion – except for 24 of them.
That provides us with a taste of the probability of us humans coming to a FALSE conclusion simply by the manner of our thinking.
To be armed with that as a tool – for me is very empowering.
It doesn’t preclude making mistakes and coming to FALSE conclusions
But it provides a significant advantage for anyone – compared to not having that tool.
So as I said concerning scrutiny.
Many “WE SAY” / “WE DEFINE” arguments simply collapse under their own weight.
And we have to then ask – why does the group who makes those arguments need them?
And the typical reason is – because there are aspects of their system which they find unpalatable.
And they have to find ways of removing the unpalatable
If its logically impossible to remove – then at least create a way to mask over it – or otherwise make it disappear from view.
So you are a blend of an empiricist and a rationalist. Personally, I think that a good epistemology needs to have a little bit of authoritarianism in there as well. Not the political concept of authoritarianism, of course, but the epistemological concept that there are certain truths we know by authority. As a Christian, that authority would have to minimally include the Bible. I would argue that as a person living in the technological age, you probably need some other authorities too, like toaster user-manual writers, driving instructors, etc. I think we live in a world that is so fast paced today that you can’t really get by without these secular authorities. In the case of theology, we have our one infallible authority, the word of God, and many people believe that fallible authorities like church fathers and creeds serve the same role as toaster user-manual writers, driving instructors, and so on, in that they make life a little easier. It isn’t easy to deal with all the many ideologies and false religions that want to draw you away from Christ (the JW society, Mormonism, Islam, etc. ad nauseam) and these creeds help one to at least have some pat answers to them.
Calvinists have their own Rosetta stone. The only way their double-speak can survive in the debate zone is by constantly redefining words, equivocating and being purposely vague and fluid about their definitions. They redefine pretty much every word or phrase of soteriological significance, including love, grace, freedom, choice, sovereignty.
Yes!
And I would add to that – the practice of using “Replacement” words for words they do not like the implications of.
Take the word “Permission” for example – which is highly used as a replacement word for “Cause”
This practice was started by Augustine – who didn’t want to say “God Causes every sin an evil”
So he simply replaces the word “Cause’ with the word “Permit” – altering the meaning of the word “Permit” and giving it the meaning of the e word “Cause”
John Calvin
-quote
When he [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)
As a consequence – in order to avoid saying “god CAUSES all sins and evils” the Calvinist will say “god PERMITS all sins and evils”
This is called INSIDER LANGUAGE
The INSIDER (i.e. Calvinist) knows what he means is “Cause”
But he strategically misleads OUTSIDERS who are not aware that words are being used in a deceptive manner.
He can argue he did not CAUSE the OUTSIDER to be deceived
He simply PERMITTED the OUTSIDER to be deceived! 😀
Are you trying to argue that God does not permit evil? Then you have to either 1.) deny that any evil exists, which is absurd, or 2.) claim that God’s not permitting evil somehow does not result in the non-existence of evil. If you choose option 2, we are left with two options again: 1.) God is not able to see that His withdrawal of permission to the existence of evil ends up in the non-existence of evil, or 2.) God both permits and does not permit evil, again an anti-logical conclusion. So which of these many illogical conclusions are you aiming at? Or is it perhaps correct to say that God permits evil, and Calvin is wrong in interpreting permission as causation?
I’m sure BrD will answer for himself, but biblical non-calvinists don’t deny that God permits evil. The issue is that Calvinists use the word “permit” as a more palatable euphemism, when what they really mean is cause, unchangeably ordains, meticulously predetermine, render certain such that the actor cannot do otherwise.
Have you considered that the existence of evil, permitted as it is, may make the number of possibilities open to a “free actor” smaller (a “free actor” presumably being someone who “acts freely”, but we are discussing elsewhere whether that definition makes any sense)?
There are a lot of factors that can restrict the number of options open to a person on any given choice. That does not mean they cannot make a genuine choice between the options that are available. It does not mean that the option they choose is predetermined.
Sure it does. Take the trolley problem as a canonical example. You have the options to A.) not pull a lever that changes the track the trolley moves on or B.) pull a lever that changes the track the trolley moves on. Now, suppose it takes 450 Newtons of force to pull the lever. A strong man would be able to pull the lever. In this scenario, however, you are a frail old lady that does not have the bodily strength to exert enough force. So you can make the genuine decision to pull the lever, and try your hardest, but you might be unable to pull the lever nevertheless. The decision is genuinely made, but the option chosen is predetermined by the bodily strength of the frail old lady.
I suggest you spend less time trying to attack the philosophical underpinnings of Calvinism and actually learn a bit of philosophy first. It might make you look less like a frail old lady trying to pull a lever that you just can’t.
Do yourself a favour and stop being so pompous and pretentious. If you lack the physical capability to pursue a particular option, then that option is not genuinely available to you.
If you lack the physical ability to do something, then that action is not genuinely PERFORMABLE by you, but if you want to argue that only those actions that you perform are actions that you are genuinely free to perform, then you’re stuck with hard determinism. If you, on the other hand, want to argue that those actions that you have the physical ability to perform are the actions that you have genuine freedom to choose, then you have to admit that you have no evidence that you have the physical ability to perform them without actually performing them, turning all your free actions into merely hypothetically free actions. If you’re happy with that, cool, but be up front about it. The Calvinists I’ve spoken with would probably have nothing against hypothetically free actions, however, so you’ll probably have to stop attacking them on that basis.
I wish all philosophy was so easily dismissible as you think it is, but unfortunately philosophy is difficult and you have to think hard about it. Apparently you’re not willing to think hard about it.
A few critical points:
1) Hard Determinism is the thesis that there is no such thing as free will.
It does not apply to Calvinism SIMPLICITER
Calvinism is not Hard Determinism
2) The eradication of PAP Principle of Alternative Possibilities – is a consequence of Determinism SIMPLICITER
Whether that determinism is Hard or Soft makes no difference
3) The term “Genuine free” is so inherently vague – it hardly ever leads to anything but confusion.
A Calvinist – i.e. Compatibilist has – according to the belief has “Genuine freedom”
But that “Freedom” is limited to being and doing ONLY that which has been determined by an external mind.
Strange that you would criticize my use of the phrase “genuinely free” while not criticizing Pastor Loz’s use of the phrase that prompted my use of the phrase. Is that cronyism that I detect?
spurcalluth – wasn’t it you and I that had a conversation before about going off into the land of emotionalism in your responses – and why you would want to do that to yourself?
The phrase itself is what I explicitly wrote about.
Thanks for the clarification. You responded to me, so I thought the comment was directed at me.
When you have finished pontificating, the options choices and abilities that matter for this debate are the moral/spiritual ones. Calvinists frequently and dishonestly try to muddy the waters by introducing physical ability. God has determined that we are able to genuinely choose between accepting or rejecting salvation, not which option we will choose. He has enabled us to make that choice. Are you here to learn or just to show off?
Well, I can only learn from people who are able to teach. You are not able to teach about philosophy, I can tell. So stop trying. I say again, I am here to learn, but it is only possible to learn from someone who knows something. You don’t seem to spend any time trying to learn philosophy yourself, so how can you teach?
spurcalluth
it is only possible to learn from someone who knows something
br.d
Well – there we have it! :-]
Not sure what it is that you have, but I’m sure willing to celebrate with you!
I’m sure of that! 😀
spurcalluth
Have you considered that the existence of evil, permitted as it is
br.d
You mean divinely CAUSED as it is
Which for the Calvinist equates to “permitted” as it is
spurcalluth
may make the number of possibilities open to a “free actor” smaller
br.d
Where every event has been determined in advance – there are no such thing as “Possibilitie(s)” PLURAL
It is a logical impossibility for a future event to be both infallibly predetermined and OPEN at the same time
It breaches the law of non-contradiction
A predetermined world equates to a “CLOSED FUTURE”
For every event – there is only one SINGLE rendered-certain option.
See the Principle of Alternative Possibilities (PAP) and how i t is eradicated by Determinism
Now on the issue of “Free Actor” in Calvinism.
1) You are FREE to be/do ONLY what you were decreed to infallibly be/do
2) You are NOT FREE to be/do otherwise than what you were decreed to infallibly be/do
The freedom you have in Calvinism is classified as COMPATIBILISTIC freedom
COMPATIBILISTIC freedom is freedom which must be COMPATIBLE with what is determined.
Therefore any freedom that is NOT COMPATIBLE with what is determined – is an illusion.
Therefore – any time a Calvinist has a perception of having multiple options from which to select which are OPEN to him – represents a false perception.
As long as you think you are a better interpreter of what I mean than I am, there can be no conversation. Tell me to go suck a lemon if you want, or allow me to be the interpreter of what I mean. Your choice.
spurcalluth
As long as you think you are a better interpreter of what I mean …..
br.d
We all make mistakes
To make mistakes is human.
But I also understand Calvinist thinking – and understand – what the Calvinist says is quite frequently an unwitting denial of what he believes. Its just a matter of understanding that aspect of Calvinist thinking patterns.
Yes, we all make mistakes. Some of us (whose user names start with br and end with od) have been told many times to stop making certain mistakes, and keep making them. So, in the interest of any such individuals who might be in “earshot”: stop treating me and others as if you had complete exhaustive foreknowledge of their entire lives from the moment of their conception until their reception into glory.
That is funny!
All of those wild conclusions have good entertainment value! 😀
As opposed to what exactly? Is the phrase “libertarian freedom” a phrase in the Bible that appears next to a definition as if the Bible is a dictionary? No, of course not. So you have your own phrases that you define. When I asked you about the word condition in Jerry Walls’ definition of a free action, you gave me a series of other words that need their own definitions. So, although it seems like you are complaining that Calvinists define terms, that is surely not what you are doing. So what are you arguing?
I define terms in accordance with their normative dictionary definition. Of course definition is needed. I am talking about how Calvinist REDEFINE terms until they bear no resemblance to their normative dictionary definition.
Normative dictionary definition? NORMATIVE dictionary definition? You’re not paying attention to linguistics, sir, and it shows.
OK professor linguist, which word do you prefer? Normal? I believe you know exactly what I mean but you just want to split hairs.
Dictionaries are descriptive. They’re descriptive for a reason: Language is a shared convention, shared by people groups. That’s why you get British English dictionaries, Australian English dictionaries, American English dictionaries, not to even mention the various technical dictionaries such as medical dictionaries, mathematics dictionaries, etc. I even have an astronomy dictionary that one of my (now retired) colleagues wrote. MAYBE what you had in mind was a colloquial dictionary of some sort, but I can only hazard the guess that what you had in mind was an American colloquial dictionary? I don’t know on which continent you live, so I can’t specify more.
normative (adj.)
“establishing or setting up a norm or standard”
Therefore – the NORMATIVE definition for a word – is that definition which by default has become the standard definition.
In our world of technology – many companies race to flood the market with their technology – with the hopes it will become the defacto standard.
So which do you prefer, the standard, normal, commonly understood definition, the calvinist re-definition, or something else?
You are asking me to choose between different flavors of [BLANK]. As long as I don’t know what you put in the box, I can’t make a decision.
I guess one question that I “acquired” here (I’m not sure whether one acquires questions; it’s more like the stick to you like barnacles) is “Does God’s knowledge have any causal character at all?”
Yes, and a supplemental question would be why would it? Knowledge is just that.
Well, part of classical theism is the belief that God has the attribute of Divine Simplicity. If this belief is true, then God’s knowledge is identical with His will, His sovereignty, His mercy, His justice, etc. So if God is Divinely Simple, then God’s knowledge is causal. If God’s knowledge is not causal, He is not Divinely Simple (at least in the Thomistic sense of the word). Not an easy question to resolve. This is why it is not yet an answer, but only a question.
And all of that is an entirely human, unbiblical, philosophical creation. There is absolutely nothing in the Bible that states or even suggests that God’s knowledge = His will etc.
There is absolutely nothing in the Bible that says or even suggests that I am writing this comment on this webpage, yet it is true. What you said is relevant in that it points out that the source of the knowledge (if it is knowledge, perhaps it is anti-knowledge) is not infallible. But we can know things without the means of our knowing them being infallible. So do you have a counter-argument to Aquinas’ argument, or did you just want to point out Aquinas’s fallibility, something I already believed?
I don’t feel any need to counter Aquinas’s philosophical speculation. If someone brings Scripture they claim supports the idea that God’s knowledge = God’s will, and why they believe the Scriptures support that, I will engage. I believe the link is simply that God has perfect knowledge of His own will. Goes without saying really.
Yeah, after I asked you to respond to Aquinas, I realized that that is the wrong question. The better question is whether you have an argument that God’s will is not identical with his knowledge. The best question of all is whether you believe philosophy has any right to say anything about God that hasn’t been revealed in the Bible.
spurcalluth – a few points
Calvinism is a doctrine that doesn’t actually want to be precisely understood because there are aspects of it that are unpalatable to every Calvinist.
Accordingly Calvinists spend a lot of time cherry-picking what they will except within it. And a lot of time trying to paint false pictures of it.
Because this is a primary characteristic of the system – a large percentage of those who embrace Calvinism live in a world of theological talking-points – which have evolved over time and whose basic purpose is to put an acceptable spin on the product in order to maximize public opinion.
However under scrutiny – Calvinism’s theological talking-points can be observed as self contradicting
The strategy the preponderance of Calvinists choose to deal with the self-contradictions is THOUGHT-BLOCKING.
Or Roland’s approach – which is making Calvinism equal to scripture and then claiming it cannot be subject to scrutiny.
As a consequence – the preponderance of Calvinists can be observed as INCONSISTENT Calvinists.
We’ve had dialog with numbers of Calvinists here who fall right into that category for the above reasons.
So the fact that you don’t perceive yourself the way we observe you along with the preponderance of Calvinists – doesn’t surprise us at all.
I didn’t think you would be surprised. I’m actually working on an article about how fiction interacts with our worldviews, and one thing I’ve noticed is that fictional characters do not have the “fullness” that real people have. Fictional characters cannot really surprise their readers. To you, I would never be able to surprise you, because I do not have that “fullness” of a real person. Because that you have (libertarianly freely?) decided that I am not a real person. But that is not how I experience myself, so we definitely have different perceptions of me.
spurcalluth; To you, I would never be able to surprise you, because I do not have that “fullness” of a real person. Because that you have (libertarianly freely?) decided that I am not a real person. But that is not how I experience myself, so we definitely have different perceptions of me.
roland
Hello, and welcome. That is a great insight. Yes, as a Calvinist, I feel that I am not giving fulling personhood on this website. The posters on here respond as if I am not full human. It is also interesting on how you point out that brd has a different perceptions of you then you do of yourself. He definitely writes as if he knows how everyone perceives things.
specullath
But that is not how I experience myself, so we definitely have different perceptions of me
br.d
The key to understanding this – is differentiating your PERCEPTION from the PERCEPTION of your god.
If your PERCEPTION and his PERCEPTION disagree – then one of you is having a FALSE PERCEPTION
1) In Calvinism – with every fork in the path you face in life – the path that you will go has been determined *FOR* you – and FIXED by infallible decree.
2) A divine being has perfect knowledge – and knows perfectly well – that the infallible decree does not permit itself to be falsified.
He knows perfectly well – that with every fork in the path he sets before you – the only direction available to you – is the direction he determined
3) A divine being also has perfect knowledge – and knows perfectly well – that he – at the foundation of the world – solely and exclusively determined 100% of whatsoever will come to pass with every impulse in your brain and body. Leaving ZERO% of anything UP TO you.
4) Therefore – with every fork in the path – if your PERCEPTION is that you have the multiple options available to you – and you are the DETERMINER of which direction you go – then your PERCEPTION disagrees with what he knows. Which means – you live a life of FALSE PERCEPTIONS.
We were talking about the difference between my perception of me and your perception of me. You are not my god. I’ll repeat that in capital letters, because I realize that you have difficulty reading what I write: YOU ARE NOT MY GOD. So get over yourself and your god complex, man.
Sorry! I thought you and Roland were discussing the issue of human perceptions of reality.
And in order for you to LOGICALLY conclude I have a god complex – you would need an explicit statement from me to that affect
The fact that you jump to wild conclusions the way you consistently do – does not serve you very well.
But then again – as a Calvinist – there may be some reasons for actually preferring someone other than your god to be your god.
The Calvinist god infallibly decrees the Calvinist to go throughout his life living in a world of thousands of infallibly decreed FALSE PERCEPTIONS – and no ability to determine TRUE from FALSE – leaving the Calvinist with no epistemic reliability.
I’m sure glad my god doesn’t do that to me! 😀
Let me be explicit. Roland and I were talking about perception of reality. YOU and I were talking about how you can be unsurprised by what I am saying and how that is DETERMINED (I use this word ironically, please don’t die of apoplexy!) by the difference in perception you have of me and I have of me. In this conversation, you just jumped in to talk about the difference in perception God has of me and I have of me. I’ll diagram it for you if you’re having trouble following how I assumed that you substituted God into the position you had in our (brdmod and spurcalluth’s) shared conversation.
I think the problem is, we have no idea who brdmod is. We have no idea who Pastor Loz is. I’m not advocating doxxing, that’s the last thing I’m saying. Instead, what I am saying is that I have epistemological access to brdmod that goes precisely as far as my interaction with him on this forum in the context of the differing doctrines of God’s attributes, soteriology, and the freedom/responsibility of man. The same goes for brdmod relative to me. Now, if I come across Calvinistically, and he absolutely hates the theology of Calvinism, then both epistemological and emotional factors make me virtually indistinguishable from “the Calvinist”, the Platonic Object version of an adherent to Calvinism. It takes serious, hard, tiring mental effort to not fall into that trap. Work that I don’t always do, and that it is clear to me that brdmod doesn’t always do either.
spurcalluth
Now, if I come across Calvinistically, and he absolutely hates the theology of Calvinism, then both epistemological and emotional factors make me virtually indistinguishable from “the Calvinist”,
br.d
There is no need to create platonic smoke screens.
The good Lord gave the human brain the ability to look for patterns.
If it has web-feet, a beak, and wings, swims and flies and quakes – then we call it a Duck.
We do not see a pattern of Jehovah Witness or Mormons coming here to defend Calvinism.
The language of Calvinism has its own peculiar patterns
The thinking processes of Calvinism manifests its own peculiar patterns.
So one does not have to be an exact clone of John Calvin – to be successfully identified as a Calvinist. :-]
You are mixing up beliefs and speech patterns. I can pick up speech patterns from people around me without holding to their exact belief systems. The fact that you think that I cannot ironically makes you more of a determinist than I am.
spurcalluth
You are mixing up beliefs and speech patterns.
br.d
Nice try but no cigar! :-]
Calvinism has its own unique library of concepts – the outward expression of which is found in its language.
What many non-Calvinists are unfamiliar with however – is the fact that Calvinist thinking is heavily DOUBLE-MINDED.
So for example – when a Calvinist says he thinks the Non-Calvinist belief is non-sense.
What that Calvinist – without realizing it – is saying – is that his own way of thinking is non-sense.
A Non-Calvinist who doesn’t understand how DOUBLE-MINDED Calvinists are – would perhaps take offence to that statement.
He doesn’t realize the degree to which the Calvinist is oblivious to the fact that a large percentage of his thinking is a denial of his doctrine.
Awww, and I was SO looking forward to that cigar! I guess I will just have to cwy myself to sleep, uwu!
Is that honestly how you think I was going to respond? Who are you to dehumanize me?
Who is the world, as noted in John 3:16? Be very careful as to how you answer that question. If I am the wolf that you claim, then does God love wolves, too?
The world is every human. God loves wolves, enough to turn them into sheep: Paul was a Christian-murdering, Christ-hating, anger-filled Jihadi before his encounter with Christ on the way to Damascus.
Then you definitely depart from calvinism on that score, since their understanding is that sheep are born sheep and no goat or wolf can become a sheep. That Jesus died only for the sheep. Whereas a common non-calvinist position is that people become sheep at the point in time when they believe.
I would not be surprised if I depart from Calvinism in several points; as I’ve repeatedly tried saying (hopefully it is starting to come through), I am not just a blind follower of anything and everything that Jean Cauvin wrote.
So which of the 5 points of TULIP do you affirm?
Not so sure. I think all of them, but there seems to be a lot of philosophical underpinnings that I don’t affirm, so I don’t think I can give an easy estimate? Maybe e, the basis of the natural logarithm?
And what was Paul’s PRIMARY job after this encounter with Jesus? What Gentile did Jesus baptize into the faith when he walked the earth?
Paul’s primary job was preaching the gospel to the gentiles. Interesting that you should ask what GENTILE Jesus baptized; as far as I know, Jesus did not baptize a single person recorded in all of history or even the extra-biblical source material that we have about Jesus.
spurcalluth,
You had said:
“Jesus did not baptize a single person recorded in all of history or even the extra-biblical source material that we have about Jesus.”
My response:
Matthew 3:11
I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance. but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:
Mark 1:8
I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost.
Luke 3:16
John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire:
John 1:33
And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.
********************BEFORE JESUS DIED ON THE CROSS:
John 7:39
(But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)
********************AFTER JESUS ROSE FROM THE DEAD (GLORIFIED BODY)
John 20:22
And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:
THAT WAS JESUS BAPTIZING HIS APOSTLES (ONLY)…WITH THE HOLY SPIRIT. For the rest of the Jews…the following applies:
Pentacost:
Acts 1:5
For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.
Jesus DID INDEED BAPTIZE. But his baptism is NOT WATER, but the Holy Spirit.
The WATER baptism SYMBOLIZES “Dying with Christ”, dying to sin, and is significant as John’s baptism of REPENTENCE.
But yes, Jesus did indeed baptize APOSTLES before he left the earth in John 20:22
Ed Chapman
If you’re willing to use the same word for two VERY different concepts, then sure, Jesus baptized APOSTLES. Not sure how this applies to the distinction between Jews and gentiles, however, since Jesus baptized twelve men in total, according to this explanation, and not a single Jew more. Neither would He have baptized even one more Jew, even had another Jew been very desirous to be baptized by Jesus. Even on bended knee, he would be refused because he would not be one of the Twelve. So you make up a whole category of sub-human Jews who have less free will than every other human being on the planet (they cannot believe that Jesus is the Messiah, but every gentile ever had that ability according to you), and then try to force it into Scripture. I’m not playing that game with you, mate.
He didn’t baptize any gentiles while walking the earth. He did not come but for the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Jesus said that. Don’t deny it. We are the OTHER sheep, which Paul preaches to.
Did you believe Jesus sent His disciples out to all nations, or do you believe that He didn’t?
All men without distinction is an interpretation of scripture that is peculiar to Calvinism and Calvinism alone.
SINNER SAVED “And he said, I will make all my goodness pass before thee, and I will proclaim the name of the LORD before thee; and will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will shew mercy on whom I will shew mercy.” Exo 33:19
PL: How ironic that the quotation of the second half of this verse in Romans 9 was about God EXTENDING His mercy, not RESTRICTING it. Of course that is bad news for calvi-narcissists like yourself who long to feel like you are part of an elite, exclusive, special boys and girls club that the majority of humanity can never join.
SS: This is the God you hate. The one you call “calvin’s god.”…this pathetic, impotent god (little g) you worship, is a figment of your imagination.
PL: You mean the omnipotent God of the Bible who can sovereignly choose to exercise His omnipotence any way He chooses, not just the way that Calvinists try to dictate?
SS: You don’t hate Calvinism. You hate the Christ of scripture who “{shall} save {his people} from their sins.” Matthew 1:21
PL: No, we hate the doctrine of demons known as Calvinism, that blasphemes the character of the God of Scripture, who we do love.
SS: The one who gave his life a ransom for “many.” All men without distinction, not all men without exception.
PL: And the one who gave His life as a ransom for ALL. 1 Tim 2:6. 1 Tim 4:10. 1 John 2:2. Heb 2:9.
Sorry to bust your narcissistic bubble, but Jesus provided salvation for all and applies that salvation to all who believe. 1 Tim 4:10 is a verse that no Calvinist has been able to explain away. There are two common Calvinist attempts to do so and they both fail miserably. The “temporal Saviour” argument and the “only Saviour” argument. The latter is half true because Jesus is the only Saviour. But it doesn’t explain this verse, since in your philosophical theory, Jesus cannot be described as the Saviour of those who do not believe in any way at all. And before you reach for the standard straw man accusation of universalism, remember the difference between atonement and salvation, provision and appropriation. And read ROM 3:25 also.
BRDMOD
You aren’t hearing Him. “He who is of God hears the words of God; for this reason you do not hear them, because you are not of God.””
John 8:47 NASB1995
“My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: and I give (not offer) unto them eternal life; and they shall {never perish}, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.”
John 10:27-28 KJV
Salvation isn’t backing up one verse with another verse. Salvation is a person. Either you hear His voice by God’s sovereign grace, or you don’t. Men are not saved by an “ism” or a superior theology. Insisting that he died for absolutely everybody (including those who have perished) is antichrist, and is not what our Lord taught.
“Whoever does not love me does not keep my words.”
John 14:24 ESV
Sinner
You aren’t hearing Him. ……….
br.d
Your fallacy in thinking here is that you are conflating “You” with Him
An over inflated ego and visions of grandeur does that to a person! :-]
The hilarious part in all of sinners grandiose EX-CATHEDRA pronouncements – is that on his doctrine – he has NO CERTAINTY and NO KNOWLEDGE of his election status.
Therefore he has NO CERTAINTY and NO KNOWLEDGE that he isn’t TOTALLY DEPRAVED
And per the doctrine – he has a statistical probability of being created/designed specifically for eternal torment in the lake of fire – for Calvin’s god’s good pleasure
Calvinists who wind up in the lake of fire – will have plenty of time to tell people about Calvinism’s doctrine of “sovereign grace” ;-D
sinner
God’s sovereign grace……
br.d
Calvinists and their DOUBLE-SPEAK language
Always talking about “sovereign grace” when what they really have is “sovereign good-evil”
Always working to hide the “evil” parts of their “good-evil” doctrine – both from themselves and from others.
Because they know – if they don’t hide the “evil” parts of their doctrine – the Bible Reading Christian will reject their doctrine.
Funny that you have a problem with Sinner Saved saying that Jesus wasn’t sent for some gentiles but you have no problem with ChapmanEd24 saying that Jesus was sent for NO gentiles. Do you just maybe hate the name of Calvin? Is this what is at the root of your double standards here? If so, what do you do when you get in heaven and Calvin is there? Are you just going to eternally stay enemies with one of your brothers in heaven? I sure hope not.
SPURCALLUTH
You seem to speak the language of grace and have been given some measure of light that you are walking in. Sadly this seems to be a goat forum for those who hate the Christ of scripture and scripture tells us what to do when it comes to people like this:
“Let them alone; they are blind guides. And if the blind lead the blind, both will fall into a pit.””
Matthew 15:14 ESV
Looks like you are getting ready to run away and hide behind that as an excuse. You haven’t even begun to address the Scriptures I posted and points I made. Typical behaviour of a coward/bully who thinks they can burst upon the scene and “set everybody straight” when really all you have is rhetoric and posturing, It’s standard cage-stage calvinist behaviour that many never grow out of.
Pastor Loz
when really all you have is rhetoric and posturing,….
br.d
I wish I had a dollar for every time a Calvinist pops in here posturing his booming WIZARD OF OZ face of authority.
Imagining all of the tiny little feeble humans are going to tremble at the feet of his infallible divinenes! ;-D
Yes the God-complex is very strong with this one 🙂
If ever someone exemplified the serious disconnect between the supposedly “superior humility” of their theology, and the supreme arrogance of their actual attitude and approach…
All the while avoiding actually engaging with Scriptures and points. Still waiting for him to even attempt a response to 1 Timothy 4:10. The more we get of the “handbags at dawn” and “shaking the dust off my feet” approach, the more we know he doesn’t actually have any arguments.
Pastor Loz
the God-complex is very strong with this one 🙂
br.d
Oh that is funny!!!
And so hits the bulls-eye!
Again with the WIZARD OF OZ routine! 😀
Just wondering if the vulgar language you had to remove from sinner saved’s first post was part of the “language of grace”…
Nope!
But then Calvinism is REALLY a doctrine of “Good-Evil” anyway.
SPURCALLUTH
The only error I see is that you’re referring to these people as “brethren.” “Brethren” who perhaps have an inferior theology. That’s not what’s going on here. They aren’t brethren. They want to speak ill of our husband (the Lord Jesus Christ) and declare that He’s a failure, because they cannot hear His voice, so they cannot enter into our joy unspeakable.
I am totally depraved, totally unable to come to Christ by my “free will.” I’m evil continually. And the good news? Christ came into the world to save “sinners”, no qualifiers needed. Not “repentant sinners”, not “believing sinners.” Just sinners. Real sinners, not pretenders like the Pharisees. But you members of that damnable denomination “Yeah, but…” cannot enter into His promises because you have not been taught by God what monsters of iniquity you are.
You say “This is my God” right up until God declares He will have mercy on whom He pleases, then you say “No! That man will not rule over me!” There’s nothing to debate or discuss. It is finished. Salvation is DONE for His people.
spurcalluth
I am totally depraved, totally unable to come to Christ
br.d
According to Calvinism – if your current state is TOTALLY DEPRAVITY then your current state is – that of an enemy of god who is totally bereft of the knowledge of the truth.
In such case – would would be classified as a false believer.
John Calvin would say you:
-quote
“Have nothing of Christ but the name and outward appearance.”
It’s that “who can be the most depraved wretch” calvinist false humility competition again.
Oh look, people who didn’t need Jesus to save them! Must be amazing to be little gods! Too bad the rest of us have to deal with a fallen world.
Please quote one person on here who has stated they didn’t need Jesus to save them. There is a world of difference between acknowledging all of our helplessness and hopelessness without Christ, which all biblical non-calvinists affirm, and the reverse beauty pageant of wretchedness that the false humility of many calvinists indulges in.
Oh, so we need to accurately represent you as people who believe they needed Jesus, but when a Calvinist does it, it cannot ever be sincere and you can misrepresent them as much as you like? When does the hypocrisy end???
I’m confused; are you attributing those words to me? I didn’t write them.
Ok, “Sinner Saved”…. which is it. You said – “I am totally depraved, totally unable to come to Christ by my “free will.” I’m evil continually.” So are you still totally depraved, or are you lying about yourself? Are you still unable to come to Christ by a free will, or can you come boldly befoe the Lord? Are you still evil continually, which means you need to be saved, or are you imputed with the righteousness of Christ.
You can’t have it both ways. Who are you really in your inner man? But I see such false humilty and double speak in many who defend Calvinism! And as self professed, “totally depraved” and “evil continually”, they sure are quick to judge others as lost. It is a wonder how they can have such godly discernment when they are so “evil continually”! 😉
Well said, Brian Wagner: “You can’t have it both ways. Who are you really in your inner man? But I see such false humilty and double speak in many who defend Calvinism! And as self professed, “totally depraved” and “evil continually”, they sure are quick to judge others as lost. It is a wonder how they can have such godly discernment when they are so “evil continually”! ”
And I love this, Pastor Loz: “It’s that “who can be the most depraved wretch” calvinist false humility competition again.” They really are infatuated with trying to prove that they are more depraved than the next person, clamoring to beat out Paul as the “chief of sinners.” It’s thinly-veiled pride disguised as “humility.” “Look how amazing we are to be so ‘humble’!” But I echo what Ed Chapman says, that Calvinism is “a cult, plain and simple”. It relies on manipulating people into it, such as by using people’s desire to be humble and to glorify God against them.
And BRDMOD, I totally agree with this: “All men without distinction is an interpretation of scripture that is peculiar to Calvinism and Calvinism alone.” Funny how they can twist (or at least, THINK they can) all those clear “Jesus died for all” verses into “Jesus didn’t die for all,” using a rambling, mash-up of half-verses, taken out of context, that don’t clearly say that.
And Sinner Saved, since you are clearly the most humble, specially-gifted, specially-chosen, favored-by-God person here, I suggest you leave and don’t risk contaminating yourself with the likes of us. After all, what does your amazing light have to do with our hopeless darkness?
Like I said, you’re working way too hard. I pray the Lord teaches you.
Thank you! He does!
And I pray the same for you. :-]
An excerpt from: A MORE INTELLECTUALLY HONEST VERSION OF CALVINISM’S TULIP
“P” Possibility of Election:
According to the underlying doctrine, an individual’s election is either infallibly/immutably true or infallibly/immutably false.
And it is a logical impossibility for something that is infallibly/immutably true to ever be false. Therefore, the notion that something infallibly/immutably true needs to “Persevere” in order to keep itself from becoming false is no more rational than a married bachelor.
The idea of apostasy or falling away in this context is an illusion, and the typical resolve concerning an individual in that situation, is that he was never really elect in the first place. And that individual’s perception of election and salvation as infallibly/immutably true, would have been a predestined illusion.
“P” Possibility of Election
Any human certainty of election in this lifetime is a predestined illusion. Each believer is promised only the possibility of election.
Which is why Calvin had to invent the sick game his god plays called “evanescent grace”. Something many calvinists either don’t know about or do their best to dispel, otherwise they would have no assurance of being part of the special boys and girls club.
Brian Wagner
I don’t mind saying Almighty God manipulated me through what 2 Timothy calls the “holy calling”
His people {shall be} willing in the day of His power . Psalm 110:3
He caused me to approach unto Him (Psalm 65:4) and now his spirit bears testimony with my spirit that I am both evil continually and made perfect by His doing and dying. “For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that {are} sanctified.”
Hebrews 10:14 KJV
Sinner
I don’t mind saying Almighty God manipulated me through what 2 Timothy calls the “holy calling”
br.d
Then you also don’t mind saying the almighty god manipulates you in the process of every sin and evil.
Making every sin and evil irresistible to you.
That would be consistent with the doctrine of divine sovereignty.
Otherwise one is attempting short-sheet his almighty god! :-]
Don’t you just love the way his god manipulated him to use that vulgar language!
Makes perfect sense!
All human function – including all sins and evils – occur infallibly in Calvinism
And that which occurs infallibly within the creature – occurs “irresistibly” within the creature
You fools would rather sit around and blame God for sin and slobber over some dude named Calvin than just bend your knee to His word. Goats don’t like sheep food, huh?
Ironic We don’t blame God for sin, but your philosophical theory inevitably concludes with God as the author of sin. but of course you don’t actually understand / don’t want to face / don’t want to admit to the unavoidable conclusions of your system.
Since you kids are so eager to get God off the hook, let me save you some calories. Christ is the “Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.” Revelation 13:8
God created the universe for the sole purpose of killing His perfect, beloved Son.
What else you got? I’ll wait.
SS – you might want to do some more research on Rev 13:8. You are reading wrong ideas into it, like many have done.
Rev 13:8 NKJV – All who dwell on the earth will worship him, whose names have not been written in the Book of Life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.
I suggest a comma be placed after the word “slain” to disassociate it from the last prepositional phrase – “from the foundation of the world.”
Actually when comparing with 17:8 it is easier to see 13:8 is not about the Lamb being slain “from”, “at”, or “before” the foundation of the world, but the main idea is the recognition that those who follow the beast have never had their names added to the Book of Life of the Lamb who was slain in AD 30. The book existed from creation, and their names, of those who follow the beast, were never added during their lifetime.
It is trying to make Rev 13:8 say too much to say it means God foresaw before creation the crucifixion as a settled event, in the words – “written in the book of life of the Lamb slain, from the foundation of the world”. The last phrase – “from the foundation of the world” – most likely modifies “written”, like it does in the parallel passage in 17:8. And the word “slain” is just a modifier of “Lamb”, as it is in Rev 5:6 (“and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as though it had been slain”).
The Lamb was slain in AD 30. There is no indication in this verse of something being in God’s mind “before” creation, for the word is clearly “from” (meaning starting at and going forward). The Lamb was slain in the fullness of time, not before (Gal 4:4). And names started being written in this book of life after the foundation of the world.
Just when I thought you could not get any more ridiculous, you managed it. Talk about putting the cart before the horse. There is absolutely no verse in Scripture to support your demonic claim. God put His salvation plan in place from the beginning, because He always knew it would be needed. Oh by the way, 1 Tim 4:10 is STILL flapping in the breeze, waiting for you to attempt response. It’s not going away
You need deliverance.
sinner
sit around and blame God for sin…..
br.d
A unique characteristic of Calvinism is that “Good” and “Evil” are Co-Equal, Co-Necessary, and Co-Complimentary
That’s why it is described as a DUALISTIC system of “Good-Evil”
And that is why so many things in Calvinism appear in the form of “Good-Evil” pairs.
As Augustine taught it to Calvin:
-quote:
By this very contrast, it comes about that EVIL THINGS MUST NEED BE.
In this way, the beauty of all things is in a manner configured, as it were, from antitheses, that is, from opposites: this is pleasing to us even in discourse”. (ord 1.7.19)
And as Calvinist Jonathon Edwards reiterated – Evil as a necessary PART of divine glory:
-quote
“It is proper that the shining forth of god’s glory be complete……
That is ALL PARTS of his glory should shine forth….
Because the shining forth of gods glory would be very imperfect, both because THOSE PARTS of divine glory would not shine forth as the OTHERS do……nay, they could scarcely shine forth at all” (The Works of President Edwards).
Brian Wagner,
Do all the gymnastics you like. It doesn’t change what happened. God chose that His darling son would be glorified through the means of heinous, brutal death and agony, and ultimately suffer the equivalent of hell in his body on behalf of His people. You guys mock me, but I seem to be about the only person in this forum who isn’t saying “yeah, but….” at every single turn in scripture.
SS… That is a typical response of someone who has no response to good grammatical, contextual explanation of a passage.
We should be in agreement that the decision was made before creation for the payment for all sins to be provided if Adam or any of his posterity would sin. But we will likely disagree that God did not predestine every sin, or any sin, to take place, including all of yours and mine committed today. 🙄
Brian,
But we will likely disagree that God did not predestine every sin,
br.d
But of course – the foundational core of of the doctrine – specifically asserts that “WHATSOEVER” comes to pass within the course of time and creation – is FIRST CONCEIVED in the mind of Calvin’s god – and then FIXED to come to pass infallibly and immutably – by divine decree.
The term “WHATSOEVER” means “Exhaustive – Without Exception”
The Calvinist who will not compromise on divine sovereignty – is going to assert compromising on anything at all – including the least sin or evil – would be to deny and thus disgrace the exercise of his god’s unquestionable divine right.
The traditional Calvinist response to anyone who complains is “Who are you oh man to judge god”
As Calvinist R.C. Sproul states:
-quote
If there is one single molecule in this universe running around loose, god is not god”.
And Calvinist Paul Helm asserts:
-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”.
And Calvinist James White asserts:
-quote
We don’t know the contents of god’s decree until we look backwards.
And Calvinist Robert R. McLaughlin asserts:
-quote
“The omniscience of god merely PROGRAMMED into the divine decrees all our thoughts, motives, decisions and actions, which include our sins and failures as well as our successes”.
Well obviously He predestined every sin. He predestined the worst sin known to mankind. The death of His son. And even ordained the damnation of Judas in order that His Son would be slain.
He even controls every roll of the dice. Proverbs 16:33
I’m not even breaking a sweat here.
You guys sleeping? Next.
Cool!
Then that separates you from a lot of Calvinists who have come here and argued the opposite.
In such case – I would assume you can offer praise for every sin and evil that comes to pass – because each one represent an express manifestation of divine glory
And as such – you’d certainly want to praise him for WHATSOEVER comes to pass
And fully attribute WHATSOEVER comes to pass – solely an exclusively to the only one who has any say in the matter of WHATSOEVER comes to pass
And of course – you can easily acknowledge that as a fallible creature you are granted no escape from sins and evils you are predestined to infallibly and irresistibly commit.
Just a correction there, Sinner Saved. The death of Jesus was not a sin. The KILLING of Jesus was a sin, but not His death.
In your quote, Edwards makes no mention of evil at all. Anyone can add anything they like into a quote if they don’t care to produce the words that back up what they are saying the quote says. In this case, how do I know you aren’t the devil that likes adding evil where it isn’t?
Here you go buddy! So we can see how your god is dependent on evil in order to be fully glorified. Poor dependent God!
It is a proper and excellent thing for infinite glory to shine forth; and for the same reason, it is proper that the shining forth of God’s glory should be complete; that is, that all parts of his glory should shine forth, that every beauty should be proportionably effulgent, that the beholder may have a proper notion of God.”
Thus it is necessary, that God’s awful majesty, his authority and dreadful greatness, justice, and holiness, should be manifested. But this could not be, unless sin and punishment had been decreed; so that the shining forth of God’s glory would be very imperfect, both because these parts of divine glory would not shine forth as the others do, and also the glory of his goodness, love, and holiness would be faint without them; nay, they could scarcely shine forth at all
Thanks for the quote. Looks like Jonathan Edwards thought he could philosophize himself into the unrevealed secrets of God. That is one of his greatest faults. He’s wrong to think that his speculations are on the same level as Scripture, and if he starts out at that wrong assumption, no wonder that his conclusion is wrong.
spurcalluth
Edwards thought he could philosophize himself into the unrevealed secrets of God
br.d
Yes – he was a good follower of Augustine and Calvin in that regard! :-]
spurculluth
if he starts out at that wrong assumption, no wonder that his conclusion is wrong.
br.d
When a Calvinist calls something “wrong” what he typically means is that it does not conform to the current Calvinist marketing talking-points.
It can and often is TRUE
But since it doesn’t produce the appearance the Calvinist is taught to produce of his system – that is what makes it “Wrong” for the Calvinist.
Edwards was following Augustine – as you can see by both of those quotes.
When one examines how many things appear in the form of “Good-Evil” pairs within Calvinism – it becomes clear what both of them were enunciating is the DUALISTIC “Good-Evil” element within the system..
It is the “evil” part that Calvinist marketing language is designed to hide
For obvious reasons.
BTW:
Edwards is noted by many reformed leaders as bringing about a -quote “water-shed” into reformed thinking.
As a result – many Calvinist leaders today are ardent followers of Edwards – and claim him one of the most brilliant philosophers in history
John Piper for example will tell you he is an “Edwardian” Calvinist.
There was a previous stream of reformed thinking – which evolved up through the years – which allowed for a minimal amount of Libertarian freedom for the creature. Reformed thinkers in that stream believed they saw two lines of thought within scripture – which for them showed both divine determinism and also Libertarian freedom for the creature.
The “Edwardian” movement introduces a much higher reliance upon non-Christian philosophy – to adhere to a more strick form of Determinism.
That previous stream of reformed thinking which allowed for Libertarian freedom of the creature died off with age.
And the current stream of Calvinist thinking retains a pronounced adherence to Exhaustive Divine Determinism.
Yes, and to compound the narcissism of Calvinism, Edwards believed that the non-elect existed to make the elect feel even better about their elect status.
Pastor Loz,
If there is a quote to that effect – I’d love to add it to my database.
There is. I will dig it out. Jerry Walls has it as a slide in one of his “What’s wrong with Calvinism” videos.
AH!
I have a copy of that video – I’ll look for it!
Thanks :-]
Cool, I am on my phone so don’t have it now. There is a similar quote by another Calvinist, some name like Matthew Hart.
Br D, as request, three quotes that truly highlight the grotesque, callous, electo-centric, self-obsessed narcissism of calvinism. Wrong on so many levels – Scriptural, logical, moral.
“If Calvinism is true, it seems perfectly easy for God to create a world in which universalism is true – a world in which everyone accepts God’s offer of salvation and goes to heaven. Why wouldn’t God do this?…I suggest it is for the sake of the occupants of heaven that God creates people to occupy hell…the occupation of hell enables both an understanding of God’s nature and good attitudes towards God on the part of the elect that wouldn’t otherwise be possible” (Matthew J. Hart)
“Gratitude through appreciation of the likelihood of the alternative…But consider this quote from Edwards: ‘When [the elect] see others, who were of the same nature, and born under the same circumstances, and plunged into such misery, and they are so distinguished, O it will make them sensible how happy they are’… So if plucked from a sea of unbelievers, you would therefore have much more cause to be grateful. Now we see that God has reason to make it the case that the damned numerically far outstrip the elect…The more reprobated earthly companions the elect receive, the more appropriate or “truer” it will be for them so say, ‘I could have been damned’, and their gratitude at being in heaven will increase” (Matthew J Hart)
“Gratitude through appreciation of the frequency of the alternative….Consider the following scenario: you attend a house-party to which you received an invitation. The wine flows and the heart is made glad. Now suppose you discover that there are a great many people outside, all clamoring for entry, but who can’t enter because they have not been invited. Your happiness at being invited is likely to increase, and this reaction is surely appropriate. The rarer a desirable commodity, the higher it is valued. By reprobating a greater number to hell, the elect are premitted a great gratitutde not otherwise available to them: a gratitutde at being part of the few that are saved” (Matthew J Hart)
The reason I am not leaving is because I believe it is important to add to the collective exposure of just how demonic calvinism and the god it creates truly are.
Well then we have different aims. I am not leaving because I believe people who believe differently from me are not demons who want to destroy my soul, and therefore conversing with them is not a burden but a joy. Honestly, though, the people here are really testing me on that joy part; I apparently have a long way to go to be able to talk about things like salvation without getting over-emotional. Emotion is fine (after all, should salvation NOT be an important issue to us?), but histrionics is not fine, and I have my days (several of them here) where histrionics overshadow candid and rigorous talking and thinking.
Please distinguish between calvinism and calvinists. To say that calvinism is demonic is not saying that calvinists are demons. It is the theology / philosophy that is demonic in its origin. Calvinists are people. They may well need deliverance from demons.
Do you believe a person can be both a Calvinist and a Christian at the same time?
Yes, I believe it is possible, but not guaranteed. Since no Christian has perfect theology.
I don’t believe Christians need deliverance from demons. They probably have a lot of need of deliverance from false mindsets and preconceptions, but not from demons, I think.
That has not been my experience, and I have been involved in deliverance ministry for quite a few years. A Christian cannot be POSSESSED by a demon as their born-again human spirit is occupied by the Holy Spirit and one with Him. But in their souls and bodies they can be OPPRESSED by demons, affecting their thoughts, emotions, behaviour and health.
Yeah, I’m skeptical about deliverance ministries in general, but I don’t know enough to tell you that what you experienced was nonsense, so I’d rather not go into a discussion of deliverance ministries at all. Can I just say “Pass”?
You would love to be a witness to Pablo Bottari’s gospel crusades in countries where witchcraft is a prevalent power.
They have a special tent area dedicated for people who come forward to accept Jesus – but who also have to be delivered from demonic influences which have taken control over their lives.
Oh, I believe in demonic deliverance of unsaved people, don’t get me wrong. I just don’t see that as a ministry that needs anyone other than your regular old pastor. If someone preaches the gospel and pastors your church, I don’t see why you need to call in an “expert” to deal with such things. And I fully believe that unsaved people can still be demon possessed.
spurcalluth
Oh, I believe in demonic deliverance of unsaved people
br.d
This tells me – all of this is theoretical for you.
That is the case isn’t it?
No, I’ve seen it. If you live in Africa as a Christian, you will see it sooner or later.
spurcalluth
No, I’ve seen it
br.d
That is exactly what I would expect
And as a Calvinist – you probably will never see it.
Even though it is taking place in the U.S. – how be it outside of the domain of Calvinism.
Statistically speaking – I know of no record whatsoever of a Calvinist minister ever casting out a demon.
The role of the Calvinist pastor is reinforcing the congregations embrace of the doctrine.
brdmod:
The role of the Calvinist pastor is reinforcing the congregations embrace of the doctrine.
roland
You accused me in another post of appealing to strawman arguments but I have to say that your understanding of Calvinism and “Calvinist pastor” as you put it are built upon strawmen. What you stated above is false. That is not the role of a pastor in a Reformed church. But no matter how many times I communicate something you will continue to propagate your strawmen arguments of Calvinism and now Calvinist pastors. I can say I’ve visited at least a dozen Reformed congregations within our network of churches and this is not the role of our pastors, “reinforcing the congregations embrace of the doctrine.” Our pastors primary duty is to preach the Word of God, administer baptism and the Lord’s Supper, preserve true doctrine according to Scripture, and church discipline as well as helping the needy within our congregation.
The Government of and Offices in the Church
We believe that this true Church must be governed by the spiritual policy which our Lord hath taught us in His Word—namely, that there must be ministers or pastors to preach the Word of God, and to administer the sacraments; also elders and deacons, who, together with the pastors, form the council of the Church; that by these means the true religion may be preserved, and the true doctrine everywhere propagated, likewise transgressors punished and restrained by spiritual means; also that the poor and distressed may be relieved and comforted, according to their necessities. By these means everything will be carried on in the Church with good order and decency, when faithful men are chosen according to the rule prescribed by St. Paul in his epistle to Timothy.
Sorry Roland – your silly escape strategy – as your way of avoiding the logical implications of the doctrine – is in fact something you manufactured.
I challenge you – in the hundreds of posts I’ve made – to find just one post – in which I subject one single verse of scripture to logic
You simply made that up in order to fabricate a FALSE picture which you created.
You won’t be able to find one single post in which I subject scripture to logic.
And that is in fact what a straw-man is! :-]
brdmod:
Sorry Roland – your silly escape strategy – as your way of avoiding the logical implications of the doctrine – is in fact something you manufactured.
roland
I’ve admitted to the logical implications of Calvinism in another post. Yes, the logical implication of Calvinism does lead God to be the author of sin. But I’ve also stated that the Bible does not present God as being the author of sin yet He has determined all things. There are many Scriptures that show this.
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.
The acts of Herod and Pontius Pilate with the gentiles were God’s purpose determined before to be done. God determined that they would crucify Jesus yet they are responsible for their acts. This is a plain statement of Scripture. I don’t need Calvinism to believe this I just need God’s Word.
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 HE THINK SO IN HIS HEART;
But it is in his heart to destroy,
And cut off not a few nations.
Here’s another example of God using men as instruments to accomplish His will and purpose. God is SENDING AND GIVING yet Assyria does not mean to do this nor does he think to do this. This is God exercising His sovereignty in creation. Again, I don’t need Calvinism to teach me that God can and does use men in this fashion. God is using the Assyrian king’s heart, which is seeking to destroy, to accomplish HIs purpose. As a Calvinist I can say that this Scripture is true and God’s actions in this section of Scripture are holy because God is holy. I can also say and believe that despite the manner in which God is sending and giving the Assyrian king charge, the Assyrian king is still responsible for his actions. The king’s actions are God’s work yet God punishes the Assyrian king.
Isaiah 10:12
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.”
How do you fit this section of Scripture into a syllogism in order to prove libertarian freewill? How does one reconcile that God is acting to move the Assyrian king yet the king is still responsible for his actions?
I would like to hear any explanation for this from anyone on this website. I would like to read a post where someone explains how the king is acting in a libertarian freewill manner and God is just passively observing the king’s actions.
roland
roland
I’ve admitted to the logical implications of Calvinism in another post. Yes, the logical implication of Calvinism does lead God to be the author of sin. But I’ve also stated that the Bible does not present God as being the author of sin yet He has determined all things.
br.d
Anyone who can’t differentiate scripture from his interpretation of scripture – should not be taken seriously in such discussions
And that is your current situation.
You could have said:
1) the Bible does not present God as being the author of sin
2) yet PER CALVINIST INTERPRETATION He has determined all things.
I suspect you understood that if you stated (2) that way – the answer would be obvious
The disconnect is not with scripture – its with the CALVINIST INTERPRETATION
Whenever any data is handled by irrational thinking – the inevitable outcome is irrational conclusions
Whether that data is scripture or any other data – does not change that fact.
A major problem of Calvinism is a doctrine which the Calvinist is forced to treat *AS-IF* it is FALSE in order to have any sense of normalcy. The non-Calvinist reads the same exact scripture – but does not have that problem.
That fact serves as a clear indicator – the problem is not with scripture.
<<>>
Wrong again. You need Calvinism’s INTERPRETATION of Scripture to believe it, because there are OTHER POSSIBLE INTERPRETATIONS of Scripture. If you don’t admit that there are other possible interpretations, then you are elevating Calvinism to the level of Scriptural authority.
God predetermined that His Son would lay down His life – voluntarily, as a sacrifice for all of humanity. He did NOT predetermine the sins of those men, such that they could not do otherwise. He didn’t need to. James 1:13 – God does not sin, nor does He tempt men to sin. He FOREKNEW what those men would do to Jesus.
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 HE THINK SO IN HIS HEART; But it is in his heart to destroy, And cut off not a few nations.
<<>>
This is a great example of how you completely got that one round your neck, partly because you haven’t read the context. If you read the context, you would know that Assyria was ALREADY intending to DESTROY MANY NATIONS. In other words, to go FAR BEYOND what God intended, which was the disciplining of a single nation. So it’s not that the King of Assyria was sitting there all innocent and harmless and then God ensured that he would sin (where he would not have done otherwise). The Assyrians were ALREADY sinning and God’s intervention was simply to SEND those already destructive forces against Israel. If they hadn’t gone against Israel, they would have gone against one of the many other nations they had in mind.
<<>>
You do love your false alternatives, as if those are the only two options available. They are not, as illustrated by my comment earlier in the post.
Pastor Loz
If you don’t admit that there are other possible interpretations, then you are elevating Calvinism to the level of Scriptural authority.
br.d
BULLS-EYE!!!!
And any scholar who ever got caught trying to pull of that scam job – would be rejected by scholarship and his opinions would be thrown in the trash.
Pastor Loz
He did NOT predetermine the sins of those men, such that they could not do otherwise.
roland
Acts 4:28 to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose determined before to be done.
That’s exactly what the text says, that’s exactly what Peter prayed! The men did what God had determined for them to do, that is kill Jesus. This is a plain reading of Scripture. What need is there to “interpret” the text? You sound like you are saying that human interpretations of Scripture give Scripture their true meaning. If the text needs to be interpreted, are you saying that humans cannot understand what Peter prayed without a person’s interpretation of the text? Do you believe that God cannot speak plainly enough in His Word to communicate His truth to us? Do you believe He needs our interpretation, our help, in order to communicate clearly?
Pastor Loz
The Assyrians were ALREADY sinning and God’s intervention was simply to SEND those already destructive forces against Israel.
roland
Yes, they were already sinning but God SENT them. If you deny that God sent Assyria, as the text plainly states, there is no need to interpret, then that’s denial of Scripture. That’s denial of God’s activity in creation.
Pastor Loz
If they hadn’t gone against Israel, they would have gone against one of the many other nations they had in mind.
roland
But the truth in Scripture is that they did not go to another nation. God sovereignly intervened and sent Assyria to Israel, then God punished Assyria for what they did to Israel, yet God sent them there.
Roland
to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose determined before to be done.
br.d
What Calvinism does is ASSUME “whatever” in that verse means 100% of WHATSOEVER comes to pass in all of creation every nano-second in time.
No where does that verse imply that decree of Determinism.
The Calvinist is therefore READING INTO the verse what is not there.
“The Calvinist”, your favorite pseudo-person, reads the word “whatever” in the phrase “whatever Your hand and Your purpose determined”, says that the word “whatever” occurs in that phrase, and he is then accused of reading the word “whatever” into the word “whatever”. Well, if only you could always do eisegesis by just reading the words on the page, maybe you too will one day be “the Calvinist”.
Pastor Loz: He did NOT predetermine the sins of those men, such that they could not do otherwise.
roland Acts 4:28 to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose determined before to be done.
That’s exactly what the text says, that’s exactly what Peter prayed! The men did what God had determined for them to do, that is kill Jesus. This is a plain reading of Scripture. What need is there to “interpret” the text? You sound like you are saying that human interpretations of Scripture give Scripture their true meaning. If the text needs to be interpreted, are you saying that humans cannot understand what Peter prayed without a person’s interpretation of the text? Do you believe that God cannot speak plainly enough in His Word to communicate His truth to us? Do you believe He needs our interpretation, our help, in order to communicate clearly?
PL: NOPE. This is where you ignorance of the Greek comes in. γενέσθαι (genesthai) is correctly translated WOULD HAPPEN, not TO BE DONE, and indeed that is how other versions translate it.
Pastor Loz The Assyrians were ALREADY sinning and God’s intervention was simply to SEND those already destructive forces against Israel.
roland If you deny that God sent Assyria, as the text plainly states, there is no need to interpret, then that’s denial of Scripture. That’s denial of God’s activity in creation.
PL What did I write? You evidently didn’t read it, ro you wouldn’t have said “if you deny that God sent Assyria”. Read it again.
Pastor Loz If they hadn’t gone against Israel, they would have gone against one of the many other nations they had in mind.
roland: But the truth in Scripture is that they did not go to another nation. God sovereignly intervened and sent Assyria to Israel, then God punished Assyria for what they did to Israel, yet God sent them there.
PL: Again missing the point by a country mile. As I myself already said (but you didn’t read), God sent them, HE DID NOT ORDAIN, PREDETERMINE OR CAUSE THEM TO SIN.
James 1:13 evidently isn’t in your Bible after all.
Roland
Yes, they were already sinning but God SENT them
br.d
Fred’s wife SENT him to the grocery store to get some items.
Does that mean Fred’s wife determines whatsoever comes to pass with Fred?
Again we have the same error of READING a conception of Determinism into the text that is not there.
Denying what is not stated in the text – is not denying scripture.
br.d
Fred’s wife SENT him to the grocery store to get some items.
Does that mean Fred’s wife determines whatsoever comes to pass with Fred?
roland
Fred is a creature. God is the creator. Fred lacks many essential attributes that God possesses. Such as omnipresence, omnipotence, and omniscience. Unless you believe that Fred possesses these attributes your analogy fails. This shows your presupposition that equates man’s freewill with God’s freewill. You assume they are equal and that’s why when you read about God exercising His will in Scripture, you conclude that it must be the same as man’s freewill or it is not freewill at all.
roland
Fred is a creature. God is the creator.
br.d
AH! Now that is a philosophical argument – which you are now imposing on the text – because it otherwise doesn’t say what you want it to say.
Lets concentrate on what the text says.
Otherwise you are subjecting scripture to Calvinist logic – which you claim you would never do.
I’m not sure brdmod is capable of having a conversation. I basically said “Yes, I’ve seen demonic possession” and he came away with the conclusion that I said “No, I haven’t seen demonic possession”. If you tell him up, he hears down; if you tell him right, he hears left; if you tell him good, he hears evil. I don’t know how to talk to someone like that.
So tell me what you’ve seen?
I’ve seen people disrupt a screening of the Jesus film with drunkenness. I’ve seen a man writhing around on the floor with three grown men trying unsuccessfully to hold him down so he doesn’t hurt himself or us. We prayed for this guy, and after about 10 minutes of intense prayer, the man became calm, sat up, and asked for us to explain the gospel to him. And I’ve seen this man change from a wild-eyed demon possessed berserker turn into a Christian. I’ve spoken to several other people close to me who had similar experiences. You can tell me things happened differently, but my eyes say different, and I’ll rather go with their evidence on this.
I’d better remember never to take any hermeneutics classes from you. I said I’ve seen demonic possession, and you reply with “And you probably never will”. Sounds like you decide what I’m supposed to say and then answer according to that. Again I’ll urge you, if you ever want to stop talking to NPCs and actually have a conversation with a living human being, I’ll be available. Hit me up.
Deliverance ministry shouldn’t heavily depend on specialists, but many churches don’t teach on it or practice it hence there are gaps that need to be filled.
I guess that is probably the case in the USA. Here in Africa in between the sangomas and the animistic religion in general, you get exposure to it pretty soon.
Yes, I was referring more to UK/USA, I know other places have a very different picture.
that is funny!
Pablo Bottari does not consider himself or anyone in the deliverance ministry a specialist.
I think speculluth response here is emotional and pejorative – because he doesn’t find the clear implications of this topic complimentary to Calvinism.
An emotional response is exactly what we should expect.
Was I being pejorative about deliverance ministry? I don’t remember being pejorative, but if you say so… I was just thinking that I don’t know of any Scriptural precedent for deliverance ministry, and I don’t think it is necessary to have specialized deliverance ministries. Is it a personal attack if I think something you do is unnecessary? Must I support everything you do or be called a hater? Please clarify for me.
spurcalluth
I don’t know of any Scriptural precedent for deliverance ministry,
br.d
Then for you – Jesus and Paul casting out demons was not precedent setting.
Again – you’ve already acknowledged this subject is pretty much theoretical for you.
I could make a similar proclamation about Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity.
Once people understand I don’t speak with any authority on the subject – they know not to put any weight in my opinion.
I suspect if your neighbor became aware of a certain type of insect threatening his home – he might want to seek out someone who has a sufficient knowledge and experience to properly deal with it. And as his neighbor you could still offer your opinion on the subject and declare the person he was looking for would be a “Specialist” – and you don’t think there is any precedence for that.
If you think Jesus’ ministry was exclusively to drive out demons during the three years before His crucifixion, then you have severely missed out on the point of the Bible. I know Him primarily as my Saviour, but He did do other things too, like drive out demons from the possessed. That does not make it a deliverance ministry (in the sense it is used today; I recognized that He delivered us from the Evil One).
Spurcalluth
If you think Jesus’ ministry was exclusively to drive out demons ……
br.d
This is called the fallacy of FALSE dichotomy – sometimes called “All or Nothing” thinking”
I suspect the reason for this response is to deflect from the fact that you don’t see Jesus and Paul casting out demons as precedent setting.
And you don’t see that position as very viable.
So avoid the problem by trying to manufacture one on me.
spurcalluth
That does not make it a deliverance ministry
br.d
To call someone a “deliverance ministry” is a notion you introduced in this conversation – not me.
The term “ministry” simply means to perform some kind of service.
In this case – deliverance from demonic influence is that service.
BTW: You were going to tell me your personal experience on the subject
If I didn’t see that post – please forgive me – what is it again?
I think there is a lag between what you write and what I write because I’m trying to work through my emails for the day. I told you my experience elsewhere, you should have it by now. If you just meant that deliverance should be part of the ministry of the pastor, then I agree. I’ll go even further and say that it is part of the ministry of every Christian, because I believe we are saved to serve. Maybe you agree with this, maybe you don’t. I guess I’ll find out in a few minutes when I read your reply.
br.d
Ok – so I need to go searching to find the post in which you presented your experience.
I think I can read through the lines on what that is all about.
And yes there are things that every Christian “Theoretically” should be able to do.
But the business of warring against spirit beings is – to a certain degree – antithetical to the Calvinist believer – by virtue of the doctrine.
Since in the doctrine stipulates that WHATSOEVER comes to pass – which would have to include demonic activity – is 100% meticulously played out by an infallible script that cannot be broken – then for the Calvinist we have a model that looks much more like a theater show – in which the Calvinist believer and the demon spirit simply play pre-scripted parts.
Secondly – if the demon is simply functioning as a meticulously controlled instrument – whose activity manifests the divine will – then the Calvinist is going to wonder if he is warring against the divine will.
Thirdly – for a believer – whether Calvinist or not – to participate in any such activity requires experience and familiarity with the manifestations and understanding principles by which demon spirits operate. And we are not going to see that level of familiarity in any average Christian church.
You don’t have to go searching. I assumed that the answer would be right below or right above your reply. Maybe it was a bad assumption; I haven’t yet figured out how Soteriology101 orders their comments. I’ll see if I can find it and post it for you here. Below is what I commented in answer to your question.
“I’ve seen people disrupt a screening of the Jesus film with drunkenness. I’ve seen a man writhing around on the floor with three grown men trying unsuccessfully to hold him down so he doesn’t hurt himself or us. We prayed for this guy, and after about 10 minutes of intense prayer, the man became calm, sat up, and asked for us to explain the gospel to him. And I’ve seen this man change from a wild-eyed demon possessed berserker turn into a Christian. I’ve spoken to several other people close to me who had similar experiences. You can tell me things happened differently, but my eyes say different, and I’ll rather go with their evidence on this.”
br.d
Thank you for find this for me!
spurcalluth
“I’ve seen people disrupt a screening of the Jesus film with drunkenness.
br.d
Drunkenness all by itself can be readily observed as a human physical activity – which wouldn’t typically entail demonic influence over a person’s faculties
spurcalluth
I’ve seen a man writhing around on the floor with three grown men trying unsuccessfully to hold him down so he doesn’t hurt himself or us. We prayed for this guy, and after about 10 minutes of intense prayer, the man became calm, sat up, and asked for us to explain the gospel to him.
br.d
Not that is different!
But did that explanation include the Calvinist proposition that WHATSOEVER comes to pass does so solely and exclusively by an infallible decrees – so that this fellow could understand that the power controlling him was exactly what was infallibly decreed – and therefore could not be otherwise?
spurcalluth
And I’ve seen this man change from a wild-eyed demon possessed berserker turn into a Christian.
br.d
Well – if you accept Calvinist doctrine – then you have to say he APPEARS to be a Christian – because he elect status in Calvinism is a divine secret. NOTE: See the Calvinist doctrine of the invisible church.
So based on that – you know that you don’t see any similar manifestations – but you don’t really know if the demon is or is not still there.
spurcalluth
I’ve spoken to several other people close to me who had similar experiences. You can tell me things happened differently, but my eyes say different, and I’ll rather go with their evidence on this.”
br.d
Understood!
I’m guessing none of these people were Calvinists???
Because the whole business is as I pointed out earlier is antithetical to the doctrine.
To be fair, when I was talking about my past experiences with people who were demon possessed, I did not have in mind the connection this might or might not have with Calvinism. I was talking more specifically about the viability and Scripturalness of having a ministry that is solely focused on driving out demons. We have some people here in Africa saying that this is what their ministry is, so I’m not just talking about hypotheticals. I would have to think about how what I saw strengthens or weakens the case for Calvinism (the more broad concepts of Calvinism, we’re not really talking about soteriology here). The other people I talked to were not Calvinists, but I don’t think that really makes or breaks the case for Calvinism. It just indicates that I am not allergic to interactions with non-Calvinists.
Yes – I agree with this!
And we take not of the fact that demons are REQUIRED to use SEDUCTION as their means to obtain a foot-hold in a person’s life
That fact is about a clear an indicator as one can get – that people are granted some degree of LIBERTARIAN CONTROL over those aspects of their lives.
A demon would have no success at SEDUCING something out of you – when it is the case that everything about you is meticulously determined by factors outside of your control.
So demon possession and demon oppression become totally senseless in Calvinism
And that is why there is no such thing as a Calvinist operating in any kind of deliverance ministry.
The Calvinist does not war against principalities and powers
He simply functions as one of the many puppets within a theater show
The Calvinist and the demon are both meticulously controlled exactly the same – by the same exact invisible strings of infallible decrees.
So now you DO believe in infallible decrees, but they only apply to Calvinists and demons? Is there any distinction in your mind between a Calvinist and a demon?
Well now, that is just stupid. God elects me to make me feel like I’m just dandy, and doesn’t elect you to make me feel even more dandy? Sounds like the Lord of the Universe is there to look after my ego! I don’t believe that [REDACTED] (I thought I might as well redact myself, since it was probably going to happen anyway).
I think I might be more like the old-school Calvinists then. This philosophical stuff Edwards is peddling seems to go beyond what he has any means of knowing.
You said “When a Calvinist calls something “wrong” what he typically means is that it does not conform to the current Calvinist marketing talking-points. It can and often is TRUE. But since it doesn’t produce the appearance the Calvinist is taught to produce of his system – that is what makes it “Wrong” for the Calvinist.” That’s very interesting. Let me know when you’re done talking to that Calvinist, then we can maybe have a conversation about what I believe. I don’t like to eaves-drop.
Pastor Loz shares a Calvinist quote: “…the occupation of hell enables both an understanding of God’s nature and good attitudes towards God on the part of the elect that wouldn’t otherwise be possible”
Wow! That makes me really sad, that anyone would try to convince others that the only way the saved can truly … what? be thankful to God? be grateful? feel His love? experience His grace?… is to know that there are people in hell, to compare ourselves to those God supposedly didn’t choose to love and save. That’s sick! Truly sick! Because knowing God’s love, grace, and forgiveness should make us desire it even more for others. It should truly break our hearts that people die without it.
Also quoted: “you attend a house-party to which you received an invitation. The wine flows and the heart is made glad. Now suppose you discover that there are a great many people outside, all clamoring for entry, but who can’t enter because they have not been invited. Your happiness at being invited is likely to increase, and this reaction is surely appropriate.”
And yet, in Calvinism, those “great many people outside, all clamoring for entry, but who can’t enter because they have not been invited” are burning eternally, forever tormented … while the Calvinist elect smile, drink, and toast each other, cheering that they won the salvation lottery.
Very sad. — Please listen – “Sinner Saved” to the words of Jesus! [Mat 5:22 NKJV] “…. But whoever says, ‘You fool!’ shall be in danger of hell fire.”
“Pastor” Loz
If 1 Timothy 4:10 means what you hope it means, is that really any comfort to you?
If you can’t hear His voice, then what good is “potential” salvation?
And if the God of the universe is too weak to obtain that which He purchased with His precious blood, does this not deny what He says of Himself?
“Of all that He has given me, I shall lose {nothing}.” John 6:39
Not sure what flavor of deception you’re attempting to select….
Thanks for proving you are unable to address the verse.
Since it has all taken place under the covenant of grace, and man has nothing to do with his salvation in any way, yes every single one of my sins (past, present, and future) has from my birth been working together for the good of my salvation. There is no sum of evils, no height of depravity I could have reached to bring His sovereign purpose to a halt in my salvation. Romans 8:28
Yes, this means that while (all) things {including the most vile of our sins} are working together for the good of His called out elect, everything is conversely working out for the destruction of those outside the ark of God’s love.
And to “Pastor” LOZ,
I’m not bothered by any passage in the scripture. If you feel like you got a feather in your hat, then write your family immediately. But I wouldn’t want to hang my soul on a theological position. Rather a Person, the Lord Jesus Christ. Do you hear His voice?
SS… So are you rejoicing in the sins you committed today, thinking, though wrongly, that they were predestined, eternally and immutably, “for the good of [your] salvation”?
No one, not even your reformed pastor believes that false interpretation of Rom 8:28. And I sure hope you’re not in a pastoral leadership position. You should ask your Calvinist leaders whom you respect about that one! You’ll see that no one agrees with that view.
Yes, God will work with your “vile sins”, including judging you harshly for them, to bring about good for believers, like causing them to fear lest they fall like your evil example. But none of your “vile sins” had to happen because God decreed before creation they must!
Believing that premise itself is an evil sin of dishonor to God!
Sinner
everything is conversely working out for the destruction of those outside the ark of God’s love.
br.d
And in Calvinism – that would be the “MANY” who at the foundation of the world were designed/created specifically for eternal torment in the lake of fire for his good pleasure.
Which of course would include the “MANY” within the Calvinist fold – per the Calvinist interpretation of the wheat and the chaff
They are also designed/created specifically for eternal torment in the lake of fire for his good pleasure.
Thus we have another doctrine unique to Calvinism – The divine deception of the believer.
As John Calvin states it:
-quote
But the Lord…….instills into their minds such a SENSE…..as can be felt WITHOUT the Spirit of adoption.
(Institutes pg 342)
-quote
those whom he illumines only for a time to partake of it; then…..strikes them with even greater blindness (Institutes vol 2)
And as to the proportions within the fold – those Calvinists who are not divinely deceived are
-quote
A small and contemptible number hidden in a huge multitude – a few grains of wheat covered by a pile of chaff
Hi there brdmod. You quoted “A small and contemptible number hidden in a huge multitude”. Where is that quote from? I don’t know anyone who knows the number of God’s people who will one day be in heaven nor the number of His enemies that will one day be found in hell. I wonder who this person with hidden knowledge could be that could know the proportions of saved vs unsaved.
spurcalluth – those quotes are all over the internet!!!!
Just take “Calvin, small and contemptible number hidden in a huge multitude” and paste it into google.
BTW: That is the Calvinist interpretation of the wheat and the chaff.
And it makes perfect sense – once you think it through.
1) The Calvinist interpretation of romans 9 is of a divine potter at the foundation of the world – without taking into consideration anything having to do with the creature or the condition thereof – but determining solely withing himself – creates/designs humans specifically for two purposes (Notice the “Good-Evil” DUALISM there)
2) The Calvinist understanding of the FEW and the MANY is going to naturally conclude – those are the divinely set proportions.
In other words – those designed/created as vessels of honor represent the FEW in proportion – while those created/designed specifically for eternal torment in the lake of fire – for his good pleasure – represent the MANY in proportion.
3) The Calvinist interpretation of the wheat is that they obviously represent the FEW who are – at the foundation of the world – created/designed as vessels of honor
4) Likewise the Calvinist interpretation of the chaff is that they represent the MANY who are – at the foundation of the world – created/designed for eternal torment in the lake of fire for his good pleasure.
5) It makes perfect sense then – that Calvin would recognize divine deception of the believer as the means through which Calvin’s god would create the chaff.
Calvin observed that his followers all perceived themselves as elect. And he understood that perception would have to be a FALSE perception if the doctrine is TRUE. And in Calvinism – WHATSOEVER (in this case perception) comes to pass – is the consequence of a divine decree
Thus we have the divine deception of the believer in Calvinism.
And that is where Calvin gets a “huge pile” for those who are given a FALSE perception of election – vs – a “Few grains” as the wheat.
This is not – as you can imagine – a widely publicized aspect of the Calvinist system.
A pastor like John Piper for example – who may have Non-Calvinists in his congregation will risk loosing them if he expounds on this aspect of the doctrine. As is the case with most Calvinist pastors – they concentrate on enunciating divine benevolence – and hide the aspects of Calvinism in which there is divine malevolence. (Notice again the DUALISM here)
I’m sorry, saying that the chaff just vastly outnumbers the wheat doesn’t make sense to me. Maybe it is because I am not a farmer, but wouldn’t a vast amount of parasitic organism (or am I getting this confused with tares; are tares and chaff the same thing???) just choke out the host organism and kill it, thereby making its own life unviable? As to all the dualism talk that you say Calvinism teaches: it seems like you have a lot of time to think about the underlying philosophy of Calvinism. I have to admit, I don’t. I realize that I am commenting on a website called Soteriology101, but this seems more like Soteriology637 to me. I have a lot of stuff (I mean a LOT) to work through before I get anywhere close to thinking this hard about the underlying philosophy of systematic theological systems. Do I really need to know all this stuff? Can’t I just believe that God knows what He’s doing, that He saves those who come to Him in faith, and that He doesn’t save those who reject Him? And if not, how do I get enough time in my day to think about the philosophy of soteriology for hours every day? I’m not saying this because I think just any soteriology is fine: I sure as heck know that Jesus didn’t come just to save Jews like Ed Chapman thinks. But all this other stuff about figuring out exactly how God is in control and yet we have free will seems like a post-graduate research project in the philosophy of free will, for which I don’t have the time or the interest at the moment.
Brian Wagner
No, I mourn my sins continually, because my Lord bore them in His body. This group has some bizarre fetish and fascination with what if’s. I’d rather deal with what is. “Your sins and iniquities I will remember no more.” Hebrews 10:17
Why are you guys so mind-numbingly obsessed with unlearned questions and endless pontification? I use fowl language about this group’s dynamic because it’s so loaded to the hilt with man’s wisdom that it’s utter foolishness.
Sinner UNCERTAINLY saved
I mourn my sins continually……
br.d
You mean you don’t offer praise for sinful and evil impulses he decrees to infallibly and irresistibly come to pass – using your brain and body as his means to glorify himself?
Each and every sinful/evil impulse – specifically decreed to bring a specific kind of glory to himself!!
Every one is an opportunity to be used as an instrument of his glory!!!
Are we halting between two opinions?? :-]
SS, I’ve nothing more to add, since you will not engage with my reasoning and responses about Scripture that you’ve been given. It appears you really are just interested in using “fowl language”, for what I am reading from you just sounds like so much theological quackery! 😉
brian,
It almost sounds as if he’s been listening to Paul Washer in the “Woe is me” episodes.
Ed
SS: The one who gave his life a ransom for “many.” All men without distinction, not all men without exception.
PL: the one who gave His life as a ransom for ALL. 1 Tim 2:6. 1 Tim 4:10. 1 John 2:2. Heb 2:9. Sorry to bust your narcissistic bubble, but Jesus provided salvation for all + applies that salvation to all who believe. 1 Tim 4:10 is a verse that no Calvinist has been able to explain away. There are two common Calvinist attempts to do so + they both fail miserably. The “temporal Saviour” argument + the “only Saviour” argument. The latter is half true because Jesus is the only Saviour. But it doesn’t explain this verse, since in your philosophical theory, Jesus cannot be described as the Saviour of those who do not believe in any way at all. + before you reach for the standard straw man accusation of universalism, remember the difference between atonement + salvation, provision + appropriation. + read ROM 3:25 also.
SS They aren’t brethren. They want to speak ill of our husband Jesus Christ + declare that He’s a failure, because they cannot hear His voice, so they cannot enter into our joy unspeakable.
PL: Completely beyond your skillset and paygrade. However what is very clear is that from the moment you inserted yourself in this thread, you have not demonstrated the slightest shred of the fruit of the Spirit. You have not demonstrated the slightest evidence of God is in your heart. All we have seen is arrogance, hatred, snideness and narcissism. We know you by your fruit. You are a narcissist. The reason we can see you have no love in your heart (except some twisted kind of self-love) is because your attitude is basically, “I’m alright Jack, I’m saved, stuff the non-elect”. Calvinists like Spurgeon, as inconsistent as they were, would find you to be a complete embarrassment.
SS Since you kids are so eager to get God off the hook, Christ is the “Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.” Rev 13:8. God created the universe for the sole purpose of killing His perfect, beloved Son. slain in the fullness of time, not before (Gal 4:4). + names started being written in this book of life after the foundation of the world.
PL: Again the verse says absolutely nothing about God creating the universe for the sole purpose of killing Christ. You read that into the verse. That’s eisegesis. God put His salvation plan in place from the beginning, because He always knew it would be needed. You make every prohibition, every warning, every rebuke and every lament of God concerning sin to be completely disingenuous and so you make God out to be a liar.
SS God chose that His darling son would be glorified through the means of heinous, brutal death + agony on behalf of His people. I seem to be about the only person who isn’t saying “yeah, but….” at every single turn in scripture.
PL: That’s because you persistently refuse to engage with the Scriptures we put before you. That’s why you haven’t engaged with 1 Tim 4:10, because for you to do so would involve you having to say, “Yeah but it doesn’t REALLY mean He is the Savior of all”. So instead, you adopt the cowardly and lazy way out.
SS obviously He predestined every sin. He predestined the worst sin known to mankind. The death of His son. + even ordained the damnation of Judas in order that His Son would be slain.
He even controls every roll of the dice. Proverbs 16:33
PL: He predestined the Son laying down His life as a perfect sacrifice for all humanity, not the sin that caused it. Is James 1:13 not in your Bible? Judas chose of his own accord to betray Jesus. God knew that he would and used that knowledge in His plan. As for Proverbs 16:33, if you knew anything about the custom and practice of that time, you would know that casting lots was a recognised means of seeking God’s will on a matter. Like the Urim and Thummim.
SS “Pastor” Loz, If 1 Timothy 4:10 means what you hope it means, is that really any comfort to you? If you can’t hear His voice, then what good is “potential” salvation?
PL: So you still haven’t addressed the verse (because you can’t, so you pretend you are “not bothered”. I know what 1 Tim 4:10 means, and your standard “potential” salvation straw man has nothing to do with it. Jesus actual provided actual salvation for all, and He actually applies that actual salvation to those believe. Calvinists only have two possible ways to twist this verse – that Jesus is some kind of “temporal Savior” (utterly meaningless), or that He is the only Savior. Yes, Jesus is the only true Savior, however that is not what this verse is saying, because the Calvinist has to admit that Jesus is the only true Savior for the elect, therefore in no sense can be described as the Savior of all.
SS: if the God of the universe is too weak to obtain that which He purchased with His precious blood, does this not deny what He says of Himself?
PL: Another straw man. For someone who denies being a Calvinist, the stock answers you come out with are the very ones which the Calvinist cult indoctrinates its acolytes with. God is sovereign and omnipotent, and He has sovereignly chosen to provide salvation for all by the shedding of His blood, and to draw all men to Him, enabling all to come. John 6:44, John 12:32, John 5:40. More Scriptures for you to avoid addressing.
SS: “Of all that He has given me, I shall lose {nothing}.” John 6:39
PL: Because the Father gives BELIEVERS to the Son, and believers are not lost.
SSS “Pastor” LOZ, I’m not bothered by any passage in the scripture. But I wouldn’t want to hang my soul on a theological position. Rather a Person, the Lord Jesus Christ. Do you hear His voice?
PL: Except that is exactly what you are doing. It’s just that you are not honest enough to admit that you take a theological position, or rather a philosophical theory.
SS Brian Wagner, No, I mourn my sins continually, because my Lord bore them in His body.
PL: No, you shouldn’t be mourning something that your god has unchangeably ordained for his maximal glory. You should be praising him, just like you should be praising him for every rape and every abortion.
Not sure why you even stay in this group as you add absolutely nothing of any value to it and you don’t do your philosophy any favours by the way you represent it. God is not glorified in any way by your infantile posturing.
Sinner Saved: “I mourn my sins continually…”
Even your sin of excessive pride? And serious question: If Calvi-god ordained, preplanned, causes your sins for his glory and pleasure, why do you mourn them?
And what’s your point about quoting Hebrews 10:17: “Your sins and iniquities I will remember no more”? If God remembers your sins no more, then why do you? Are you somehow better than God that you remember your sins (and constantly feel shame for them) when He doesn’t remember them? Does it give you brownie points or something for continuing to lash yourself for your sins, which Calvi-god apparently causes and delights in?
And you say: “Why are you guys so mind-numbingly obsessed with unlearned questions and endless pontification? I use fowl language about this group’s dynamic because it’s so loaded to the hilt with man’s wisdom that it’s utter foolishness.”
Why are you so mind-numbingly obsessed with staying here and engaging with our unlearned questions and endless pontification? Haven’t you ever read Proverbs 26:4: “Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you will be like him yourself”? Or how about the quotes: “Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference” (Mark Twain) and “Arguing with a fool proves there are two” (Doris M. Smith)?
(And you don’t choose to use the language you do because of our foolishness, but because Calvi-god ordained it and causes it for his pleasure and glory. You can’t help that you talk like a chicken or turkey, all that gobble-gobbledygook.)
And so I repeat, “Since you are clearly the most humble, specially-gifted, specially-chosen, favored-by-God person here, I suggest you leave and don’t risk contaminating yourself with the likes of us. After all, what does your amazing light have to do with our hopeless darkness?”
I think you went a bit too hard at Sinner Saved there and forgot that you also have a Bible. You said “If God remembers your sins no more, then why do you? Are you somehow better than God that you remember your sins (and constantly feel shame for them) when He doesn’t remember them?” Aren’t you also commanded by Scripture to repent for your sins? If so, why do you remember them when God says that He remembers them no more? Something is wrong with your reasoning here.
Spurcalleth: “… Aren’t you also commanded by Scripture to repent for your sins? If so, why do you remember them when God says that He remembers them no more? Something is wrong with your reasoning here.”
I was waiting for one of the Calvinists to bring this up. In my comment, I am in no way talking about me and my theology. I am calling out Sinner for the contradictions in his.
You see, in my view of Scripture, when we sin, it isn’t what God wanted us to do. God gave us a real choice between obedience and disobedience, and we sin when we choose to disobey. And since we chose what God didn’t want us to do, breaking His commands that He expects to be obeyed, we can and should feel convicted about it and repent. Because it isn’t what He wanted and because it dishonors Him. (And FYI, repenting is not the same thing as Sinner’s overly-dramatic, self-lashing, “mourning my sins continually,” which really just sounds like pride in disguise.)
But in Calvinism, God ordains (for His pleasure and glory and plans) EVERYTHING that Sinner does, even his sins. And in Calvinism, “ordains” really just means “preplans, controls, causes,” though Calvinists will deny it (but it is the inevitable conclusion of their theological beliefs, despite their denials).
So Calvi-god, from the beginning, preplanned Sinner’s sins, and then he works everything out just like he planned, causing Sinner to sin just like he ordained. Sinner could not have chosen any differently. Those sins are what Calvi-god REALLY wanted him to do, in contradiction to what Calvi-god commanded. (Calvinists say that God decrees that we break His decrees. Ridiculous nonsense.) And Calvi-god wanted/caused those sins for his glory and pleasure and plans. And so when Sinner says something like “I mourn my sins continually,” he is saying that he mourns that he did something that Calvi-god preplanned/caused for his glory and pleasure and plans.
So what does he mourn really? That he disobeyed Calvi-god? (Nope. Because he is really just obeying Calvi-god’s “hidden” decree that Sinner disobeys Calvi-god’s revealed decrees. Sin, in Calvinism, isn’t really disobeying God; it’s just obeying God’s deeper, secret, contradictory decree.) That he chose to do what Calvi-god didn’t want him to do? (Nope. Because Sinner couldn’t help it. He had no real choice and couldn’t do anything differently. It was Calvi-god’s decree, what he really wanted to happen. And so he made it happen.) Or maybe he mourns that he brought shame to Calvi-god or dishonored him? (Impossible. Because, remember, those sins were preplanned/caused by Calvi-god precisely for his glory and pleasure.)
So what is there to mourn, when Calvi-god causes it all to work out just like he wanted for his glory and pleasure? I guess, in Calvinism, it’s simply that Calvi-god commanded Sinner to not sin but then caused Sinner to sin and then caused him to continually mourn his sin. for whatever crazy, pointless value it might add to the great cosmic play that we all are just puppets in (if Calvinism is true).
Let me ask this: How do you, as a Calvinist, define sin? How do you define evil?
Because if you define it as having anything to do with choosing to do what God doesn’t want, or choosing to not do what God does want, or bringing Him dishonor or disappointing Him, etc., then you are contradicting Calvinism or trying to hold two contradictory, irreconcilable ideas at the same time. And since it can’t be reconciled, Calvinists have to resort to “cover it all up” phrases like “Who are you, O man, to question God? He is sovereign and can do whatever He wants. We don’t have to understand it or like it, we just have to accept it and live with the tension.” (A small child was beaten to death, deliberately, by her parents on our block, and at one of the candlelight vigils for this child, I overheard a woman next to me telling two men about how God is the Potter and we are the clay and so God can do whatever He wants with us for His glory. THIS is where Calvinism leads. I wanted to throw up.) Calvinism uses cult-like manipulation to deflect from their contradictions, to stop people from examining Calvinism too closely, to shame them into silence and into falling in line. I’ve seen it firsthand in our church.
But in Calvinism, there is no real difference between good and evil, between obedience (not sinning) and disobedience (sinning) because whatever happens is exactly what Calvi-god wanted and preplanned and caused for his own glory and pleasure. And if there’s no real difference between the two (and even if there was, it wouldn’t matter because we have no choice about it anyway), then there really is no such thing as the dichotomy of “good and evil,” “sinning or not sinning.” It’s all the same shade of gray.
I suggest, Spurcalleth, that you stop trying to defend Sinner Saved and start examining your theology a lot closer, carrying it out to its inevitable ends and reading Scripture in context after taking the Calvinist glasses off, to figure out what Calvinism REALLY teaches and the damage it does to God’s character and Word. Or if you prefer, let Calvinists continue to brainwash you with their manipulative tactics and phrases. If Calvinism is true, it really doesn’t matter which one you do, does it? Because Calvi-god preplanned and causes both your embrace of Calvinism and my refusal of it for his glory and pleasure. Neither of us can help it, and both of us bring him just as much glory. (But since I believe we have real choice, I can challenge you to rethink your beliefs and theology. But you can’t challenge me without contradicting your Calvinist beliefs that everything we do is “ordained” by God, that we have no real choice/ability to change anything, and that everything is God-glorifying, which would include my rejection of Calvinism and my efforts to battle it.) God bless!
And something no calvinist can explain: When in 1 Cor 10:13 God said this: “No temptation has overtaken you except what is common to mankind. And God is faithful; He will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, He will also provide a way out so that you can endure it.”
How exactly does that square with the very same God unchangeably ordaining that you would sin and thereby give in to that same temptation?
Yes!
The only way the Calvinist can accept what is stated in that verse is to somehow deny the doctrine of decrees.
I’ve seen Calvinists try to argue that the infallible decree can be both infallible and NOT infallible at the same time.
Some Calvinists try to argue that NOT EVERYTHING is infallibly decreed – which is a denial of the doctrine.
And then after they do that – they will typically follow that with assertions that EVERYTHING is infallibly decreed.
All in a days worth of DOUBLE-MINDEDNESS :-]
I don’t have to answer that question because I am not bound by John Calvin’s opinions.
spurcalluth
I am not bound by John Calvin’s opinion
br.d
Where John Calvin’s opinions disagree with your opinions – we have the following TRUTH table
1) Your opinions are TRUE and John Calvin’s opinions are FALSE
2) John Calvin’s opinions are TRUE and your opinions are FALSE
3) Both your opinions and John Calvin’s opinions are FALSE
A simplification of the truth table, yes. What is your point? I know how to populate a truth table.
A simplification?
That is a classic TRUTH table
If you have something more comprehensive – please provide it
Well, it’s a simplification in the sense that “my opinion” is not a proposition and therefore could not be used in classical logic. “My opinion” is a token that signifies another string of words that are a proposition.
“Only professing believers should be baptized” (proposition) —–> “My opinion” (shorter symbol) —–> p (even shorter symbol)
“More than just professing believers should be baptized” (proposition) —–> “Calvin’s opinion” (shorter symbol) —–> q (even shorter symbol).
However, I think since we are talking about a point where I and Calvin DISAGREE, we don’t need a symbol q. We can just use ~p (the negation of p).
Very good!
But your opinion concerning any [X] will eventually boil down to a proposition concerning that [X]
John Calvin who holds [X] = TRUE
vs
Spurcalluth who holds [X] is FALSE
So that is assumed as a logical part of the TRUTH table.
And the reason for providing it is to show the vulnerabilities entailed for both parties.
Feel free to answer it from whatever viewpoint you think you occupy.
You asked “How exactly does that square with the very same God unchangeably ordaining that you would sin and thereby give in to that same temptation?”. My answer: I’m still undecided on a theodicy, but I’m leaning towards the character-building theory. It is also possible that it doesn’t square with it. I’m keeping my options open until I have a final answer.
Same here, I haven’t come to a conclusion about theodicy. The problem of evil is a problem. I’ve read several books on the problem of evil but none for me personally, resolve the problem of evil. I used to believe that libertarian freewill was the solution to evil. But when I read more Scripture and realized how active God is in creation, I had to reject the idea that libertarian freewill solved the problem of evil.
Nice post Heather!
Your points serve to remind me – I don’t know of any belief system that is as Self-Sabotaging and DOUBLE-MINDED as Calvinism is.
Calvinists are indoctrinated with a highly engineered library of talking-points – which they are taught to believe are affirmed by proof-text.
All of which is accomplished by digging through verses in the Bible until we can find one that at least APPEARS to affirm one of our talking-points.
And the the whole thing becomes a joke – when one starts to realize how the Calvinist is forced to treat his doctrine *AS-IF* it is FALSE in order to have any sense of normalcy in life.
How the average Calvinist brain learns to live in a world full of self-contradictions is a real tribute to the flexibility of the brain!
You beautifully answered precisely zero of what I asked. What I asked is, since “He will remember your sins no more” is in your Bible too, how do you make sense of that and of the fact that you remember it? Fight against Sinner Saved as much as you like, it won’t make my question disappear. I’m not fighting for Sinner Saved or against Sinner Saved, I’m asking you a question.
BRDMOD: “Calvinists are indoctrinated with a highly engineered library of talking-points …”
Thank you … that’s the phrase I couldn’t think of: “talking points.” I could only think of “manipulative, ‘cover it all up’ phrases.” But you’re right, they’ve been indoctrinated with talking points, with phrases that sound biblical but that are nonsense. And to support this nonsense, they’ve been carefully, strategically led (by Calvinist preachers) to various verses (taken out of context) that they’ve been preconditioned to interpret Calvinistically.
[And they’ve been preconditioned by Calvinist preachers, through various tactics/phrases, to feel either ashamed if they disagree or extra-spiritual/smart/humble if they agree. The Calvinist preacher sets it up so that no one in the congregation wants to admit that they don’t agree with what he’s preaching. I definitely saw this manipulation firsthand at our church, before the pastor even started revealing his Calvinism. It’s what first alerted me to the fact that something was fishy and that I should listen more carefully to what he’s teaching. Because when someone has to start their pastor-ship by preconditioning people to feel either bad about disagreeing with him or to feel really good about agreeing with him, then something is probably wrong.]
Calvinism relies on Calvinists teaching other Christians to “find” Calvinism in the Bible. And (was it Kevin from Beyond the Fundamentals who said this?) Calvinism isn’t even really about saving the souls of sinners but about converting to Calvinism those who already believe. It’s not about spreading the gospel to the unsaved but about spreading Calvinism to the saved. (And I like your word-choice of “self-sabotaging.” So true!)
And Pastor Loz says about the “no temptation” verse: “How exactly does that square with the very same God unchangeably ordaining that you would sin and thereby give in to that same temptation?”
Exactly! This verse is meaningless nonsense (like many verses would be) if both sinning and not sinning is “ordained” by God, if we have no control over our own choices, if God Himself ordained the temptation and then determines whether or not we withstand the temptation. It’s all pointless, if Calvinism is true. All of God’s commands and calls and offers for help/healing/forgiveness, etc. are pointless if we have no ability to choose, no influence over our own choices and decisions. Calvinism is a self-sabotaging charade, pretending like anything we do really matters or makes a difference, when (in Calvinism) it doesn’t.
You have some very insightful intuitions Heather!
It was the degree of insightfulness which raised an alarm for you.
Yes – what you are describing from that Calvinist pastor is often called “Milieu Control”
It puts a much higher degree of control over information the congregation is allowed to be exposed to.
The control processes at work within the Calvinist authoritarian social structure, controls feedback from group members and refuses to be modified, which results in a closed system of logic.
What the congregation believes and how those beliefs are to be stated is retained under strick control.
And not only what the congregation believes is under that control – but how the believer actually thinks is controlled.
Free-thinking and personal beliefs are monitored and corrected to ensure the talking points become habitual within the believer’s thinking patterns.
Consider also whether or not the Calvinist actually has the function of choice under the dictates of the doctrine.
The doctrine stipulates that at the foundation of the world a THEOS reviews all of the options he has in the process of determining every event that will come to pass within the Calvinist’s life.
Once the THEOS has made up his mind concerning what option he wants to come to pass – he selects that option and then that option gets FIXED by infallible decree. That process of selection includes the rejection of all other options. So if at Time-T he determines the Calvinist will turn left – then he has rejected the Alternative options of the Calvinist turning in any other direction.
He has thus made a choice for that given event.
But notice how choice is like a currency that one spends.
Once he has made that choice – it cannot be UN-made.
It cannot be RE-Made.
The currency of that choice concerning that event at Time-T for that Calvinist has been spent.
That choice is made – and after it is FIXED by decree – it is no longer available as a choice to the THEOS to ever make again.
Even for a divine being – he cannot falsify his decree without falsifying himself.
So that choice is no longer available for him to make.
If that choice is no longer available for a divine being to make – then how is it going to be available for a human to make?
Additionally – if you look standard definitions for the term “Choice” you will find it entails a necessary condition of multiple options available from which to select – along with the options of SELECT and NOT-SELECT.
Since in Calvinism – for every event that will come to pass within the Calvinist’s life – the THEOS has selected one option – and rejected all other options – then when that event comes to pass – only one option is available to the Calvinist.
And the Calvinist has NO CHOICE in what that option will be.
And NO CHOICE about his role in that option.
So for ever event of a Calvinist’s life – there is ever only one option that is RENDERED-CERTAIN
And all other options are EXCLUDED by the infallible decree.
So the bottom line is – in Calvinism – per the doctrine – the function of CHOICE is solely and exclusively reserved for Calvin’s god alone – in the process of exercising his divine sovereignty.
The Calvinist perceives himself as having multiple options from which to choose.
But all of those options except one single option – were EXCLUDED at the foundation of the world.
Therefore – according to the NORMATIVE sense of the word – the Calvinist does not have the function of Choice
brdmod:
It puts a much higher degree of control over information the congregation is allowed to be exposed to.
roland:
What is evidence do you have that Calvinist pastors practice controlling information to the congregation? Do have an example of this? Multiple examples of this?
brdmod:
The control processes at work within the Calvinist authoritarian social structure, controls feedback from group members and refuses to be modified, which results in a closed system of logic.
roland:
Evidence, please?
brdmod:
And not only what the congregation believes is under that control – but how the believer actually thinks is controlled.
roland:
How does this work if humans have libertarian functionality as you claim? How CAN a person control someone else’s thinking if that someone else has the libertarian functionality of choice? According to your belief of libertarian functionality, ANY PERSON, could just make a choice to get out from someone else controlling them?
brdmod:
Free-thinking and personal beliefs are monitored and corrected to ensure the talking points become habitual within the believer’s thinking patterns.
roland:
This post is full of faulty generalizations. How do you that Calvinist pastors go around MONITORING and CORRECTING the congregations’ free-thinking and personal beliefs?
brdmod:
The Calvinist perceives himself has having mutliople options from which to choose.
But all of those options except one single option – were EXCLUDED at the foundation of the world.
roland:
If you believe that God has perfect knowledge of all human decisions, then this is a problem for you as well. Because if God knows the choices we made before the foundation of the world, all other will be excluded at the moment we make the actual choice in real life. Unless you believe that God’s foreknowledge can be incorrect, or you hold to open theism.
It’s a no brainer that all alternative options are excluded at the point in time when we choose one particular option, and it’s also irrelevant, since what matters is whether we have freedom to choose between options leading up to our choice. And we do. And God perfectly foreknows. Which option we will freely choose. His foreknowledge in way limits the options or our ability to choose between them, since our choice is not contingent upon His knowledge.
Pastor Loz
It’s a no brainer that all alternative options are excluded at the point in time when we choose one particular option
roland
Exactly, then at the moment you make your choice in reality, you are bound to make that choice because of God’s foreknowledge.
How free are we then if God already knows what choices we will make? I say we are not because it logically follows that our choice is made in God’s mind by us as preexistent thoughts in God’s mind, then we must follow that choice in real life. In other words, we cannot go off course according to God’s knowledge.
Pastor Loz
since what matters is whether we have freedom to choose between options leading up to our choice. And we do.
roland
For the Calvinist, we believe what matters is God’s choice. This is what Scripture is. It is a revelation of God choosing how He will bring all things to pass. He chose to create a world, Adam and Eve, He chose to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah, He chose Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, He chose to bring Israel into its land, He chose the manner by which sinners are saved, it is about God choosing.
Pastor Loz
His foreknowledge in way limits the options or our ability to choose between them, since our choice is not contingent upon His knowledge.
roland
everything is contingent upon God’s knowledge, He knows everything. Even in a middle knowledge theory, if that’s what you believe, God’s knowledge of our choices in the circumstances that God is given will determine your choices.
Pastor Loz: It’s a no brainer that all alternative options are excluded at the point in time when we choose one particular option
Roland: Exactly, then at the moment you make your choice in reality, you are bound to make that choice because of God’s foreknowledge.
PL: you say “exactly”, and then state something that is nothing like what I said. We exclude other options WHEN we make a choice, BY making that choice. It’s the ACTUAL CHOICE that excludes the other options. You are not “bound to make that choice”, you HAVE MADE that choice. You weren’t bound to make it by anything.
Roland: How free are we then if God already knows what choices we will make? I say we are not because it logically follows that our choice is made in God’s mind by us as preexistent thoughts in God’s mind, then we must follow that choice in real life. In other words, we cannot go off course according to God’s knowledge.
PL: Ah so when it suits you, you appeal to your version of logic. Not really sure what that babble means, but it’s not Scriptural. Since God is omnitemporal, simultaneously present at all points in eternity, He is already present and has always been present at the point in our time when we make the choice. We have genuine options and whichever option we freely choose, God already knows it, because He is already there. One of your many problems is that you are conflating certainty with necessity. God’s knowledge of what we will actually choose has always been in His mind, but foreknowledge is not predetermination.
Pastor Loz; since what matters is whether we have freedom to choose between options leading up to our choice. And we do.
Roland: For the Calvinist, we believe what matters is God’s choice.
PL: Yeah nice try, but you twisted what I meant. I was talking about what matters as in what the relevant factor is in the argument is over at what point our options are excluded.
Roland: This is what Scripture is. It is a revelation of God choosing how He will bring all things to pass. He chose to create a world, Adam and Eve, He chose to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah, He chose Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, He chose to bring Israel into its land, He chose the manner by which sinners are saved, it is about God choosing.
PL: Scripture is far more than revelation of God choosing how He will brings to pass. It INCLUDES how God brings to pass those things which He has predetermined. Which is not all things. There is no Scripture which states God brings all things to pass. Not one. Ephesians 1:11 doesn’t say that. The verses in Psalms which state God does whatever He pleases don’t say that. That is a Calvinist INTERPRETATION of those verse. That thing you try to pretend doesn’t exist by appealing to “perspicuity”, which is simply Calvinists double-speak for “Scripture clearly means what we want it to mean and can’t possibly mean anything else”
All the examples you cited fall under that ambit, and not one of them support Calvinism. He certainly chose the manner by which sinners are saved, and it is by believing.
Pastor Loz: His foreknowledge in way limits the options or our ability to choose between them, since our choice is not contingent upon His knowledge.
Roland: everything is contingent upon God’s knowledge.
PL: No I don’t subscribe to middle knowledge. And again, not one single Scripture supports your assertion. God knows all things. That doesn’t mean all things are contingent upon God’s knowledge. It means He knows all things
Pastor Loz
That doesn’t mean all things are contingent upon God’s knowledge. It means He knows all things
roland
God created all things. When God created all things, He knew that He was creating all things. Therefore, the knowledge of all things is dependent or contingent upon God knowing them, or else, there are things that are created that God does not know they exist. Then God doesn’t know all things.
More conflation and false logic. All created things are contingent on God creating them, not on His knowledge of them. And “all things” goes beyond all created things. It includes all the choices/decisions and actions of human and angelic beings.
I also am curious about my pastor looking over my shoulder at what I’m reading. I’m on the couch now. Where is he? Under the couch? Maybe hiding in the drawer of the table behind me? Hovering from above? I’m really curious how my pastor is monitoring and controlling what I read. Also, I read A LOT for my job. Does he ever get bored? Should I try to find him to offer him coffee and some cookies? Sometimes I read from my phone in the bathroom. Does he follow me in there? Should I get a aerosol sprayer that sprays every 15 minutes? How do you care for your fly-on-the-wall-pastor?
Calvinism entails a highly evolved social structure dedicated to teaching teaching teaching
That social structure has constructed a library of unique doctrinal positions into which they guide people
When a person comes here and posts statements representative of those unique doctrinal positions (sometimes word for word) the link between that Calvinist’s thinking and Calvinism’s guiding social structure is evident
That Calvinist can claim all he wants to that he came to his doctrinal positions as an independent thinker without being guided to them
But that would make that Calvinist a statistical improbability!
Sure, I read stuff. Do I have to apologize for saying that I read more than just the hallowed writings of brdmod? I don’t see a problem with reading both sides. I don’t have the time at the moment (I’m reading philosophy pretty much as a job), but I don’t see any intrinsic problem with reading both sides, or even all sides (I don’t think there are just two; I think the idea of non-Calvinism as a belief system is just nonsense, there are many other sides besides just Calvinism and Flowersism). I try to use some of the time I don’t read or do other work on listening to both sides on YouTube. That’s the best I can do.
spurcalluth
I’m reading philosophy pretty much as a job
br.d
What does “pretty much as a job” look like?
spurcalluth
I think the idea of non-Calvinism as a belief system is just nonsense
br.d
Well that is a very strong claim!
And yet – while it is the case that you also claim to be reading philosophy “Pretty much as a job” – it is unclear that you are familiar with the difference between making a claim and providing logical evidence to support that claim. A claim without evidence is in many cases the equivalent of a bluff.
spurcalluth
I try to use some of the time I don’t read or do other work on listening to both sides on YouTube. That’s the best I can do.
br.d
Ok – thanks for being up front on that.
So your knowledge-base on this subject at this point is stated as such – and that is “the best you can do”
Thanks for that.
Sincerity and honesty is a good approach
“Pretty much as a job” looks like this: I teach undergraduate mathematics and half of a postgraduate module on the philosophy of mathematics. That is 40% of my job. I do further research into the philosophy of mathematics (Bill Craig’s “God and abstract objects” is an excellent intro, by the way) for a Ph.D. That’s another 40% of my job. And then I am the local organizer for the national tertiary mathematics olympiad. That’s the last 20% of my job. Some days, like today, the majority of my time is spent reading philosophy of mathematics. So I think I can claim to read philosophy pretty much as a job, but not completely, because I have other important aspects to my job too. Was this over-share? I’m not always sure. I suspect I might have Aspergers, so I’m not always very socially aware.
Fair enough – thank you!
BTW: Very interesting stuff!
My hats off to you and hope you excel in it!
How you talk about Calvinists having talking points but then basically admit that you’re taught what to say, down to the level of phrases (“that’s the phrase I couldn’t think of”), is beyond my understanding. But you do you, gurl!
spurcalluth
but then basically admit that you’re taught what to say
br.d
What magical hat did you pull that one out of? 😀
From the magical hat of read-the-rest-of-my-comment.
spurcalluth
From the magical hat of read-the-rest-of-my-comment.
br.d
Don’t you just love that magical hat! :-]
I’m not really a hat guy, but I can see the appeal 🙂
Sure!! ;-D
Roland: “What is evidence do you have that Calvinist pastors practice controlling information to the congregation? Do have an example of this? Multiple examples of this?”
I’ll give you an example from the church we left, but I’m sure you’ll say it’s an exception, not the rule. And that’s fine. But it’s still an example, a first-hand one. (My Calvinist ex-pastor’s theological heroes are Sproul and McArthur, and I can definitely see a similarity to them with his smug, condescending, prideful, self-righteous attitude.)
He’s reminded us several times that there are only three possible responses to what he teaches us about predestination: we can “ignore it, get angry about it, or accept it.” There is no disagreement allowed. (It was his manipulation, strong-arming, and cult-like brainwashing tactics that first alerted me to the fact that something was wrong. It was probably because I am a licensed professional counselor with a Master’s in Psychology that I saw these kinds of tactics right away.)
He makes sure to never bring up the fact that Calvinism is. historically, a highly-debated, highly-debatable theology or that others have different views. According to him, his views are “what the Bible teaches,” and to disagree with him is to disagree with the Bible.
It is required for all elders (and other prominent men are invited to join too) to go through Calvinist indoctrination classes with him, studying Wayne Grudem’s Systematic Theology.
And when I posted a biblically-based comment in response to his post about predestination – where I politely disagreed with him, from the Bible – my comment showed up for a few hours on the church’s blog but then was deleted. Because I disagreed with him and gave verses to back me up. This proved to me that disagreement would definitely not be tolerated and that we had to get out of there.
Calvinist pastors are very careful to control what their sheeple hear and believe.
I can definitely put a 2nd Witness on this!
My first experience with a Calvinist pastor many years ago – set me off in the path of researching what was behind Calvinism.
This pastor refused to let his congregation know he was teaching them Calvinism.
He was doing it in an entirely cloaked manner
A member of the congregation started feeding me with recorded Sunday sermons
And it became abundantly clear – he was teaching Calvinism – but never saying so.
I asked the tapes ministry person “How long has your pastor been teaching Calvinism?”
He stared at me like he had absolutely no idea what in the world I was talking about.
He responded “I don’t know what Calvinism is”
I then had a few emails with the pastor – which he tried to justify.
But the whole reason I became curious was because of the “cult” like behavior patterns I noticed when I first met this group.
brdmod:
I then had a few emails with the pastor – which he tried to justify.
But the whole reason I became curious was because of the “cult” like behavior patterns I noticed when I first met this group.
roland
I know many Calvinists who became Calvinist because they just wanted to know what the Bible says about election and predestination. Many of them, in my church, were taught at their former churches that election and predestination do not mean what they think it means. So they would investigate and came to opposite conclusions of their church leadership. When they would tell their pastor what they believed about election and predestination, some not even knowing about John Calvin, they were asked to leave their church because they did not agree with the pastor’s personal beliefs about election and predestination.
This pattern goes both ways. It is not fair to say that Calvinists are cult-like and non-calvinists are not cult-like when the experience can be found on both sides.
I have been at my current Reformed church for ten years, almost eleven, I’ve seen two persons, for doctrinal reasons, that have left, and not because our pastors told them to, but because our pastors confronted them about their behavior with other church members. Both were very strong advocates for their personal beliefs. One was a theonomist, who was telling members of our church that our pastors were wrong because they were not theonomist. Our pastor had a meeting with the man, asked him if he had any issues with them, and told him he was free to be a theonomist but he should not be going around our pastors backs saying they are wrong. He should have spoken with our pastors.
The other man that left held to the view that our confession should be held in a full subscription manner. Subscribe to everything in the confession or don’t subscribe at all. He also did not believe in singing modern Christian songs only hymns and only the Trinity hymnal. He eventually left as well. Both were backbiters, going behind our pastors backs, gossiping about their preaching and teaching, and that’s why our pastors met with them. I’ve had discussions with our pastors that people are free to come, free to reject our Reformed understanding of Scripture but they can’t be allowed to cause division, gossiping, and backbiting, that’s not Christ-like. Neither were asked to leave but they eventually left because they were getting nowhere with their personal beliefs.
My point is that not all Calvinists churches or pastors are the same. My experiences have been different than yours. It is not fair on either side to project one experience with Calvinism to all experiences with Calvinism. That is a faulty generalization.
Roland
I know many Calvinists who became Calvinist because they just wanted to know what the Bible says about election and predestination.
br.d
Which would mean – the ones who just wanted to know what the bible says about Jehovah and Jesus become Jehovah’s Witnesses! :-]
It would not mean that at all. In Roland’s account, there is no mention of such people in any way. What you are doing is saying that there is a parallel that you wish to draw, but you cover up your involvement in this by saying that the MEANING of Roland’s statement is different from what it says on the surface. Why cover up your involvement in drawing the parallel?
Heather
I’ll give you an example from the church we left, but I’m sure you’ll say it’s an exception, not the rule. And that’s fine.
roland
While I don’t deny your experience and your example, you are committing a faulty generalization. You can’t take one experience with a Calvinist pastor and conclude that all Calvinist pastors are just like the Calvinist pastor you know. That’s like saying:
I have a neighbor who is a minority.
My minority neighbor is messy as he never cleans his yard or pick up trash around his house.
Therefore, due to my experience with one minority neighbor, ALL MINORITY NEIGHBORS are messy and don’t pick up trash around their houses.
That would make me a racist.
Roland – what you have created is another straw man
Did Heather – for example – claim that ALL Calvinist pastors hide their Calvinism?
It can however – be easily claimed that ALL Calvinists – including Calvinist pastors – believe like Calvinists – while living like NON-Calvinists.
They all go about their office
1) *AS-IF* they have the function of choice
2) *AS-IF* they have CERTAINTY of their salvation
3) *AS-IF* their brains are permitted the function of Determining TRUE from FALSE
Thus they claim to embrace Calvinism – but only with a caveat
That they can go about their office as a Non-Calvinist
living *AS-IF* the doctrine is FALSE – is an integral part of being a Calvinist.
Spurcalleth: “What I asked is, since “He will remember your sins no more” is in your Bible too, how do you make sense of that and of the fact that you remember it?”
What’s your point about this question? Sounds to me like you are using it to deflect from the contradiction I pointed out between Sinner Saved’s comment that he mourns continually for his sins and yet that his sins aren’t even remembered by God (he’s the one who brought these two up, side-by-side, not me), and from my question about “Why would a Calvinist mourn for their sins if Calvi-god preplanned and caused them for his glory?” Sinner was making a special point of bragging about mourning “continually” for his sins (that God supposedly preplanned and caused), and I was wondering why and wondering how a Calvinist could do that and be consistent with their theology.
The emphasis in my question wasn’t merely on the ability to remember our sins, but it was on Sinner making a show of continually mourning for them, in spite of the fact that Calvi-god preplanned/caused all his sins for his glory, that Sinner had no ability to do anything otherwise (according to Calvinism), and that immediately after bragging about how mournful he is, he says that God doesn’t even remember our sins. Sinner is the one who made a strange pairing, not me. Sinner is the one whose “mourning” contradicts his theology, not mine.
And so your question is a deflection from the real issue, a pointless bunny trail. And of course, you just want to be able to say “See! You are in the same boat as Sinner if you remember your sins too. So there’s no real difference here between Calvinists and non-Calvinists.” We here at Sot 101 have seen this many times before with other Calvinists who are eager to go “We’re both saying the same thing, we’re both in the same boat,” when we’re not. And I have often seen how Calvinists, if they can’t tackle the real issues, go for the low-hanging fruit in the hopes of scoring a tiny, pointless win which doesn’t even begin to touch the real issues.
But once again, I’m going to ask a question I did earlier because it’s quite key to this issue: How do Calvinists define sin and evil? If our sin is really what God wanted us to do, if it’s His “hidden decree” that we have to obey, if He causes it for His glory just as much as He causes obedience for His glory, then what really is the difference between sin and “not sin,” between good and evil, between obedience and disobedience? And why, if both are equally predestined by God and equally glorifying to Him, should one be mourned over the other? And what’s the point of a Calvinist bragging about mourning for his sins if God caused him to sin, caused him to mourn for his sin, and caused him to brag about mourning for his sin? It’s all just pointless silliness.
And so maybe, to make my focus and point more clear, it would have been better if I said it like this: “And what’s your point about quoting Hebrews 10:17: “Your sins and iniquities I will remember no more”? If God remembers your sins no more, then why are you bragging about mourning them continually? Does it give you brownie points or make you feel better/holier or something for continuing to lash yourself for your sins, which Calvi-god preplanned, caused, and delights in, and which you had no control over? “
brdmod: “This pastor refused to let his congregation know he was teaching them Calvinism.
He was doing it in an entirely cloaked manner”
Same exact thing with my pastor. He was very careful to never use the word “Calvinism/Reformed” or to identify himself as a Calvinist, despite the fact that he very clearly is one. And proudly so. It took him years to bring up Calvin or TULIP. He always just said he’s preaching “right from the Bible” (while carefully, subtly, adding his own tweaks). If I had known the signs to look for, the secret Calvinist language that those in the “Calvinist club” know, then I could have seen it earlier. But I didn’t know back then. I had to carefully listen, and compare what he said against Scripture, and go to the concordance, and research online over years.
And I think that’s exactly why they don’t reveal that they are Calvinists at first (or ever). It buys them time to indoctrinate people before people catch on. And by then, they’ve brainwashed half the people and scared the rest into silence by painting those who disagree with them as proud, unhumble Christians who reject God’s authority, dishonor God, and claim that they “saved themselves,” etc.
Plus, if we don’t know the name of their particular brand of theology (or even that it has a name of its own), we can’t research it for ourselves to see what it really is (or even know that we should research it). We just think that they are “just preaching the Bible.” And so we let our guard down, shut off our “red flag” radar, and trust that they are preaching truth, Scripture as God revealed it. Which is exactly what they want you to think.
But it says something bad if they have to be so careful to hide their true theology and beliefs!
I’ve read several Calvinist pastors (their own articles) who advise other Calvinist pastors to not admit to being Calvinists (because “we don’t know what the congregation’s definition of Calvinism is, and it will just cause confusion and division to be labelled a Calvinist,” even though that’s exactly what they are) and who, when asked themselves if they were Calvinists, outright denied it, hid it, or deflected from it, despite the fact that they admit right in their own article that they are 5- or 7-point Calvinist. And yet the average Calvinist denies that there’s any subterfuge, hidden Calvinist agendas, or “stealth” Calvinist take-over going on in churches.
These are the reasons that I am glad that when I became a Christian, I came from a clean slate. Shortly after becoming a Christian, I was approached by a Jehovah’s Witness, informing me that Jesus is not God.
I had to settle that. A JW friend of mine made the mistake of giving me his “little brown book”, which TOLD THEM what to say to people that they were proselytizing. I began studying them that night. I kept studying their doctrines for about 6 years. Not to be one, mind you, but just to find out what made them tick.
And, in my church, I didn’t attend to learn DOCTRINES, I just wanted to worship God. So I didn’t have any PRESUPPOSITIONS going in. I didn’t know anything, including if Jesus was God or not.
So, I said to myself, “SELF, if I am going to tackle the Jesus is not God thing, I had better read the bible and study it. So I did. And I knew, from the JW perspective, their bullet points, so I set out to counter them.
But the only way that I could do that was to read the bible FIRST, before anything else. I read it FIVE TIMES before I even began to STUDY it. And I also had a Strong’s Concordance, several ink pens, college ruled paper, several different colored hi-liters, and of course, coffee. Lots of coffee. And a number of sleepless nights, because it was interesting.
The reason that I read it many times, was to put it in perspective as a novel, a law book, a history book, etc.
Then, when I began to study, I’d be like, “I know I’ve read that somewhere before, where did I read that?” And since I wasn’t using a computer, I began again at Genesis 1:1 until I found what I was looking for.
After I was finished with the JW’s (Yes, Jesus is God), I wanted to find out why the 7th Day Adventists insist on going to church on Saturday. I saw a pattern in Romans that mentioned ABRAHAM a lot. And when I found the word RIGHTEOUSNESS, it hit me like a ton of bricks. The 7th Day Adventists KEEP THE LAW, therefore, CAN’T be righteous. They are legalists who deny that they are legalists. They claim to have faith in Jesus, but DENY that the New Testament is WITHOUT THE LAW, just like Abraham was righteous before the law.
And that’s what peaked my curiosity about the Jews under the law, vs. Gentiles not under the law, and I just kept on studying that aspect of things, and when you do, it’s SO EASY to debunk a LOT of REFORMERS from all sides, not just the Calvinists. It’s easy to debunk predestination, it’s easy to debunk the Calvinist version of the sovereignty of God, etc.
But, one needs to step away from 600 year old doctrines, including the WESTMINSTER CONFESSIONS, which in my opinion, is riddled with errors anyway,and start with a CLEAN SLATE, and begin again…just by reading the Bible as a novel, law book, history book, a JESUS ONLY book, etc., BEFORE studying any of it on any topic.
And the final trick, using the OT stories, such as from each story in Genesis, especially, see if you can see Jesus, and Satan, INSTEAD OF THE PLAYERS being told about, such as Noah, Abraham, Moses, etc. Look for the spiritual stuff, instead of the expository stuff. There are NUGGETS to be found. God HIDES things in the bible for us to find.
Proverbs 25:2
It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter.
So when I stumbled upon Calvinism, my blood boiled, and I got angry. Not at God, but for those who peddle Calvins nonsense, like a cult.
As far as I’m concerned, Calvinism is a cult, and to think that the Baptists have NO PROBLEM co-mingling in the same church building just because they affirm Baptism? That’s completely INSANE.
Anyway, that’s my 2 cents.
Ed Chapman
I think you had great intentions, you just ended being an Old Apostolic heretic instead of a Christian. And the problem is that you read the Old Testament characters as Jesus INSTEAD OF Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, David, etc. What you should have done is read those characters as Jesus AS WELL AS those characters, not instead. Those characters were all real, living, human beings doing real, alive, human things, but they all also pre-figured Jesus. What you ended up doing is creating a theological system in which the historicity of Scripture is destroyed, and that’s a very bad thing. The most important things in all of the Christian faith are historical events.
The Bible is all about Jesus, not Abraham. Not isaac. Not Jacob. Not Joseph. Not David. Their stories are spiritual depictions of Jesus in prophesy. Yes, they were real people. But that’s not the point of the Bible. Jesus is the point of all scripture. For those who don’t believe in the rapture, for example… it’s predicted in the story of Noah’s Ark. The ark was above the earth, as destruction was taking place below. The ark was a type, shadow, prophesy of Jesus. I’m not going to concentrate on Noah as a person. Or Jonah who didn’t want to go to Nineveh. Why? Because 3 days and 3 nights was not about jonah’s punishment. But about the death and resurrection of Jesus. I don’t care about jonah’s punishment. What would have happened if jonah was obedient? His book never would have been included as canon in the Bible, because there would be no prophesy of Jesus within the book of jonah. Point blank. Therefore, it’s not about jonah, or his obedience, or disobedience.
Or even his existence. In fact, in most of your diatribes so far, you SAY you believe that these characters actually existed, but then in your interpretation of Scripture just argue their existence away. You are what is known as a fictionalist concerning the historical events of Scripture, and an inconsistent one at that, because I bet you wouldn’t interpret Scripture in a way that implies that the historical events of the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus was a fictional event that is a useful fiction to believe, but that is exactly the way that you act about just about every other historical event in Scripture. Was Rachel literally pregnant with two babies in her womb? Yes. Is that literal pregnancy recorded in Genesis? Yes. But I bet you would interpret it as Jews and gentiles. News flash: Rachel did not have the 8 billion people currently living on earth in her womb, and the Bible doesn’t say so either. It builds on the historical event by placing it in perspective in the broader scope of God’s plan of salvation.
The genealogy of Jesus is mentioned in Matthew and Luke. Unfortunately for you, you refuse to see the spiritual story of Rachel. You are too busy discussing twins in the womb. Carnal thinking. Of the flesh thinking. I’ll give another example. Onan, spilling his seed. Catholics interpret that as a sin, hence birth control forbidden. Carnal thinking. Here’s the spiritual. It was prophesied that Jesus would come from the tribe of Judah. Onan was Judah’s kid. And Onan didn’t want kids. Satan didn’t want Jesus to be born. God killed Onan. Onan’s brother didn’t want kids either. So, the widow dressed as a prostitute, had sex with Judah, and she had Judah’s baby, hence, prophesy of Jesus coming from the family line of Judah came true. Remember, Satan didn’t want Jesus born. That’s what its about. Not birth control. It’s not about Onan, it’s about Satan. Birth control is not a sin.
You’re being inconsistent, dude. Onan spilling his seed is carnal thinking, of the flesh thinking; the widow dressing up as a prostitute and having sex with Judah is not carnal thinking, not of the flesh thinking (that is what your reasoning implies). Why is one event 3800 years ago “carnal thinking” and another event 3800 years ago IN THE SAME STORY, NOT “carnal thinking”? No reason, except the fact that you are Satanically deceived will not allow you to come to that conclusion. Stop spouting doctrines of demons, dude, and accept the truth of Scripture and the truth of REALITY. Stop declaring yourself the enemy of truth.
When the apostle Paul approached gentiles, did he school gentiles that the most important part of our faith is history? Take for instance those at Mars Hill. Did he mention isaac, David, Ezekiel, Zechariah, etc.?
He certainly did. He taught them about the most important historical event ever to happen: God RAISED (past tense, therefore a report on something that happened IN HISTORY) a Man from the dead that WILL (future tense, therefore a forecast report on something that will happen IN HISTORY) judge the world. The fact is, you want a make-believe god that make-believe saves people from their make-believe sins, all because you apparently have some allergy to historical reality.
You didn’t answer my question. Where was the mention of Ezekiel, Jonah, Zechariah, Zephania, etc.? Actually, you made my point, by only mentioning JESUS.
I did answer your question, but of course you twisted the truth just like you always do. Of course Paul talked about historical events, and since he was busy preaching the message of salvation, he talked about the historical events that are the most relevant to our salvation. The fact that you THINK that unless some historical event is as important to our salvation as the crucifixion, resurrection, and return of our Lord, means that the historical event is not historical, doesn’t prove that it is ISN’T historical. It just proves that you are deluded, possibly demonically so. You are racking up a whole lot of evidence for that by now. If you want to continue doing that, feel free to do so.
Heather
I’ve read several Calvinist pastors who advise other Calvinist pastors to not admit to being Calvinists
br.d
Agreed
I remember the testimony of a pastor from New England. He had been a Closet Calvinist pastor for a number of years – and said he had pastor friends who were still in the same situation.
Heather
I’ve read several Calvinist pastors who advise other Calvinist pastors to not admit to being Calvinists
br.d
Agreed
I remember the testimony of a pastor from New England. He had been a Closet Calvinist pastor for a number of years – and said he had pastor friends who were still in the same situation.
roland
I know many Calvinist pastors who would advise against doing so. There are dozens of Calvinist pastors in our association of churches and I’ve met many of them at conferences. I’ve never heard a single one advise or even believe Calvinism should be hidden in a closet. I’ve met some that were non-calvinists pastors and left their churches because they became Calvinist. That’s a shame.
Roland
I’ve met some that were non-calvinists pastors and left their churches because they became Calvinist. That’s a shame.
br.d
Roland – they operated in the ethics of Christ when they left those churches.
I congratulate them for that – rather than call it a shame – because it shows they hold Christ as their master – rather than Calvinism.
The Calvinist pastor who does otherwise – is like the mother in 1st Kings who said “Let the baby be split in half – at least I will get my half”
I’m being misunderstood. I BELIEVE a Calvinist SHOULD NOT seek to convert Christians or churches to Calvinism. The shame comment was not meant to apply to the previous comment. It should be understood on the whole of post.
AH!
Thanks for that Clarification.
I would certainly agree with that!
There is written proof of this that I’ve seen. When I get home from work I’ll try to find out. It’s procedural. And since seasoned Christians noticed, and left. Others, not so fortunate, but some knew things weren’t right, and it did bring serious divisions in churches. But there is proof of how to convert a traditional church to a calvinist one by stealth. I’ll find it and include the link.
I will look too, for the one where John Piper advocates these stealth tactics, using among other things the worship.
I found it! Now, hopefully someone like Roland will see this and notice the deception:
http://www.reformedreader.org/reforming_a_local_church.htm#INTRODUCTION.
Dr. Roger Olson – on Calvinist ministerial dishonesty
The real issue should be full disclosure by pastoral candidates and congregations seeking pastors.
Knowing how controversial it is, Calvinist pastoral candidates should be completely “up front” about their Calvinism with churches interviewing them. And churches seeking a pastor should lay all their cards on the table, so to speak, and tell pastoral candidates what theologies they cannot tolerate.
This is happening a lot these days. For the most part it is Calvinists doing it.
I have heard no reports of Arminians sneaking into pulpits hiding their Arminianism and then attempting to enforce it on a largely Calvinist (or “Calminian”) congregation. So far as I know this never happens.
Article: Controversy over Calvinism brewing in the SBC
“The real issue should be full disclosure by pastoral candidates and congregations seeking pastors.
Knowing how controversial it is, Calvinist pastoral candidates should be completely “up front” about their Calvinism with churches interviewing them. And churches seeking a pastor should lay all their cards on the table, so to speak, and tell pastoral candidates what theologies they cannot tolerate.”
roland
I agree with Dr. Olsen’s statement. Calvinist pastors need to be up front. Our church has helped two churches reform their doctrine and practice. This was the first thing that our elders told the pastors of those two churches. You need to be up front and honest with your congregation. I was privy to sit in on a few of the meetings with our elders and the pastors of those two churches. Their consistent and diligent advice was honesty. Be honest because Christians should be honest.
“This is happening a lot these days. For the most part it is Calvinists doing it.”
roland
I would like to see some examples of Calvinist pastors sneaking into Arminian churches and enforcing Calvinism on the congregation. I don’t doubt it happens but throwing baseless and evidence lacking accusations is not Christian. I respect Dr. Olsen, read his book, Against Calvinism, and I think it is wrong for him to do this.
“I have heard no reports of Arminians sneaking into pulpits hiding their Arminianism and then attempting to enforce it on a largely Calvinist (or “Calminian”) congregation. So far as I know this never happens.”
roland
I don’t believe an Arminian would want to sneak into a Calvinist church. What would they have to offer in their doctrines to a Calvinist church? Nothing but man-centered theology that a well taught Reformed church would catch quickly. A non-Calvinist could not get by a committee seeking a pastor in a Reformed church. I doubt an Arminian could articulate the Reformed position on God, Scripture, the Church, etc. enough to deceive the committee!
Hello Ed, thanks for posting the article. I read through it yesterday and today and I cannot find any or notice any deception on the part of the author, Ernest Reisinger. I believe Reisinger is setting forth a humble approach to reformation in local churches while trusting in God to do the work. He quotes 2 Timothy 2:24-26 which speaks of the servant of God avoiding quarreling, being able to teach, gentle, etc. I will admit Calvinists do not always live up to this standard. I have personally struggle myself in being patient with non-calvinists and even non-Christians.
“and we do not think every Christian must be a Calvinist, but we know it is a viable historical and biblical position, and therefore, we plead for tolerance.”
This is a quote from the article. Reisinger writes that he does not think every Christian must be a Calvinist! Where’s the deception? This is a position I personally know many Calvinists hold. I’ve never met a Calvinists, I’ve met hundreds, that has said, “Every Christian must be a Calvinist.” I’ve met some that say every Christians should be a Calvinist but my personal opinion is that every Christian should acknowledge God is sovereign and He exercises His sovereignty in creation. In a real actual manner not in some theoretical or philosophical or logical manner.
“Over the last decade I have witnessed more slurs and misrepresentation of historical Calvinism than I have the heart or ability to count.”
This is still happening today, slurs and misrepresentations of historical Calvinism.
“True reformation is a humbling process, but it also creates a new desire to please God and keep His Word (Psa. 119:67),”
I heartily agree with Reisinger’s statement above. When a Christian continues to further reformation of their heart, soul, mind, and actions to God’s Word, it creates a new desire to please God and keep HIs Word. Recognizing how gracious God is towards sinners leads to a greater appreciation of God’s saving sinners. Personally, my worship and communion with God and fellow believers has grown greatly since I embraced a Reformed understanding of God.
I believe Reisinger is setting forth a biblical approach to reformation in local churches. As Reformed Christians we should be humble, avoid quarreling, be gracious to those who disagree with us, be patient, loving. I know many Calvinists have failed at this, so before all the examples of how horrible and arrogant Calvinists are get posted, I AGREE, we have failed to follow the Holy Spirit inspired imperative set forth in God’s Word.
Ed, since I failed to notice Reisinger’s deception in the article, which you be able to show me points where you believe that he is being deceptive? I would appreciate it, thanks.
Page 3, where he indicates not to make changes all at once, otherwise people might notice. Yes, he thinks calvinism is the best thing since sliced bread, but he isn’t honest with the church he wishes to reform. He wants a slow process to trick people. I know a lot of had trads who oppose calvinism, and saw this deception play out. They did not want calvinism, and, before they realized what was going on, bam, it was too late.
LOL! I did not realize there are more pages. I’ve only read the first page, so I’m going to read the remainder today. I’m not the brightest nor the sharpest. Thanks for replying.
No prob. Won’t be able to respond much today anyway. Mandatory overtime at work for next 2 weeks, weekends included.
Ed:
Page 3, where he indicates not to make changes all at once, otherwise people might notice. Yes, he thinks calvinism is the best thing since sliced bread, but he isn’t honest with the church he wishes to reform. He wants a slow process to trick people.
roland
I have to kindly disagree that Reisinger is not making changes all at once because “people might notice.” He doesn’t want a “slow process to trick people.” In the pamphlet Reisinger writes ”
When should they be implemented? Don’t try to do too much too soon. Many mistakes have been made by doing the right thing in the wrong way or at the wrong time.”
He’s talking about trying to avoid mistakes in Reforming a church. He’s not saying what you think he is saying unless you believe it is fair to put words into someone’s writing that are not there.
Shortly after this, he writes:
” You can’t
change everything at once–first things first.”
This is a basic principle to all change. You can’t everything at once. You can’t reform a church at once. It takes time. Even when we become Christians, everything doesn’t change at once.
Romans 12:1-2
I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, which is your reasonable service. 2 And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
The Christian life is a life of renewing our minds by what is the good and acceptable and perfect will of God, not to the world. Renewing our minds is a continual process throughout the Christian life. Are saying because the apostle Paul, inspired by the Holy Spirit, commanded the Roman church to be transformed by the renewing of your mind that he is being deceptive?
Reisinger: “Don’t use theological language that is not in the Bible, in the pulpit, such as, Calvinism, reformed, doctrines of grace, particular redemption etc. Most people will not know what you are talking about.”
I’ve read this brought up in other posts about Calvinists not using certain language to “hide” our Calvinism and to be “deceptive” and “sneak into pulpits.” Reisinger’s point here is that most will not know what you are talking about. If a person has not been exposed to certain language, any language that is particular to a certain field, will anybody know what they are talking about?
I have a brother who is mechanic, when he talks about cars and what he fixes, I don’t know what he is talking about, unless it is just general automotive knowledge. Is my brother being deceptive? Is he tricking me?
When I first became a Christian, I heard words that I did not understand from my pastor, does that mean my pastor was deceiving me? Because you don’t agree with Calvinism and you probably have a low view of Calvinism, it is my personal belief that you are attributing BAD MOTIVES to Reisinger. You are using language that Reisinger is not even using in the pamphlet.
Well, just like your doctrines of calvinism vs. mine, we disagree on interpreting what he is saying. But most ove spoken with all agree. See the title on page 1, for example. Yes, even the Mormons can quote scripture. So I don’t see the point of this guy quoting scripture. Doctrines is what this guy is really talking about. BUT DON’T USE THE NOMENCLATURE? That’s deceitful. Seasoned congregation knows what the Bible speaks, and then this guy wants to bring in calvinism, keeping the nomenclature hush hush? Come on. Are you going to boldly proclaim that this guy isn’t GROOMING the congregation into different doctrines that they were previously never taught by former seasoned preachers? That’s like Mormons taking over jehovah’s witnesses, by stealth.
chapmaned24
Are you going to boldly proclaim that this guy isn’t GROOMING the congregation into different doctrines that they were previously never taught by former seasoned preachers?
roland
I don’t think he is GROOMING the congregation. It sounds like he is offering advice on how to reform a local church. Do you believe he is trying to groom the congregation?
7 easy pieces of advice on how to reform a church.
1) Whatever you do – do not let the church know what you are up to
2) Don’t speak the word “Calvinism” – but instead replace this word with “Biblical”
3) Don’t speak the words “Reformed Theology” – but instead replace these words with “Biblical understanding”
4) Remove all Bible scholarship – commentaries etc – that are not authored by Reformed authors
5) Replace all of these with materials authored only by Reformed authors
6) If any church member is savvy enough to figure out what you are doing – make life miserable enough to guarantee that church member will leave. 7) Continue to superstitiously indoctrinate all church members without them being aware they are being indoctrinated.
I think I found “the Calvinist” that goes around giving advice on how to sneak Calvinism into churches. It was brdmod all along. And he would have gotten away with it too, if it wasn’t for those pesky critical thinkers.
Nobody asked for advice. And if he’s offering advice on HOW TO… then he’s not talking to the congregation, but he is talking to the already Calvinist preachers. He certainly isn’t talking to the Traditional preachers. So you have calvinist teachers entering a trad church, manipulating people’s minds.
I see where your problem lies: you want a TRADITIONAL church. If that’s what you want, why not just join Catholicism, where they worship Tradition like you do?
spurcalluth,
Obviously, you don’t know the BAPTIST lingo. I’m not bapist anyway, but it is BAPTIST lingo. I’m not Catholic, either. I am just a lowly non-denomination.
Denominations tend to search the commentaries daily to see if the Bible is right.
My point, WHY do the TRADITIONAL Baptists have to be subjected to a theology that they don’t believe in? There are Calvinists WITHIN the Baptist church’s.
I’ll be blunt here. I don’t care if Calvinism fourishes in the world. I just don’t want it to be where it isn’t wanted. But I suppose that you have crashed parties where you weren’t invited or wanted, too, huh? You would rather turn a church upside down and cause chaos with little old ladies in a pew, than start your own church down the street.
The mixing of two belief systems in any church is anti-thetical Christianity. Otherwise, Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses would congregate together.
Ed Chapman
I heard you said that you are in a non-denominational church. If there are Christians in that church, you had better either leave yourself or chase them away, because you don’t have Christian faith, and as you say, different belief systems don’t mix.
Christianity is so easy, it’s people like you and those dead people from 600 years ago that wants people to jump thru hoops and walk on eggshells. I’ve found that I oppose ALL “WE Believe” statements in one aspect or another. Critical thinking people do. Organized religion isn’t to well liked. But I like guitarized religion, with lights, drums, guitars. Let There Be Rock! All I have to do is believe Jesus died for the remission of sins, and he rose from the dead proving eternal life.
Christianity is especially easy if you don’t care about truth. You know, like how you don’t care about truth. You just want to replace your entire vocabulary with “Jesus”, making the name Jesus meaningless, because you hate that name in reality. So if you can rob it of meaning, at least to your mind, by making Abraham mean Jesus, and Jacob mean Jesus, and Moses mean Jesus (and why stop there? let table mean Jesus, and lamp mean Jesus, and excrement mean Jesus, because in your world, everything is Jesus and nothing is not Jesus), then maybe you can make it so you don’t have to face the truth about Jesus.
The Calvinist pastor trying to push Calvinism into a non-Calvinist church plays the role of the FALSE mother in 1st Kings who stands before God and says:
“Let the baby be cut in half – at least I’ll get my half”
Ohhhh. Good one!
Oh, so if I want to teach a class about “completion of a vector lattice by partitioning the directed Cauchy sequences”, if I use a more simple way of saying “partitioning”, I am a liar who wants to deceive students? Your objection fails.
As someone with a postgraduate mathematics background, I guess I will be accused of deliberate deception if I try to teach a class about “completion of a vector lattice by adding limits to all directed Cauchy sequences”. As soon as you use words that you haven’t heard by primary school, you are apparently THE HORRIBLE DECEPTIVE SATAN himself, lol.
Ed Capman: “These are the reasons that I am glad that when I became a Christian, I came from a clean slate….”
Thanks for sharing your story. It’s always interesting to me to hear other people’s faith journeys. I agree that going right to the Bible and reading it with fresh eyes is so important. And reading it from beginning to end, beginning to end. I had read it about 6 times from beginning to end, not to mention about 20+ years of reading it regularly but in a more random way, before I started comparing Calvinism to it. (I had been particularly interested, when reading through it all those times, to learn how God interacted with people, what prayer was and how it “worked” and how God responded to it, what “His Will” was, and what our role was, what He expected from us.) And so I already had a very good handle on what was in the Bible, what it really said. (If you notice, Calvinist preachers are really big on telling you what the Bible “teaches.” The Bible doesn’t actually clearly and outrightly SAY the Calvinist stuff they believe, their interpretations of verses, and so they say it “teaches” it, as if they can put verses together in such a way – taking them out of context, subtly twisting them, adding extra layers and double meanings, etc. – until it appears to “teach” what they believe without actually saying it.) And this, along with the pastor’s manipulative tactics, is probably why I could tell very early on that something wasn’t adding up with what the pastor was telling us, that it wasn’t fitting with what I knew the Bible to consistently say or with what it revealed of God’s character. If Calvinists didn’t teach people to “see” Calvinism in the Bible, there wouldn’t be almost any Calvinists.
Roland: “I know many Calvinist pastors who would advise against doing so.”
Well, then they would have my respect far more than those who hide/disguise their Calvinism and seek to stealthily take over churches, which there are plenty of out there. There are even guidelines posted online by Calvinists on how to reform a non-Calvinist church slowly over years. And there are Calvinists bragging about how they led their church or Sunday School into Calvinism without them knowing it. There is Calvinist subterfuge going on inside a lot of churches, even if you don’t see it in your corner of the world. I have dug deep into all this, so that I don’t make accusations/conclusions with no basis.
I could have stayed at our church if they had allowed open discussion and different views, if they weren’t so forceful and controlling about Calvinism. But they were only getting more and more controlling and less and less tolerant. (Even the questions in their weekly sermon-based, small-group, Bible studies were biased towards Calvinism, implying that Calvinism is the biblical view and that your answers should conform, such as “So, considering that God sovereignly controls all things that happen …” or “In light of the truth of (Calvinist) predestination …” These are leading questions leaving no room for disagreement. And if you do disagree, you are set up to look like you disagree with God’s Truth.)
However, I agree with you that it’s not all Calvinist churches, and that there can be problems with non-Calvinist ones too. But for Calvinism to thrive and take hold of a church, Calvinist pastors have to carefully control, filter, re-interpret, etc., what the congregation learns, to make it fit Calvinism – because the great bulk of Scripture contradicts Calvinism, and because Calvinism fundamentally involves a “special knowledge” of a “deeper, hidden” layer of meaning underneath what the Bible says. This “deeper, hidden” layer cannot be discovered by the average person without the help of Calvinist pastors teaching it. (It’s one of the things that make Calvinists feel so special – that, out of everyone, God supposedly chose to love THEM and save THEM and reveal to THEM the deeper “truths” of Scripture. Special, lucky people!) There are a few verses that really do sound Calvinist, but when studied much closer, they fall apart too. And so Calvinist pastors have to do all they can to make sure the congregation uses those few “Calvinist verses” to filter the rest of Scripture through. Because most people would not come to the Calvinist conclusion without the help of Calvinists. A few might, I’m sure, but that just means they have twisted the great bulk of non-Calvinist Scripture to fit the few Calvinist-sounding verses.
Ed Chapman and Pastor Loz,
I too have seen proof online of Calvinists stealthily taking over churches and teaching how to hide your Calvinism. [Though they won’t call it “hiding/disguising.” They call it “not getting mixed up with labels” or “not wanting to confuse the people” or “teaching the Bible and not Calvinism” (even though they then say that Calvinism IS the Bible, which really just means they are teaching Calvinism without admitting to it).] And I thought about providing links. But I think that if a Calvinist REALLY wants to know, they should start digging for themselves. If not, it’s just throwing pearls to swine. There is more to be learned sometimes by someone doing their own research than to have it handed to them by someone else. Usually, when they just want something handed to them, it’s because they just want to blow holes in it instead of taking it seriously.
(But I’d be interested to read any links you provide.)
I’d also like to see some links. I’ll watch them. I’d like to see this as I’ve never met a Calvinist who teaches this or proposes it. Not to say that it doesn’t happen.
Roland;
I’ve never met a Calvinist who teaches this or proposes i
br.d
Nice strategy to setup an impossible criteria!
The Calvinist pastor who lied to a church pastoral search committee in order to gain access to a Non-Calvinist church – did not advertise his mode of operation – and for obvious reasons.
We don’t expect a car thief is going to publicly teach and propose the theft of cars! 😀
There is a more explicit one than this from Piper. I will find it. https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/how-to-teach-and-preach-calvinism
Just read this by John Piper. I don’t get any sense of him writing to teach and preach Calvinism “deceitfully” or “secretly” or “sneaking into a pulpit.” I think he is just sharing his own knowledge about how to preach and teach Calvinism. This is something a non-Calvinist WOULD NEVER DO, let a Calvinist text sound Calvinistic.
Here’s a quote from the article.
“If it sounds Arminian, let it sound Arminian. Trust the text and the people will trust you to be faithful to the text.” John Piper
First, they would say, “Calvinism is not in the Bible, so nothing in the Bible sounds Calvinistic” or something along those lines. Second, they would never let a Calvinistic text sound Calvinistic because they would never want a glimpse of Calvinism to be seen by their congregation. I used to hear it a lot on a local non-calvinist Christian radio station that I used to listen to before I became a Calvinist.
Roland
If it sounds Arminian, let it sound Arminian let it sound Arminian. Trust the text and the people will trust you to be faithful to the text.” John Piper
br.d
INTERPRETATION
“If it sounds antithetical to Calvinism let it sound antithetical to Calvinism”
Holding Calvinistic propositions as TRUE – while treating those propositions *AS-IF* they are FALSE is the common Calvinist way of living with those doctrines.
For example – you proclaim the divine sacred TRUTH of Calvinism – that there is absolutely NO SUCH THING as a maverick molecule.
Then you treat that divine sacred TRUTH *AS-IF* it is FALSE
By arguing that Calvin’s god “Restrains” the movements of sinful evil molecules – *AS-IF* those molecules were maverick molecules!
All in a days work of Reformed DOUBLE-SPEAK! 😀
Wow, the double-speak is thick with you, brdmod. When an Arminian or provisionalist or any other stripe of non-Calvinist says “let the text say what it says”, then you interpret it as “let the text say what it says”. When a Calvinist says “let the text say what it says”, you immediately REINTERPET it as “don’t let the text say what it says”. You are engaged in so much projection that I’m wondering if I should bring transparencies to place on you when we talk.
spurcalluth
Wow, the double-speak is thick with you, brdmod.
br,d
The irony there is I was providing that as an example of typical Calvinist thinking!
Thank you for affirming that as DOUBLE-SPEAK! :-]
You yet again misinterpret what I said. Of course, you ascribe to the doctrine of the omniscience of brdmod, so you will tell me that I don’t interpret what I said correctly, so there is no point in pointing out to you that you are misinterpreting me. I am just pointing out to everyone else here that you ascribe to the doctrine that you are the Searcher of hearts, who can interpret everyone’s intentions better than they can themselves.
spurcalluth
you ascribe to the doctrine that you are the Searcher of hearts, who can interpret everyone’s intentions better than they can themselves.
br.d
Nah!
I ascribe to the doctrine – what logically follows with the doctrine.
Or at least that is the primary intent.
You said “I ascribe to the doctrine – what logically follows with the doctrine.”, which, as far as I can tell, is not an English sentence. I don’t speak nonsense, so please try to rephrase what you said in standard English.
“Letting the text say what it says” – is CLOAKED LANGUAGE in Calvinism for “Making the text mean what we need it to mean”
You are confirming what I said elsewhere on this webpage: You ascribe to the doctrine that you are the Searcher of hearts that you can read everyone’s heart and intentions better than they can themselves. I would argue that your self-worship is a FAR more serious problem than Calvinism.
Ascribe to the doctrine! ?!?!?
How that makes any sense – is a mystery to me!
spurcalluth
I would argue that your self-worship is a FAR more serious problem than Calvinism
br.d
The next thing I’m sure we’ll learn about me – is that I’m an alien from the planet gliptol! 😀
I realize now that I used the wrong word. I apologize. I meant the word SUBSCRIBE. If we have equal evidence for the idea that you are an alien from the planet Gliptol (or do you think gliptolians prefer not to capitalize their planet’s name; just asking as a hypothetical) then we will be forced to accept that statement. At the moment, you have not yet provided us with enough evidence for THAT statement yet. You have however provided us with enough evidence to accept the other statement, that you worship yourself.
spurcalluth
You have however provided us with enough evidence to accept the other statement, that you worship yourself.
br.d
Again with the emotional responses! 😀
I suspect I touched someones sacred cow!
You claim to know other people’s intentions better than they do themselves. That means that you claim that you search their hearts. Searching hearts is something only God does. Consequently, you claim to be God. Should I put this in syllogism form for you, or do you think you can handle the logic in the form I’ve provided it?
spurcalluth
You claim to know other people’s intentions better than they do themselves
br.d
That is silly!
What I post – regard realities of human nature.
It is not silly. You keep telling me and Roland what it is that we mean, as if we don’t know what we mean, but you do. I have corrected you on that score several times. I keep telling you that you do not know better than we do what it is that we mean. You insist that you do know better. So you are, in effect, declaring that you are the Searcher of hearts.
He repeatedly does that. He also likes to use the AS-IF argument. Calvinists live AS-IF they have freewill or they live AS-IF their doctrine is true but in reality he claims we don’t. He also likes the DOUBLE-MINDED argument, Calvinists are DOUBLE-MINDED. And yes, he knows what I really mean even when I explicitly state what I mean. He truly is the searcher of hearts!
Making the text mean what we need it to mean – could not possibly be something that a Calvinist would do
Cuz they’re way to DIVINE for that! 😀
I see what you did there. Yes, how dare the Westminster Assembly not use 21st century English? Such(VULGAR LANGUAGE REMOVED HERE) always trying to use the language of their day instead of the language of 4 centuries later. Fie upon them!
But to return from brdmod’s mad world to reality: Thanks for finally admitting that it is provisionists and not Calvinists that make the text mean what they mean it to mean.
I have a personal experience of calvinist sneakiness. Last year we visited an Elim church. Elim churches are traditionally non-calvinist in their soteriology. As the pastor preached, although he did not use any explicitly calvinistic language, it became clear to me that he was pushing calvinist concepts, in particular that of absolute determinism. When we got home i contacted the pastor and asked if he was calvinist in his beliefs, and if the church’s statement of faith was calvinistic (they did not post a statement of faith). He did not answer. I sent several more messages asking the same question. In response all I got was deafening silence. The refusal to answer a simple question like this speaks volumes.
Bingo!
They can’t be UP FRONT about it – because they know Christians will reject it.
So they operate in a deceptive manner – and justify those deceptions as “godly”.
We see the same issue with the Calvinist practice of lying by omission.
Lying by omission occurs when a speaker strategically omits critical information – which if it were not omitted – recipients would not be mislead – but when it is omitted – recipients are guaranteed to be mislead.
Lying by omission is not a sin for a Calvinist – just as long as one is lying for the sake of Calvinism
Calvinism in their minds is the gospel and biblical truth.
So by telling themselves they are the conduit of “the gospel” and “biblical truth” they can justify the use of dishonest tactics and dishonest language.
For the Calvinist – it is form of “Altruistic Dishonesty” – which according to Calvinist ethics is not a sin.
You seem to be claiming that WHENEVER the Scriptures (or doctrines claimed to be derived therefrom) are gradually taught, this is ALWAYS lying by omission. So I assume that when you talk to someone about Scripture, you always teach them everything, in absolute complete depth and detail, of every verse from Genesis 1 to Revelation 22. If not, you are lying by omission by your own reasoning, and you stand condemned out of your own mouth.
Roland: “I would like to see some examples of Calvinist pastors sneaking into Arminian churches and enforcing Calvinism on the congregation.”
Then start doing some serious digging online. If I found a handful of examples of this in just a few hours online, so can you.
Roland: “I don’t believe an Arminian would want to sneak into a Calvinist church.”
I’m not Arminian, but I agree. This subterfuge seems to be a problem specific to Calvinists.
Heather:
Then start doing some serious digging online. If I found a handful of examples of this in just a few hours online, so can you.
roland
I did a little digging found a mixture of this going on. I found more websites addressing how Calvinists do this and not so many first hand accounts of it actually being done. I also found an article on 9 Marks about a Calvinists intern pastor and his experience with a non-calvinist church. That was an interesting read.
This reason why I ask for evidence is because I believe it is unfair to make accusations without evidence. Prosecutors should not go into a court and simply state the defendant did what they are accused. It is the prosecutor’s job to provide the evidence, if they cannot do so, they lose credibility, and the case gets too out. I know if I did that on this site I would be called out for doing so. If I was to write about non-Calvinists sneaking into Calvinist pulpits and say, “do a little digging yourself.” I would get responses from at least five other people on this site, calling me out, and writing that it is wrong to do such a thing.
Roland: “Do you believe he is trying to groom the congregation?”
Heather: Yep! When they start out with an agenda to reform a non-Calvinist church, that is indeed grooming. Do you really think a Calvinist pastor would come into a non-Calvinist church and be okay with letting it remain a non-Calvinist church?
BRDMOD: “7 easy pieces of advice on how to reform a church.
1) Whatever you do – do not let the church know what you are up to
2) Don’t speak the word “Calvinism” – but instead replace this word with “Biblical”
3) Don’t speak the words “Reformed Theology” – but instead replace these words with “Biblical understanding”
4) Remove all Bible scholarship – commentaries etc – that are not authored by Reformed authors
5) Replace all of these with materials authored only by Reformed authors
6) If any church member is savvy enough to figure out what you are doing – make life miserable enough to guarantee that church member will leave.
7) Continue to superstitiously indoctrinate all church members without them being aware they are being indoctrinated.”
Heather: Amen to this! I’ve experienced it first-hand (we lost our church home of almost 20 years over it). And after experiencing it personally and then reading other people’s stories of the exact same thing happening to them, in almost the exact same ways, and then reading Calvinist pastor’s articles that confirm their agenda of stealthily reforming non-Calvinist churches (they disguise their stealthy attempts to sound merely like “good and wise practices”) … I can and will emphatically say that, without a doubt, many (not all) Calvinist pastors are sneaking into non-Calvinists churches, determined to reform them without the congregation’s knowledge (starting with not telling anyone they are Calvinist and with picking a few key men to reform first, sending them out to spread Calvinism to the rest of the congregation, like yeast in dough). If someone cannot see that this is going on, it’s probably because they are on the wrong side. Cult-members do not see their cult’s attempts to suck people into the cult as “manipulative attempts to brainwash people into the cult.” They think it’s just “spreading the truth.” Only those outside the cult can see it and call it what it is and warn against it.
I guess the only way a Calvinist pastor would be OK with leaving a non-calvinist church uninfected with his virus is if he believed calvii-god had unchangeably ordained for that to happen. In other words, never!
Pastor Loz
In other words, never!
roland
I know two brothers in the Lord who you were pastors at their former churches and were told to leave by their co-pastors because they were considering some beliefs of Calvinism. They were kicked out, both had the same experience. They began to question their previous beliefs, and their co-pastors quickly believed they were undercover calvinists trying to split the church. Their co-pastors would not even discuss Reformed doctrines of God, the Church, Salvation, etc., nothing. As soon as they questioned something, they were accused of Calvinism, even though they were barely beginning to read into Reformed theology. Yes, Calvinists pastors do leave churches that are non-calvinistic. You just don’t hear about it.
Roland
their co-pastors quickly believed they were undercover calvinists trying to split the church
br.d
Once bit twice shy!
The phenomenon of Calvinists strategically operating in undercover mode – is simply all to prevelent to be considered a misunderstanding.
It is the rule and not the exception.
As Roger Olson explained when he said had heard of not one case of an Arminian functioning covertly in a Calvinist congregation.
And if one searches the internet for testimonies – there is a pattern that does emerge
And that pattern includes Calvinist pastors who find all sorts of reasons to justify dishonesty.
As a matter of fact – lying by omission is a characteristic language pattern in Calvinism – all by itself.
Lying by omission is not considered a sin for a Calvinist – as long as it is done for the sake of Calvinism (which the Calvinist is told is for the sake of god and gospel).
I suspect that many non-calvinists (including myself) would find a calvinistic church such a poisonous environment that their priority would be to leave and find a church that worships God as the holy and loving being that He is. In the church I lead, we make it absolutely explicit that calvinism goes against our statement of faith and our values and will not be tolerated and we will robustly challenge and confront the slightest hint of that doctrine of demons being taught or spread in any way. We have also counselled people who have been victimised even to the point of feeling suicidal by this foul philosophy.
Pastor Loz
I suspect that many non-calvinists (including myself) would find a calvinistic church such a poisonous environment that their priority would be to leave and find a church that worships God as the holy and loving being that He is.
roland
It is unfortunate that you slander Reformed churches. Do you consider Reformed believers Christians or do you consider us heretics who promote a doctrine of demons?
If you don’t believe we are Christians then you should have a LOVING way of sharing the Gospel to people who you believe are not Christians.
There is absolutely no slander involved. Unlike when you misrepresent the beliefs of non-calvinists, time and time again. I have interacted with enough calvinists and attended churches pushing deformed doctrine to know that this is the case. I don’t make decisions on whether calvinists are saved or not, if they are it is despite the deception they are trapped in. Confronting and challenging is part of being loving.
You come across more as someone who hates Calvinists and Calvinism. You don’t seem very loving with your name calling. You commit the logical fallacy of faulty generalization. You are a finite creature and there is no way that you have knowledge of all Reformed churches to know that they are all full of deception.
One of your many problems is that you are unable to distinguish between calvinists and calvinism. As I have clearly stated before in this and other threads, I do not hate calvinists, I hate the deception of calvinism that they are caught up in. When I start to list the eight misrepresentations of non-calvinists that you have perpetrated in this thread alone, you will see just how utterly ridiculous and hypocritical it is for you to complain about “faulty generalization”, because that is EXACTLY what you have been doing.
Heather said about Calvinistic preachers that “well, I wonder how many of them are really saved, or if they simply think they are but are really just tools of the devil”. Do you agree with that, or are you going to rebuke her for confusing Calvinism and Calvinists? If you are an honest man, you will pick one of those two options, and if you pick the first, then you are confusing Calvinism and Calvinists and should sort that out before berating someone else for doing it.
And you accuse me of butting in, lol. What Heather said does not equate to hatred for Calvinists. Probably time to wind your neck in.
I have no idea what “wind your neck in” means, but I guess it means the same as “go clutch your handbag” and “stop the histrionics” that you hit me with all the time. Apparently being passionate about truth ALWAYS is the same as histrionics, and Pastor Loz would not be caught dead being passionate about truth.
Since calvinism / deformed theology is a demonic deception, then I don’t need to know about every deformed church in the world to know that they are full of that deception.
So Roland, lLet’s start with eight mis-representations you have made concerning non-calvinists from this thread alone. Then you can tell us how none of these constitute faulty generalizations
1. R <<>>
2. R <<>>
And you want to create the impression that this is all non-calvinists have in relation to John 6:44. John 6:44 and associated Scriptures have been addressed NUMEROUS times in this group and elsewhere by non-calvinists IN DETAIL. Biblical non-calvinists believe Jesus meant EXACTLY what He said, and in addition that in accordance with John 12:32, God draws ALL, enabling all to come. Of course you have to impose your Calvinistic rationalism on John 12:32 to try and have us believe that “all” actually means “some Jews and some Gentiles”, despite the fact that the Holy Spirit simply chose to use the word “all”.
3. R <<>>
Nonsense. Under biblical non-calvinism God is completely omniscient and is not subject to knowledge, because knowledge is something people use, not something they are subject to.
4. R <<< the only position that consistently argues for libertarian freewill is position that denies God’s perfect knowledge of future events and future human choices, decisions, and actions.
Utter nonsense, refuted numerous times. God knows every genuine free will choice. Because He is God. omnisicient. Inherently. Quite apart from fact He is omnitemporal.
5. R <<>>
So biblical non-calvinists believe that when God unilaterally brought creation into being, instructed Adam and Eve, sent the flood, called Abraham, chose Israel, brought them out of Egypt, sent manna, gave the law, sent the prophets, sent Christ, raised Christ from the dead, sent the Holy Spirit and numerous other actions, He was just a passive observer and spectator. OK Roland.
R <<< would like to read post where someone explains how the king of Assyria was acting in a libertarian freewill manner + God was just passively observing king’s actions.
There is your dishonest false dichotomy, as your comment tries to posit the only possible alternatives being your Calvinistic determinism, or God being a passive observer. As I clearly demonstrated, these are not the only options, and God was ACTIVE without being DETERMINISTIC.
6. R <<>>
You were corrected on your misconception on this, you just don’t want to accept it. No biblical non-calvinist believes that libertarian freewill means absolute, unrestricted free will, only the freedom to make genuine choices within God-given parameters. Heather laid this out for you in detail from Scripture, but you did not respond, because it does not suit your narrative.
7. R <<>> .
Which of 9 main versions of Calvinism that Calvinists themselves have identified is the “true” Calvinism? Why did God unchangeably ordain for Calvinists to be unable to get their story straight between them? Debating the constantly moving goalposts of Calvinism, as somebody once observed, is like debating a 9 headed monster. You cut one head off and the other 8 heads say, “that isn’t Calvinism!” https://reformedforhisglory.wordpress.com/2013/08/09/types-of-calvinism-a-comprehensive-list/
8. R <<< James wrote if the Lord wills, we shall…life, actions, dcisions, etc. not ultimately up to 2 us. If Lord wills, Calvinist can confidently confess this, libertarian freewill proponent cannot, can only say, “If we will, we shall…”
More lies and faulty generalizations. Biblical non-calvinists know that God can intervene at any time to block any of their plans, just as He did with those at the tower of Babel. That’s what the verse means. It does not mean that God has unchangeably ordained every choice we make. That’s a meaning you imposed upon the verse from bringing your Calvinistic presuppositions to it.
Roland
Do you consider Reformed believers Christians or do you consider us heretics who promote a doctrine of demons?
br.d
According to the doctrine – a Reformed believers salvation status is INVISIBLE and is a DIVINE SECRET
No Calvinist has any CERTAINTY of whether or not he was designed/created for eternal torment in the lake of fire or not.
John Calvin
-quote
We are *NOT* bidden to distinguish between reprobate and elect – that is for God alone, not for us, to do . . .
(Institutes of the Christian Religion, IV. 1. 3.)
-quote
The election of god is HIDDEN and SECRET in itself . . . men are being fantastic or fanatical if they look
for their salvation or for the salvation of others in the labyrinth of predestination… (Commentary on John 6:40)
brdmod, Do you consider Reformed believers Christians or do you consider us heretics who promote a doctrine of demons? I don’t care to know what “the Calvinist” has to say, I’m not asking him. I’m asking you.
A former President of the United States, and Author of our Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson, had this to say about Cavlinism:
THOMAS JEFFERSON on JOHN CALVIN
“I can never join Calvin in addressing his god. He was indeed an Atheist, which I can never be; or rather his religion was Daemonism. If ever man worshipped a false god, he did. The being described in his 5 points is not the god whom you and I acknowledge and adore, the Creator and benevolent and governor of the world, but a daemon of malignant spirit. It would be more pardonable to believe in no god at all, than to blaspheme him by the atrocious attributes of Calvin.”
—Jefferson, Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823.
“The Presbyterian clergy are loudest, the most intolerant of all sects, the most tyrannical, and ambitious; ready at the word of the lawgiver, if such a word could be now obtained, to put the torch to the pile, and to rekindle in this virgin hemisphere, the flames in which their oracle Calvin consumed the poor Servetus, because he could not find in his Euclid the proposition which has demonstrated that three are one, and one is three, nor subscribe to that of Calvin that magistrates have a right to exterminate all heretics to Calvinistic creed.”
—Jefferson, letter to William Short, April 13, 1820.
chapmaned24
A former President of the United States, and Author of our Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson, had this to say about Cavlinism:
roland
Thomas Jefferson, along with many of the founding fathers, was a deist. He rejected many of the traditional beliefs of Christianity such as the virgin birth of Christ, original sin, the Trinity, and Christ’s resurrection. He believed in reason over revelation. He also believed that a person could perform good works to earn salvation. I am not surprised that he has such a negative view of John Calvin. Your citation of Jefferson’s hatred of Calvin is irrelevant, it proves and shows nothing from a man who rejected many basic Christian doctrines.
I can see that you haven’t studied Thomas Jefferson very well in his use of the word, DEIST. Today’s use of that word makes it sound as if Jefferson believed in a generic God. But that’s not the use that Jefferson used it. The definition is the belief in ONE GOD, and Jefferson said that the Jews are deists in that regard. Jefferson claimed to be a Christian, in the sense of the God of the Jews. You are correct, he didn’t believe in the virgin birth, and that Jesus is God. But… these people were coming from the church of England, and they did not trust the church of England, and thought there might be corruption in their teachings. Benjamin Franklin does not think that God will punish those who DOUBT the divinity of Jesus. And quite frankly, I agree. Ignorance is excused. In addition, I don’t believe in original sin, and I can prove why. The only thing inherited due to Adam is death of the body. But that was gonna happen anyway. Adam did not start out with a glorified body. The only way he could have obtained eternal life is from a tree called the tree of life. Now, for those who think that tree is a metaphor, how is it that God blocked access to that tree after the fall? That tree had power. To prove Adam was gonna die anyway, that’s easy. 1 Cor 15:42-46. Depending on what Bible version you use, see the word, PLANTED, or SOWED. Adam was planted in a dying, weak, natural, body. He was gonna die anyway. We did not inherit Adams sin. We inherited natural death only.
I think it comes as absolutely no surprise that you are perfectly fine with Arianism. What does come as a surprise is that brdmod, Heather, Pastor Loz, and other provisionists/non-Calvinists here don’t mind you being an Arian. I don’t see any of them defending the deity of Christ when you are around.
I am focused on one heresy, Calvinism. I debate other heresies on other groups. So much for your assumption.
You are focused on one heresy, so you don’t need to worry if people say Jesus is not God, because that is not the heresy of Calvinism. Why hate falsehood when you can hate just one specific “heresy”? That would take too much time and too much effort out of lazy-boy Pastor Loz’s day.
In addition, I also am aware that most Baptist leaders hate Thomas Jefferson based on what you laid out. But there is another side that they don’t discuss about him. For instance, he attended Christian church services in the US House of Representatives. So much for that wall of separation, huh?
chapmaned 24
So much for that wall of separation, huh?
roland
They’re were state churches established before the First Amendment was written. The idea of separation of church and state is a modern idea. You mentioned Jefferson’s historical context. The idea of not having a national church was affected by England’s national church and the king’s position as head of that church. The founding fathers were looking to avoid the mistakes made in England but there was no concept of separation of church and state. They were more concerned with religious liberty and religion oaths being required for government positions than separation of church and state. Some Christians agreed with Jefferson on the concept of religious liberty, including baptists.
And now you confuse the House of Representatives with a church. Is your religion just whatever a famous American has said before? Joseph Smith is pretty famous, and hey presto! you believe in the pre-existence of our souls. Benjamin Franklin believes God is okay with rejecting His Son as God, and hey presto! you believe it too.
You confuse a people with a building. People is the church. Not a building. My point was, church was in a state building. But that went over your head, because you are not an American who would know what the wall of separation discussing was about. Our founders escaped the church of England. They didn’t trust the church of England, and the church of England was the state. So yes, I believe just the same as Ben Franklin, in that God will excuse that error. When did the apostles themselves figure it out? They followed Jesus without knowing. When did that knowledge come to them?
They definitely figured out Jesus was God by the time of the resurrection, because Matthew 28 records that they worshipped Jesus. Of course, you only study the holy documents of The Watchtower Society, the Doctrine and Covenants of the Mormons, and whatever nonsense deists came up with in the eighteenth century, so what would you know of Matthew 28?
So, I’ve said it twice now, in that genesis 1 discusses that animals were created before man. Yet in genesis 2, Adam was formed before the animals. And all you want to do is discuss Mormons. Get back to the Bible, Mr. PHILOSOPHER. Let’s discuss Genesis. Let’s discuss 1 Thess 5:23, before addressing the word became flesh from John. Let’s discuss FATHER OF SPIRITS, Hebrews 12:9. Let’s discuss spirit of man, both in Eccl 3:21 and 1 Cor 2:11. There’s a lot more.
I understand that you don’t want to stick with Genesis 1 despite making claims about Genesis 1, but I won’t let you do that with me. You think that just because you want to make a small hop instead of a massive one, I won’t notice it, but you didn’t claim that Genesis 2 says that we were created as a ghost. So I still want to know, where does GENESIS 1 say it? Give me the verse in Genesis 1. Not a verse in Genesis 2 that you correlate with 1 Thessalonians 5, Hebrews 12, and Ecclesiastes 3. That was not your claim. Your claim WAS NOT about Genesis 2, 1 Thessalonians 5, Hebrews 12, and Ecclesiastes 3. Your claim WAS about Genesis 1. So show it to me in Genesis 1. Or admit that your original claim was a lie and that you cannot show it without bringing in a bunch of other passages.
I thought you don’t listen to old, dead guys. I guess you are very selective about applying that rule. Let me see, what qualifications do you need to have to be an authority on theology and religious philosophy?
1.) You must have been a previous president of the USA (so that includes Trump and Obama, I guess; you’ll get a lot of consistent theology by harmonizing those two, right?) and
2.) you must have written a founding document for one of the countries in the world (so that includes Muhammad, whose ramblings are the foundational documents for a bunch of countries in the middle east).
Yeah, real good, real SPIRITUAL authorities that you have there, Eddie.
Great point. He’s been very adamant about not listening and not allowing old dead guys to decide for him.
I am at work now… don’t have time to engage, but I will when I get home in about ten hours. But I saw this one that I’ll address now. I do not seek religious advice from dead people, and still don’t. Did I indicate anything related that I sought the advice of Thomas Jefferson in religious matters? I was only conveying HIS CREEDS. I do not subscribe to his creed. However, you asked what my authority and qualifications on theology and religious philosophy? Ok, I’ll answer that with the following question. What does the book say that is necessary to be qualified? Paul took a look at his ESTEEMED education, and said it was DUNG (KJV). And if I’m not mistaken, from the mouths of babes, not the wise. There’s a lot more where that came from, too. Just read the book, and study it. Bereans style. Study to show THYSELF approved.
Untrained and unstable men twist the Scriptures to their own destruction. I think we have found one of those men in Ed Chapman.
That’s why I said to study to show yourself approved. Study the scriptures daily to see if the preacher is right. We preach the foolishness of Christ to confound the wise. There’s a lot more. You study philosophers daily to see if the Bible is right. You love philosophers. You study them.
Oh my goodness, I study philosophy of mathematics, so I study philosophers. Consequently I must be the devil. I read philosophy, consequently I cannot read the Bible.
You sound so incredibly dumb. Do you work at it, or is this just sheer unadulterated talent in idiocy?
br.d
According to the doctrine – a Reformed believers salvation status is INVISIBLE and is a DIVINE SECRET
No Calvinist has any CERTAINTY of whether or not he was designed/created for eternal torment in the lake of fire or not.
roland
You took Calvin’s comment about the elect and the reprobate out of context. He was addressing unity in the Church. He was speaking of communion of the saints. It is not necessary for the Church, in order to embrace unity and communion, to go about distinguishing the elect and the reprobate but it is the Church’s duty to embrace God’s promises of His presence among His people.
According to Calvin’s doctrine of “evanescent grace”, neither you nor any “elect believer” can know or will know whether they were truly elect until the end.
Pastor Loz
According to Calvin’s doctrine of “evanescent grace”, neither you nor any “elect believer” can know or will know whether they were truly elect until the end.
roland
Here’s Calvin on assurance of faith in the believer. It is a misrepresentation to say that Calvin believed no one could know whether they were the elect or not.
“The truth is, that unbelief reigns NOT in the hearts of believers, but only assails them from without; does not wound them mortally with its darts, but annoys them, or at the utmost, give them a wound which can be healed. Faith as Paul (declares in Ephesians 6:16), is our shield, which receiving these darts, either wards them off entirely or at least breaks their force, and prevents them from reaching the vitals… but since the prevailing thought is that God is present and providing for their safety, the feeling of security overcomes that of fear.” Book 3, chapter 2, section 21
Calvin taught that Christians can have assurance of their faith not looking into themselves but trusting in the presence and promises of God.
Experience shows that the reprobate are sometimes affected in a way so similar to the elect that even in their own judgment there is no difference between them. Hence, it is not strange, that by the Apostle a taste of heavenly gifts, and by Christ himself a temporary faith is ascribed to them. Not that they truly perceive the power of spiritual grace and the sure light of faith; but the Lord, the better to convict them, and leave them without excuse, instills into their minds such a sense of goodness as can be felt without the Spirit of adoption … there is a great resemblance and affinity between the elect of God and those who are impressed for a time with a fading faith … Still it is correctly said, that the reprobate believe God to be propitious to them, inasmuch as they accept the gift of reconciliation, though confusedly and without due discernment; not that they are partakers of the same faith or regeneration with the children of God; but because, under a covering of hypocrisy they seem to have a principle of faith in common with them. Nor do I even deny that God illumines their mind to this extent … there is nothing inconsistent in this with the fact of his enlightening some with a present sense of grace, which afterwards proves evanescent. (Institutes 3.2.11).
Pastor Loz
“Still it is correctly said, that the reprobate believe God to be propitious to them, inasmuch as they accept the gift of reconciliation, though confusedly and without due discernment; not that they are partakers of the same faith or regeneration with the children of God;”
roland
He is speaking of the reprobate not the elect. The reprobate do not participate of the same faith or regeneration with the children of God. He also writes in the same section that “the elect ALONE have that full assurance which is extolled by Paul, and by which they are enabled to cry, Abba, Father. Therefore, as God regenerates the elect only for ever by incorruptible seed, as the seed of life once sown in their hearts never perishes, so he effectually seals in them the grace of his adoption, that it may be sure and steadfast.”
It is a false accusation to say that Reformed theology and Reformed Christians cannot have assurance of their election unto salvation.
Except that under the Calvinist god’s sick little game the reprobate pseudo elect fully believe that they have absolute assurance of salvation. You could be one of them. Another example of the unholy god you worship.
Pastor Loz
Except that under the Calvinist god’s sick little game the reprobate pseudo elect fully believe that they have absolute assurance of salvation. You could be one of them. Another example of the unholy god you worship.
roland
So when Paul, inspired by the Holy Spirit, writes in 2 Thessalonians 2:11, that God will send them a strong delusion so that they will believe the lie, is that your God as well?
11 Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false, 12 in order that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
God sends them a strong delusion, so that they believe what is false, in order that all may be condemned. God sends a delusion for a purpose to be accomplished and it will be accomplished. Is this God’s little sick game of sending delusions?
That won’t work for you. The biblical delusion is a judicial punishment for those who persistently reject the truth that would have saved the. A completely different svenario. That verse incidentally blows Calvinism out of the water, since if your mythology was true, there is no truth that would save the reprobate, as the truth is that they were selected for hell from eternity, with no chance of salvation.
Why would they love you when they think you are sub-human?
I know. Some people on here come across as very hateful. They like to name call, slander, and denigrate those who disagree with them. Is this how Christ taught us to interact with the world? Yes, there are times when as Christians we need to take a stand against false doctrine and false practice but to resort to name calling and slander is the work of the devil, the accuser. I can’t imagine visiting the church Pastor Loz leads and telling him I’m a Reformed Christian. He would have his congregation chase me out with pitchforks! I thank God my Reformed church is not anti-non-Calvinist. We are for the truths of Scripture. Our identity in Christ is not found in things we are against but in Scriptural truths that we are for.
This is what is sad about this webpage; the people here seem to be more against Calvinism than for truth. As long as you hate Calvinism with the heat of a thousand suns, you can get away with calling Scripture a pack of lies, you can preach gnosticism, you can even be offended if anyone dares to question anything you say, while you worship yourself by making yourself equal with the Searcher of hearts. Truth is not to be found here.
“Robustly challenge” – with pitchforks, no doubt, and torches, and all the paraphernalia of an authoritarian mob.
Roland: “Just read this by John Piper. I don’t get any sense of him writing to teach and preach Calvinism “deceitfully” or “secretly” or “sneaking into a pulpit.”…Here’s a quote from the article: “If it sounds Arminian, let it sound Arminian. Trust the text and the people will trust you to be faithful to the text.” John Piper”
Heather: Yes, he gives lip service to the idea of letting a verse sound non-Calvinistic. But then he goes right on to say, “Trust the text and the people will trust you to be faithful to the text,” after laying the foundation of “Be rigorously textual in all your expositions and explanations and defenses of Calvinistic teachings.”
Can you not see how he is advising Calvinist pastors that if they carefully, consistently, rigorously teach Calvinism whenever they preach then eventually those people who trust that the pastor is being faithful to the text will start to agree? He’s saying that if the people trust you (a Calvinist pastor, though the people don’t know you’re a Calvinist because you hid those kinds of identifying words) then you can eventually – by constantly pushing, teaching, defending Calvinism – convince them to interpret Arminian-sounding verses Calvinistically.
Calvinists are great at stealthy tactics, deception, subterfuge, and at making it sound like they aren’t saying what they are. That’s why you have to read between the lines and comb what they say in other places. They don’t usually ever come right out and say what they are really doing or what they’re pushing on the congregation. That’s how they can get away with it, by being able to say “I never actually SAID blah, blah, blah.” They almost never put their real beliefs all in one place, clearly and nakedly, but they slip it in here and there, in drips, in between more biblical ideas. It’s all about subtle manipulation and “Did God really say …?” and maintaining the appearance of an angel of light.
Spurcalleth: “… I’m sorry, saying that the chaff just vastly outnumbers the wheat doesn’t make sense to me…. I sure as heck know that Jesus didn’t come just to save Jews like Ed Chapman thinks.”
I know this is from a week ago, but I thought I’d throw my two cents out there. I believe that the verse about “wide is the gate that leads to destruction and narrow is the gate that leads to life, and only a few find it” [not exact quote] answers the question about the chaff outnumbering the wheat.
And I’m not sure what Ed Chapman believes about this precisely (I haven’t read all comments on this site, don’t have time), but I would say that Jesus is clear that He came to bring salvation to all people, His death covers all sins of all people (but we choose to accept or reject it), but that He came TO the Jews first [not FOR the Jews only]. His ministry was to start by giving the Gospel to the Jews first (everybody has to start somewhere), and then they would take it into the world. But because they rejected Him, they were put on the back-burner (God’s plan for them was put on hold), and the Gospel was given to the Gentiles instead, the Church. Eventually, in the end times when Jesus comes back for His Church, God will turn His attention back to the Jews and fulfill His prophetic plans for them.
This is how I understand it, for what it’s worth. God bless!
We gentiles are the other sheep, not the sheep Jesus was talking to. For example, John 6. Our fathers didn’t eat manna in the desert. The Jews fathers did. Paul is our minister, and Romans 10. So yes, you are right. But Romans 11. We stand because of their fall. Jesus was not talking to gentiles.
Spurcalleth:
“… I’m sorry, saying that the chaff just vastly outnumbers the wheat doesn’t make sense to me
br.d
Calvinism derives the proportions from references to the MANY and the FEW within scripture
The FEW spoken of within scripture – represent the wheat within the body of Calvinist believers
The MANY spoken of within scripture – represents the chaff within the body of Calvinist believers
This makes perfect sense when one considers the Calvinist interpretation of divine potter in Romans 9 – who creates/designs the vast majority of the worlds population specifically for eternal torment in the lake of fire – for his good pleasure.
Also – it makes perfect sense for Calvin to conclude Divine Deception of the Believer in the doctrine.
Since the doctrine stipulates that WHATSOEVER comes to pass – does so infallibly by virtue of infallible decree.
For every Calvinist today who will eventually become an Atheist tomorrow – his PERCEPTION of election today must have been infallibly decreed.
Thus Divine Deception of the believer is part of what is infallibly decreed.
Heather,
In my last comment, I ended with “we stand because of their fall.”
But I need to qualify that with, “Had they not fallen, we Gentiles would never have had a chance.
And, in my last, I had put my name in the name columns, instead of chapmaned24.
I rarely post comments thru my phones browser, so it defaulted to my name. I usually use the APP on my phone.
But when I use my phone email, the web comes up instead of the APP.
I can fix that, but too busy now to bother.
Ed Chapman
Yes, well, Ed Chapman says Jesus came for the Jews only. Because unlike us humans who have free choice, those poor sub-human wretches the Jews cannot make the decision to follow Jesus, according to Ed.
spurcalluth,
You had said:
“Ed Chapman says Jesus came for the Jews only”
Matthew 15:24
But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
Oh, and by the way, WHEN was that wall that you mention in Ephesians torn betwixt the two? WHEN? Give us a time frame. What year was that?
And WHO was designated to take the gospel to the Gentiles? Peter didn’t want to, for he said:
Acts 10:28
And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.
Now, when Peter said that in Acts 10, how long had it been since that wall had been torn down?
And didn’t Paul say the following:
Romans 11:25
For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.
So, since we have a wall torn down, WE STILL HAVE BLIND JEWS WHO CAN’T COME TO CHRIST YET. Not until the FULNESS OF THE GENTILES COME IN.
You have a LOT of studying to do.
If I don’t shave for 10 minutes, do I have a beard? Of course not. If I don’t shave for 10 weeks, do I have a beard? It would seem so, but AT WHAT PRECISE MOMENT did I go from not having a beard to having a beard? It must have happened at some point in time. But, according to your argument, unless I can pin-point the millisecond that I started having a beard, I still don’t have a beard after 10 weeks of not shaving. Your argument is known as the beard fallacy. There are other names for it too.
You argue that at some point, there was a division between the gentiles and the Jews (fair point, I agree). I argue that at a later point, there clearly was no division, on the basis of Ephesians 2. Now you ask me for the exact millisecond (or at least, you might have, because there is no real difference between asking me for the exact year and asking me for the exact millisecond, in principle at least) and if I cannot provide you with the exact millisecond, the change did not happen. But Ephesians 2 says it did. So your argument leaves you no room but to say that Ephesians 2 is a lie. If that’s where you want to go, go there, but I’m not going with you.
Matthew 10:5-6
These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
Matthew 15:24
But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
How many Gentiles did Jesus speak with during his ministry?
He had a brief conversation with a Roman soldier, and a Samaritan woman who he likened to a dog, and to Pilot. Did Jesus give Pilot the gospel before being crucified?
Yes, we are the OTHER SHEEP, we are not the House of Israel.
Jesus is the MINISTER of the Jews, and Paul is the MINISTER of the Gentiles. Paul said that himself.
Romans 15:8
Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers:
Romans 15:16
That I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost.
How much of the bible do you REALLY KNOW? You know Calvin really well. But do you know Jesus as much as you know Calvin?
Ed Chapman
I can guarantee you that I know the Bible far better than I know the Institutes (Calvin’s main book). I’ve read maybe two thirds of the Institutes, but I’ve read the Bible several times. You try to poison the well because you know that other strategies aren’t working. You know that you call Ephesians 2 a lie and that you have been caught with red hands.
Ed Chapman: “We gentiles are the other sheep, not the sheep Jesus was talking to.”
Exactly. In my understanding of John 10:14-16: Jesus refers to His sheep (Jews), but He says that He needs to bring “other sheep” (Gentiles) into the sheep pen. Anyone can enter the sheep pen by believing in Him (John 10:9), and all those in the pen (whether they are the original Jewish sheep or the ingrafted Gentile sheep) will be one flock with one Shepherd.
I have not read all comments on this, so others might have pointed out the same thing I did, but I wanted to add my two cents anyway because it seemed that in the comments I read, spurcalleth was thinking you were saying that Jesus died only for the Jewish sheep. (Or maybe he was straw-manning you.)
Brdmod: “…For every Calvinist today who will eventually become an Atheist tomorrow …”
That’s happened recently to a handful of Calvinist celebrities. It’s sad. They get so disgusted by their Calvinist faith and Calvinist god that they toss out faith and God altogether, instead of just Calvinism and Calvi-god. But it makes sense, since they’ve been brainwashed into believing that “Calvinism IS the Gospel” and that rejecting Calvinism is rejecting God. They don’t even know there is a better, more biblical way to understand the Bible, one that actually upholds God’s loving, good, righteous, trustworthy, just character. Sad.
Interestingly, one of those celebrities, Derek Webb, formerly of Caedmon’s call, basically said if God does exist and wants him to return to faith, it will happen. The fatalism of atheism and the theistic fatalism of Calvinism are bedfellows.
Ed: “But I need to qualify that with, “Had they not fallen, we Gentiles would never have had a chance.””
I’m not sure what you mean by that, but I think that Jesus’s first plan was to reach the Jews and then the Gentiles through them. But since they rejected Him, He went to the Gentiles and will come back to the Jews. Either way, He died to bring salvation to all. It’s just the order of who gets reached first that’s been adjusted.
Brmod: “Once bit twice shy! The phenomenon of Calvinists strategically operating in undercover mode – is simply all to prevelent to be considered a misunderstanding. It is the rule and not the exception.”
Amen! My husband and I have a hard time now wanting to try out any church because we are hyper-aware of every little “red flag” that might suggest they are a closet Calvinist church. It’s sad when words like “grace” and “sovereignty” and “I am just preaching Scripture” and “Biblical Christianity” and “We have a high view of Scripture” make you wince.
Spurcalleth: “… a make-believe god that make-believe saves people from their make-believe sins…”
That, to me, is Calvinism. A made-up version of God who pretends to save the elect from “real sins,” when he is the cause of those sins and the people had no real control over their own choices, and when the elect were never really in danger of hell to begin with (so is he really “saving” them from anything?).
Roland: “Do you consider Reformed believers Christians or do you consider us heretics who promote a doctrine of demons?”
I know you weren’t asking me this, but I will answer it anyway. I believe we have to separate the church/theology from the people. There are many true Christians even in reformed churches. (I know a lot of them.) Many people came to Calvinism after coming to Christ. But I believe that Calvinism itself is a heretical theology. Therefore, many biblical believers slid into heresy when they slid into Calvinism. It doesn’t mean they aren’t believers anymore, just that they drifted from the Truth of the Gospel. Calvinism, in my opinion, is a demonic doctrine, but many of the Calvinists in the congregation are believers who simply ate what they were spoon-fed instead of researching it deeply enough to see how wrong it is.
But the Calvinist leaders/theologians who propagate and spread Calvinism … well, I wonder how many of them are really saved, or if they simply think they are but are really just tools of the devil. And Calvinists (like MacArthur) who think they were always just one of the “chosen ones,” who didn’t think they had to make a personal decision to put their faith in Jesus because they think it’s up to God to give them faith, to make them believe …. those are the ones I would doubt are really saved. Those “saved” according to Calvinist theology.
Heather,
Romans 11:11
I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.
Pastor Loz: “Interestingly, one of those celebrities, Derek Webb, formerly of Caedmon’s call, basically said if God does exist and wants him to return to faith, it will happen. The fatalism of atheism and the theistic fatalism of Calvinism are bedfellows.”
Exactly! Why bother with anything if it’s all been predetermined and you have no control over anything and can’t affect what happens at all? And yet Calvinists deny that Calvinism is fatalism. I don’t get how they can do that.
I think with many aspects of Calvinism they have to try and suppress their cognitive dissonance.
yes!
Cognitive Dissonance is characteristic in every form of Determinism
Professor Sean Carroll – American theoretical physicist – Atheist Determinist – says it this way:
-quote
There is a whole other way of talking, that says:
‘I’ am a person
‘I’ kind of like coffee
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.”
-end quote
And that is exactly what happens when the Calvinist – who is a Determinist – MIXES UP two different ways of talking.
At one moment – in agreement with his doctrine – he acknowledges that 100% of whatsoever comes to pass is AUTHORED by divine infallible decrees.
And then the next moment – in total Denial of his doctrine – he is talking *AS-IF* the thoughts and impulses that come to pass in his brain – were AUTHORED by himself – and not by infallible decrees.
That is why Calvinist thinking is DOUBLE-THINK – and that is why Calvinist language is inherently a language of DOUBLE-SPEAK
Ed: “Romans 11:11: I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.”
Thanks for the verse. I haven’t considered this as much as you have (because I have never heard this idea until you just said it now), but I still say that it’s a timing issue, that salvation was brought to the Gentiles at that time because the Jews rejected Jesus, not that the Gentiles would never have been offered salvation if the Jews didn’t fall. There are far too many verses that talk about Jesus coming for the sins of the world, for all men. And even Jesus said that He needed to bring the “other sheep” in. I believe this was God’s plan from the beginning, to bring salvation to the Jews and Gentiles (confirmed in verses like Romans 11:32: “For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all”), but Israel’s rejection of Jesus altered the timing.
Anyway, this is just my humble (and maybe uneducated) opinion. But since this issue, to me, is a “back-burner” issue (especially considering the focus of this blog), I’ll just leave it at that and won’t comment on it anymore. I have limited time to research things and write, and so I have to be very selective about what I spend time on. (I am currently using most of my time to write Bible studies for my relative in prison, because they pass the studies around to all the other inmates on that floor. And some take it with them when they are transferred to other prisons. What an honor to be able to get God’s Word right into the prisons, to some of the people who need it most, the overlooked, forsaken ones. It’s a heart-breaking, stressful, bittersweet honor and blessing! A way for God to work something good out of something bad.)
But that doesn’t mean you can’t talk about it more. 🙂
God bless!
Heather,
First, you are correct when you said:
“There are far too many verses that talk about Jesus coming for the sins of the world, for all men. And even Jesus said that He needed to bring the “other sheep” in. I believe this was God’s plan from the beginning, to bring salvation to the Jews and Gentiles”
Your verse 32 where you state: “For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all”), but Israel’s rejection of Jesus altered the timing.”
QUESTION: WHY did the Jews Reject Jesus?
The whole topic of Romans Chapter 9-11 is the Jews, not the Gentiles. It gives the reason that the Jews rejected Jesus, and it’s NOT THEIR FAULT. And it did not alter any timing at all.
I have a problem with your bible version that you chose here. I have never read where God has bound ALL MEN over to disobedience before, but gives ALL MEN mercy, except in Universalism.
In the KJV it states:
For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.
THEM, meaning the Jews. I have no idea why your version would use “all”, as in “all men”, when that’s not the focus of Romans 11, or 9-11 at all. In the early portion of Romans 11, Paul is discussing the blindness of the Jews, not blindness of ALL MEN. And it is due to that blindness that the Jews reject Jesus, and due to that blindness, God will have mercy on them.
As I’ve said before, Gentiles are NOT BLIND.
Romans 15:21
But as it is written, To whom he was not spoken of, they shall see: and they that have not heard shall understand.
Jews:
See John 9:39-41
39 And Jesus said, For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind.
40 And some of the Pharisees which were with him heard these words, and said unto him, Are we blind also?
41 Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth.
And
Romans 9, where it states:
Romans 9:15
For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.
Next…
The problem with REFORMERS, which is my opinion, they are way too carnal, and not enough spiritual. Instead of focusing on soteriology, they need to be more focused on the SPIRITUAL STORY of the whole Bible, instead of Jonah’s disobedience that got him in a fish.
The PURPOSE of the blindenss of the Jews is because they are the ones telling a story, a spiritual story of Jesus. That’s the purpose of their blindness, in order to show the POWER OF GOD (Romans 9), and that’s WHY they get mercy (Romans 11). Gentiles can play a role in this as The Pharaoh did, but it’s primarily the Jews.
But let’s get back to why you were right…it all goes back to the promise God gave to Abraham, that he would be the father of many nations. So, if Christians would spend time with Abraham as Paul mentions Abraham NUMEROUS TIMES, the some serious SPIRITUAL learning would take place.
Abraham was promised an INHERATANCE. We get that inheritance. What was that inheritance? A small piece of real estate in the middle east? Or something else?
The answer to the question is YES to both, but to whom is each? And what is that SOMETHING ELSE?
In order to tell the story, you must RE-READ Genesis to Malachi again, but this time seeing it from a SPIRITUAL side, instead of a carnal side. People don’t want to do that, tho, because there is way too many preachers who LOVE expository preaching, aka, Line by Line, precept by precept, and give a modern day twist on being OBEDIENT TO GOD, and, oh, I love this one…STOP SINNING!
So, it is thru the Jews that we learn about Jesus, not though carnal stories of the OT, but thru SPIRITUAL STORIES based on the carnal actions of the players.
The feasts, Jesus is the Passover Lamb…that’s just one example. To the Jews, it’s just a normal required feast to remind them of when God took them away from Egypt. But for Christians, it is showing that Jesus is the lamb slaughtered in which the BLOOD of the LAMB is what causes the ANGEL OF DEATH to PASSOVER us Christians, hence, eternal life.
2 Corinthians 4:18
While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.
From my earlier question, the PROMISED LAND is a small piece of real estate in the middle east FOR THE JEWS, HENCE JEWISH REQUIREMENT FOR CIRCUMCISION, but NOT CHRISTIANS. For Christians the INHERITANCE is “something else”. What is it? Where is it located? How did you find out?
Since Abraham is the Father of the Faith, we need to focus on Abraham a little more, and see the Jews as people who tell the story of Jesus thru spiritual lenses, instead of carnal glasses. Then Soteriology will be easily understood.
Ed Chapman
“I am currently using most of my time to write Bible studies for my relative in prison,…”
And yes, I did take the opportunity to write a long one on why Calvinism’s TULIP is not biblical.
And what’s more, the cops/investigators have to read everything I mail too. Bonus! 🙂
Roland: “So when Paul, inspired by the Holy Spirit, writes in 2 Thessalonians 2:11, that God will send them a strong delusion so that they will believe the lie, is that your God as well? 11 “Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false, 12 in order that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.” God sends them a strong delusion, so that they believe what is false, in order that all may be condemned. God sends a delusion for a purpose to be accomplished and it will be accomplished. Is this God’s little sick game of sending delusions?
Heather: I thought I’d throw my understanding of this out there. Take it or leave it as you will. The way I see it is that this End Times verse is about God forcing people to make their final decision. He doesn’t force them to choose what they do, but He does force them to decide – to choose between believing the Bible’s truth or the lie. Maybe it’s making them choose between “Is the anti-Christ the savior or is Jesus?: or “Did aliens take believers out of the earth or did the rapture?”. Whatever it is, God is giving those who reject Him the chance to confirm their decision (or change their minds) before judgment falls. But He does not make them believe what they do. He’s simply giving them the options and forcing those who reject Him to answer the question “Is that your final answer?”
Heather, thanks for the reply.
Heather:
The way I see it is that this End Times verse is about God forcing people to make their final decision. He doesn’t force them to choose what they do, but He does force them to decide – to choose between believing the Bible’s truth or the lie.
roland
I don’t see any idea or concept of force in the text. How can God force people to make their final decision? He forces them to decide but not to choose?
I would appreciate some clarification as this sounds confusing to me.
I agree with you it is an end times text.
Heather:
Whatever it is, God is giving those who reject Him the chance to confirm their decision (or change their minds) before judgment falls. But He does not make them believe what they do.
roland
I don’t get any sense from the text that God is giving those who reject Him the chance to confirm their decision. It seems more likely that God in SENDING a strong delusion is securing or completing those who reject Him in judgment. When the text is read plainly God is making sure that those who reject Him will believe the lie and be condemned. It is a judicial punishment on those who did not love the truth so that they might be saved.
My point in citing this verse is: Non-Calvinists on this site will argue that God wants all men to be saved, He gives grace to enable all men, etc. Calvinists reject this idea of God’s desire, will, or wish that all men would be saved. I reject it. So, I offered this verse to show two things.
First, there is at least one group of persons whom God does not want to be saved nor does He appear to make an effort for them to be saved. He secures their judgment and condemnation by sending a strong delusion so that they will believe the lie.
Second, if God wants all men to be saved, then why does God SEND them a strong delusion? Just from reading the text it sounds as if God is not giving this group of people any opportunity to be saved but is doing quite the opposite. He sends a strong delusion to those who already reject the truth and will not be saved.
Third, according to many non-calvinists on this website, God has given men LIBERTARIAN freewill so that they can believe or make a genuine choice to believe? Yet here in this text it doesn’t appear that libertarian freewill has any relevance to God sending the strong delusion so that they would believe the lie.
If men are free, if they have libertarian freewill, can they resist the strong delusion sent by God and not believe the lie?
If God wants all men to be saved, then why doesn’t God continue to send preachers of the Gospel to this group of people but instead sends them a strong delusion so that they believe the lie?
If God is so loving that He loves each and every individual human, then why does He send a strong delusion so that they believe the lie? Is it a loving act to send a strong delusion so that a person believes a lie?
If someone was to send you a strong delusion so that you believe some lie, do you consider that a loving act? Do you consider that love?
G.K Beale in his commentary ask the question about verse 11 because it proposes a theological problem.
“How can God be good and just and still send them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie?”
Beale continues to answer the question this way:
“The answer is that God righteously sends delusion because it is a beginning part of his just judgment. As is clear elsewhere in Scripture, God punishes sin by sin (Deuteronomy 29:4; Isaiah 6:9-10). Paul confirms this in 2:10 and 12: God causes these people to be deluded because they refused to love the truth and so be saved and because they have not believe the truth but have delighted in wickedness.”
This text shows that God is in control of all events, even the restraining of the antichrist. Even the revealing of the lawless one is under God’s control. Nothing in this passage is outside of the scope of God’s power. God is even in control of the rebellion. There are many issues with text and the belief that God wants all men to be saved. I believe this text disproves the concept of universal salvation and universal opportunity for all to believe and be saved. Thanks for reading.
Roland <<>>
As usual, you conveniently side-stepped the points I made about this verse.
“They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. 11 For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie”
1. The strong delusion is sent upon these people because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. It was not some arbitrary Calvinistic style cosmic lottery. It was judicial. God enabled them to believe this truth – John 1:9, John 5:40, John 6:44, John 12:32, John 20:32, Romans 1 and they REFUSED to believe. Not that they were UNABLE to believe. They REFUSED. A choice. An act of the will. They could have chosen to love the truth, and they chose not to.
2. If Calvinism was be true, then loving the truth would not save these people, because the truth would be that they have been eternally selected for hell, and there is no atonement, no Savior, no salvation for them.
Once again you attribute words to me that I never used. I never wrote anything about “some arbitrary Calvinistic style cosmic lottery.” I never wrote anything about them being UNABLE to believe. I never wrote that they did not refuse to believe. I think I clearly stated that these people do not love the truth as it says in the text.
Pastor Loz
If Calvinism was be true, then loving the truth would not save these people, because the truth would be that they have been eternally selected for hell, and there is no atonement, no Savior, no salvation for them.
roland
These people do not love the truth because they are not the elect of God and were not predestined to be conformed to the image of Christ. They would have never come to love of the truth because God never granted it to them, He never planned on saving them and never would have saved them because they are not of Chris’t sheep. I agree, there is no atonement, no Savior, no salvation for them but it is their fault not God’s. Unfortunately your false presumptions about man’s ability to believe apart from the gracious work of God leads to you misunderstand Scripture.
In your understanding of God, God loves each and every individual and wants them to be saved, is shown to be wrong by this text alone. It is clear that God does not want these people mentioned in 2 Thessalonians 2:11 to be saved because God sends them a strong delusion so that they believe the lie. These people are already condemned yet God FURTHERS their condemnation with sending a strong delusion so that they believe the lie. Kind of like when God hardened pharaohs heart further and further.
Pastor Loz
God enabled them to believe this truth
roland
Jesus said in John 10:26 this:
26 But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep, as I said to you.
So, PASTOR Loz, which one comes first, BELIEF or BELONGING to Jesus as one of His sheep?
Jesus said that the Jews He was speaking to “do not believe, BECAUSE you are not of My sheep…” Are you going to agree with Jesus that belonging to Jesus comes first, being part of His sheep comes first, and because a person is a part of Jesus’s sheep, that person will believe?
None of the verses you cite show that God ENABLES men to believe. It is GIVEN on behalf of the elect to believe, it is not enabled.
Philippians 1:29
29 For to you it has been granted on behalf of Christ, not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer for His sake,
Belief is given, it is granted, it is not enabled. Again, your presuppositions are causing you to read concepts into Scripture that are not there.
Roland <<>>
Uh, I never attributed those words to you. Those are my words to describe the decree in Calvinism. Your problem is that you are unable to distinguish between comments about what Calvinists say and teach, and comments about the inevitable logical conclusion of their philosophical theory.
Roland <<>>
You have in this thread. Do you want me to find it and quote you?
Pastor Loz:If Calvinism was be true, then loving the truth would not save these people, because the truth would be that they have been eternally selected for hell, and there is no atonement, no Savior, no salvation for them.
Roland <<>>
You completely and utterly missed the point I was making. My point was about the very nature of that truth. The verse is saying that if they had believed that truth, they would have been saved. For that truth to have been salvific for them, it would have had to included Jesus intentionally dying for them.
Roland,
Now I see you Calvinistic major malfunction.
I keep discussing this, but NO ONE is listening. The book of Philippians is a book that Paul wrote to JEWS, not Gentils.
Jews are BLIND…I keep saying that. And the following shows that Jesus UNBLINDS Jews in John 9:39-41
39 And Jesus said, For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind.
40 And some of the Pharisees which were with him heard these words, and said unto him, Are we blind also?
41 Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth.
This is where REGENERATION comes to play. Jesus gives them sight to see, and all this is explained in Romans 9-11.
WHO IS LISTENING?
Calvinists take what was MEANT FOR JEWS ONLY, and applies it to EVERYONE, both Jew and Gentile. STOP DOING THAT!
Proof that Paul’s letter to the Philippians is JEWS ONLY:
Philippians 3:3
3 For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.
Theres more proof, if one read it PROPERLY.
It is to the JEWS ONLY that God is sending STRONG DELUSION to believe the lie, a lie that the ANTI-CHRIST is their savior, and this is discussing the END TIMES.
John, the writer of Revelation is an apostle to the Jews…that’s a MAJOR HINT.
Just like the Story of Joseph, Jesus WILL REVEAL HIMSELF to those who CAN’T SEE HIM, and give them all mercy…
This is not a story about BOTH JEW AND GENTILE. When are Calvinists eyes going to open? I think it’s the devil that blinds your minds.
Ed Chapman
Roland,
You had said:
“My point in citing this verse is: Non-Calvinists on this site will argue that God wants all men to be saved, He gives grace to enable all men, etc. Calvinists reject this idea of God’s desire, will, or wish that all men would be saved. I reject it. ”
So, here is my BIBLE reply:
1 Timothy 2:3-8
3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;
4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
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.
7 Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not;) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.
8 I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting.
NOTE: Note 2 things here.
1. In verse 8, Paul “wills” that men pray everywhere
and
2. In verse 4 (start in verse 3 at “God our Saviour”), God “wills” that all men to be saved.
Will, want, potato, patauto, YES, GOD WANTS ALL MEN TO BE SAVED.
But you said something else that I find also in error on your part. You said that God gives grace to ENABLE ALL MEN. That is NOT what I believe at all. There is NO ENABLING going on here. I have no idea why Calvinists think that God ENABLES someone to be saved.
However, 1 Timothy 2:3-4 clearly shows that God wants all men to be saved. But, NOT ALL MEN WILL BE SAVED. But he wants all men to be saved.
How can you reject 1 Timothy 2:3-4?
From 1 Tim 2:4, the English words “will have”:
STRONG’S GREEK REFERENCE G2309:
choose or prefer (literally or figuratively); by implication, to wish, i.e. be inclined to (sometimes adverbially, gladly); impersonally for the future tense, to be about to; by Hebraism, to delight in.
English words used in the KJV for G2309
—desire, be disposed (forward), intend, list, love, mean, please, have rather, (be) will (have, -ling, – ling(-ly)).
How can you reject that? God wants, aka DESIRES (wishes) all men to be saved.
Ed Chapman
chapmaned24
However, 1 Timothy 2:3-4 clearly shows that God wants all men to be saved. But, NOT ALL MEN WILL BE SAVED. But he wants all men to be saved.
Roland
As a Calvinist I can agree that God wants all men to be saved but NOT ALL MEN WILL BE SAVED. I can agree. I don’t believe that God enables men to be saved. I am being misunderstood or miscommunicated but I don’t believe God enables men to be saved. He SAVES them. God’s Word teaches us that God gives grace and faith to the elect so that they will believe. That God enables all men is a non-calvinist idea.
Roland,
As you might notice, I am not a Calvinist, nor am I connected to anything REFORM. I don’t even consider myself a PROTESTANT. Why? I’m not the one protesting the Catholic Church, protestants are, hence the word. This is why I don’t have much respect for CHURCH FATHERS. That’s a protestant and Catholic thing. Have you guys ever considered that there is about 300 years of church history that cannot be accounted for, and that Peter was never Pope, because he’s the Apostle to the Jews, not the Gentiles. And I highly doubt that he was killed in Rome. That was not his territory to preach. And Babylon is not Code for Rome, either. It’s Code for Babylon. The Catholics say that the city of Babylon was destroyed. Ya, so? The TERRITORY was not destroyed, because we have the BABYLON TALMUD which was compiled by Jews and was completed in 350 AD. More Jews stayed behind in the TERRITORY of Babylon than those who returned to Israel when Jesus walked the planet. And so, when Peter, in his epistle states:
1 Peter 5:13
The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son.
He really was in Babylon, preaching to the JEWS, because as in:
Galatians 2:7
But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;
So, again, Peter has no business in Rome. Moving on…
You had said:
” God’s Word teaches us that God gives grace and faith to the elect so that they will believe.”
My response to that is:
No, the bible does not teach that God gives faith to the elect so that they will believe.
First of all, both me, and Philip has said numerous times that only the Jews are the elect. Reform folks from both Calvinist and non-Calvinists seems to think that the word “ELECT” is a synonym of the word “SAVED”, or “Christian”. It’s not. Let me be blunt. There is not now, nor in the past, nor in the future any GENTILE elect. Saved Gentiles are NOT ELECT. This point has been hammered down by both myself and Philip numerous times.
Isaiah 45:4
For Jacob my servant’s sake, and Israel mine elect, I have even called thee by thy name: I have surnamed thee, though thou hast not known me.
NOTE: The Church is NOT ISRAEL. Never has been, never will be. We are not children of Jacob. We are children of Abraham thru Galatians 3:16, not Jacob.
Next, God does NOT GIVE FAITH to believe. That faith is YOUR OWN. You own it. But for some ODD reason, REFORMERS believe that if we say that, that it’s considered a WORK. But that’s NOT EVEN THE DEFINITION OF WORK to begin with. In the CONTEXT of:
Ephesians 2:9
Not of works, lest any man should boast.
That context of “works” has to to with the Law of Moses ONLY. There is no such context as YOUR OWN FAITH.
The only thing God gives people is GRACE based on their own BELIEF, aka FAITH.
NEXT:
You had said:
” That God enables all men is a non-calvinist idea.”
My response:
Again, I’m a non-Calvinist, and I do not subscribe to the idea that God ENABLES anyone, but as for the Jews, he UNBLINDS them, as noted in John 9:39-41.
Ed Chapman
I have no idea what you are addressing. I did not bring up Peter or Babylon. You have a strange way of understanding Scripture. I’ve read some of your other posts and your distinction between Jew and Gentile sounds like hyper-dispensationalism. I can answer your idea from the Bible but it would really take way too long and I don’t have time to write this out. You remind me of the Jehovah’s Witnesses I used to speak with and their doctrine of the Watchtower replacing the Jews. They read that idea into a lot of text even when the text speaks plainly against it. I suspect you are doing something similar with the idea that there is “CODE” language in the Bible.
Roland,
You had said:
“I have no idea what you are addressing.”
My response:
That’s OBVIOUS.
You had said:
“I did not bring up Peter or Babylon.”
My response:
I did, and why? I’m making myself DISTINCT from other NON-CALVINISTS who believe that God “enables”. And why is that important? Because many of those particular non-Calvinists are STILL coming to conclusions from a CHURCH FATHER perspective, where I am not. I’m strictly BIBLE ONLY.
You had said:
“I’ve read some of your other posts and your distinction between Jew and Gentile sounds like hyper-dispensationalism.”
My response:
Yes, you are correct. Consider me HYPER HYPER HYPER HYPER HYPER dispensationalism. But add about ten more HYPERS to it.
I have no idea why you would liken me to a Jehovah’s Witness. NO ONE can replace the Jews. The church is not now, nor ever has been Israel, nor ever will be. I’ve said that numerous times.
The “anti-Christ”, is a FAKE SAVIOR for the Jews in which UNBELIEVING JEWS will believe in. The book of Revelation is primarily for the Jews, not us Gentiles. I’ve written about this in my blog, twice. One of my articles is debunking PRETERISM, and the other Pre-GREAT TRIB rapture.
When I mentioned the word “CODE”, that is a CATHOLIC understanding of the word Peter used in his epistle, not a JW’s rendition.
But again, the reason that I even brought that up was to show that I’m NOT coming at this from a PROTESTANT REFORMATION focus, but from a BIBLE ONLY focus.
Calvinists and PROTESTANT NON-CALVINISTS REFUSE to acknowledge the difference between JEW/GENTILE. But I see a HUGE DISTINCTION between the two, which separates me from the non-Calvinists that you normally debate issues with.
Ed Chapman
Philippians 1:29 says God gives faith. Ed Chapman says He doesn’t. I guess I know which side I’ll be on.
spurcalluth
Why would you have to present such a misleading picture?
You should know – that Calvinism treats “Faith” like it is an OBJECT that must be given to people.
A standard noun is a word that refers to a person, place, thing.
House, Ball, Airplane, John, Mary, Field, Hill, Embankment
A noun therefore is used to describe OBJECTS.
The word “Faith” is an ABSTRACT noun – which denotes something that is IMMATERIAL
The Calvinist treats “Faith” as an OBJECT which must be given to someone – because that someone does not have that OBJECT.
A baby is born with a human instinct which assumes its mother will feed it.
When the baby cries it is exercising FAITH that its mother will respond to its cry.
That baby does not have to be given “Faith” as an object.
That baby is born with it.
In Mathew 9 Jesus turns to a woman and says “Woman your Faith has made you whole”
In Calvinism – that woman would be born without that “Faith”
And god would have to supernaturally put that Faith into her brain in order for her to have it.
Which would have made Jesus’ statement misleading
He should have said:
“Woman – today is your lucky day!
God just put Faith into your brain
And the Faith that he just put into your brain has made you whole”
I see a lot of philosophical dilly-dallying, but no actual response to the fact that Philippians 1:29 says that God gives faith. Does an infant have faith that its mother will respond to its cry for food? Sure. I don’t see how that contradicts the statement that God gave that faith. Did the woman who suffered from some sort of blood problem have faith that Jesus would heal her? Sure. I don’t see how that contradicts the statement that God gave that faith. Does a Christian believe in Christ as his/her Saviour? Sure. Again, how does that contradict the statement that God gave that faith?
To respond to the other part of your statement: you are being ridiculous. No Calvinist that I have ever met, treats faith like a concrete object. The burden is on you to prove that only concrete objects can be given. In fact, I would suggest you DON’T prove that by your philosophical system, because if you do, your argument would also entail that salvation is never given, and that people are innately born with salvation already in them, making libertarian free will impossible and therefore cutting your philosophical system off at the root.
Spuracalluth,
You had said:
“Philippians 1:29 says God gives faith. Ed Chapman says He doesn’t. I guess I know which side I’ll be on.”
My response:
No it doesn’t. Whayt it states is just like I’ve been saying all along, which is:
JEWS ONLY.
DING DING DING DING:
Philippians 3:3
For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.
Romans 9-11. John 9:39-41.
This is NOT ABOUT GENTILES.
Romans 15:21
But as it is written, To whom he was not spoken of, they shall see: and they that have not heard shall understand.
But as for YOU:
2 Corinthians 4:4
In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.
Ed Chapman
Your own philosophical-theological system makes nonsense of what you just said. YOU claim that Paul is the apostle to the Gentiles. YOU claim that means that he has no business with the Jews. Then YOU want to claim that Philippians is about Jews??? Sorry, but once you decide to drop this insanity of an absolute division between Jew and Gentile and accept the truth of Ephesians 2, we can talk. Before then, you are just a rebel against Scripture and that is all that you will remain.
Just to clarify my last, Jesus takes the BLINDERS off of those to whom he blinded, so that BLIND CAN SEE. Once they can see, they can discern on their own accord, and believe. That is a HUGE difference than what Calvinists claime that God GIVES faith.
But then again, it was the JEWS ONLY, because as for the Gentiles:
Romans 15:21
But as it is written, To whom he was not spoken of, they shall see: and they that have not heard shall understand.
There is a MYSTERY as to why the Jews are blind, and Gentiles are not. But Calvinists make EVERYONE blind, then claim that God has to give them faith, but it is not faith that God gives to begin with. It’s SIGHT TO SEE, EARS TO HEAR, MINDS THAT UNDERSTAND…The Jews.
What’s the mystery for their blindness? If you would actually STUDY the Bible, after reading it several times as a novel, as kids to to Harry Potter books, then you might figure it out. But here is a hint. They are blind for OUR PURPOSE.
If they didn’t kill Jesus…NO ONE WOULD BE SAVED. Did you ever think about that? In order to do that, they had to be blind. Because if they knew, they would not have killed Jesus.
Ed Chapman
Of course, all of this only works based on your previous assumption that the Jews ALONE had guilt in the crucifixion of Jesus, contra Acts 4:27-28.
spurcalluth,
Philippians 1:29
For unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for his sake;
So, since I provided Philippians 3:3, showing that the book was written by Paul to the JEWS ONLY, you can also not the last part of 1:29 above, which is SUFFER for his sake.
In those days, Gentile Christians ARE NOT SUFFERING at all. Gentiles in those days believed in a gazillion gods, so what’s one more? No one cared. Except for those who believed in the goddess Dianna. And since, since Paul and his clan wasn’t wanted in Dianna territory, THEY LEFT.
It is the believing Jews who suffer, and who is their enemies? The Jews who don’t believe. Just like in THESSALONICA. Hence both 1 and 2 Thessalonians are written to JEWS ONLY. There is more books written to JEWS ONLY (James, Peter, John), than there are books of the NT. Including the book of Hebrews.
The enemy of the believing Jews are the unbelieving Jews. BOTH ARE GOD FOLLOWERS. The Old Test vs. The New Test
Luke 12:51-53
51 Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division:
52 For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three.
53 The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
Ed Chapman
You want to argue from the history of the early church, but when we actually go to historical sources about the early church, you tell us you don’t listen to CHURCH FATHERS (you repeatedly capitalize it, so I guess it is important to you that it be capitalized). When you want to make an argument for church history that you don’t get from the latter half of your digestive system, we can talk. Until then, I’ll just assume that you aren’t interested in an actual conversation and that you are just here to peddle your particular heresy.
No Biblical non-calvinist denies that faith comes from God.
Pastor Loz,
I am a Biblical non-calvinist, and I don’t believe that faith comes FROM God. I believe we HAVE FAITH independent of God, and that faith is based on:
God told Abraham something, and he INDEPENDENTLY believed it. He was…
Hebrews 11:1 (KJV) FAITH IS:
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
Substance:
Strong’s Concordance Greek Ref #5287: Assurance
Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, Eleventh Edition defines assurance as: Pledge, Guarantee
Romans 8:24-25
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? But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it.
Hoped, Hope:
Strong’s Concordance Greek Ref #’s1679, 1680: Expectation or confidence
Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, Eleventh Edition defines hope as:
to expect with confidence; Expectation is defined as: Anticipation; Anticipation is defined as: The act of looking forward, and, visualization of a future event or state.
Hebrews 11:1
Now FAITH IS: The guarantee of things (substance/assurance) expected (hoped/waiting for).
Faith: Strong’s Concordance Greek Ref #4102:
Persuasion, i.e. credence. Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, Eleventh Edition defines credence as: mental acceptance as true or real.
Abraham was given a promise, and he INDEPENDENTLY believed the promise.
Ed Chapman
When God created humans, He endowed them with all their abilities, including the ability to believe.
Pastor Loz,
You had said:
“When God created humans, He endowed them with all their abilities, including the ability to believe.
My response:
No, he endowed them the capability to REASON, to think on their own, to make independent decisions, to determine on their own what THEY THINK is true, or false, hence, he gave them a SOUL.
Isaiah 1:18
Come now, and let us reason together
You seem to be arguing both 1.) that God did not give people the ability to believe and 2.) that people do believe.
Are you saying that the ability to believe is an eternal ability of people and that therefore people themselves must be uncreated, or are you saying that it is possible to do the impossible (i.e. believe when you have no ability to believe)? Either way, you aren’t speaking sense.
Who are you addressing your question to, me or Ed? I said God created human beings with the ability to believe. He also gave them the freedom to place that faith in Him, or in someone / something else. There is no contradiction in those statements. Everyone has faith, but not everyone places that faith in God. Hence me citing Adam and Eve. They could have placed their God given ability to believe what God said, or what the enemy said. Likewise with Cain. They all chose wrongly. Abel did not choose wrongly.
Sorry for the confusion. I was addressing my comment that started with
“You seem to be arguing both 1.) that God did not give people the ability to believe and 2.) that people do believe.”
to Ed, not to you. I was pointing out that his position makes no sense.
That was such a quick turn-around that I have whiplash! I thought you said that faith comes from God, but now ten minutes later you agree with Ed Chapman that faith does not come from God? Is this an example of the DOUBLE-SPEAK you guys are always talking about?
You might want to read what I read more carefully. God endowed human beings with faith. Faith comes from God. Show me the contradiction between those two statements. God gives faith. Faith comes from God. Same thing.
Thanks for the clarification. I think you must have agreed with Ed in an unguarded moment, because he certainly does not believe that faith comes from God. He said so himself.
I think that Ephesians 2:8-9 is the WHOLE problem of interpretation which causes people to believe that God gives faith, when that’s not what it states.
He gives grace, not faith. It is through OUR FAITH that he gives grace.
But many here don’t believe that because they want to state that if we get grace through OUR FAITH, then that’s considered a work.
But I don’t know how that could even be possible, since work is THE LAW OF MOSES ONLY, the 613 Commandments in the OT.
Thou Shalt have faith, is not one of them. Therefore, our faith towards God is NOT A WORK. It really boggles my mind that the word FAITH in Ephesians 2:8-9 is so misconstrued, to conclude that it’s a work, thereby concluding that faith is the gift of God.
Ed Chapman
A ten-second look at Google tells me that there are many, many resources proving that believing in God is a Mitzvah, or as you put it, a keeping of one of the 613 commandments. Are you sure you want to make claims that can be refuted as long as someone has a browser?
Well, then I am happy to hear that. It is good to find a point of agreement.
Cool. I actually disagree with Ed on this, because I believe that God created human beings with the ability to believe, whether they placed that belief in Him, or elsewhere, as Adam and Eve did in the garden. And of the curses that God pronounced following the fall, loss of this ability was not one of them. Hence in Gen 4:1 Eve demonstrated faith in God for helping her bring forth a son. Abel brought his sacrifice by faith. Noah built the ark by faith. With no mention of prior regeneration for any of them.
There is no mention of previous regeneration for Abel or Noah, but then again, there is no mention of absence of previous regeneration for Abel or Noah either. The problem with most arguments from silence is that they can easily be flipped around with no damage to the argument. This is why they usually don’t work. I agree that loss of the ability to choose was not mentioned as part of the effects of the curse, and I agree for philosophical reasons that we can conclude that this means that the ability to choose was not lost. I don’t agree that this means that we have the exact same range of options as Adam and Eve before the fall, because I believe that we have limitations that they did not. I certainly don’t agree that we can conclude that Abel or Noah were unregenerate when they believed in God and got a good report.
Yes, arguments from silence can be flipped, however it seems to me when reading the Bible that during the narrative of different Bible characters lives, God makes matters of importance and relevance apparent. It is notable that there is not a single mention of any OT believer having a prior regeneration experience. That’s a deafening silence.
Are you serious? The first two thousand years of human history receives about 5 pages of space in Scripture, but you think all the important parts of the lives of the Old Testament saints are spelled out in detail?
Are YOU serious? You want us to believe that such a hugely important issue as regeneration preceding and being necessary for faith in God, an issue that Calvinists build a large part of their soteriological system on, is SO UNIMPORTANT that it does not receive a single mention in the narratives of the lives of hundreds of OT believers? OK.
I have no problem with things in the Bible being gradually revealed. You on the other hand seem to want to blame God for not revealing things in the order that you want Him to do it. You’re the boss, God is the lackey. Ridiculous!
You are clearly the ridiculous one, since the principle is not established in the New Testament either. So progressive revelation isn’t going to get you off the hook there. But I see you are slipping into you familiar mode – someone disagrees with you so they must viewing God as their “lackey”. So doubly ridiculous in fact. You just can’t help yourself., can you?
Liar, you lied about my argument. My argument is not “You disagree with me, therefore you think God is your lackey”. My argument, as I made clear, is “You want to prescribe for God how He can reveal things, therefore you think God is your lackey”. How about, when you tell others not to lie, you follow your own advice and also not lie? That’ll be great!
Put your handbag away and stop acting like a spoilt drama queen. My point stands and you know it. You need help.
I did not realize that you have a monopoly on handbag clutching and spoilt melodramatics. I apologize and will try to act more thoughtfully in future, allowing you ALONE to beat your hands and feat into the floor in a tantrum over what Roland says. I realize there is not enough room here for two babies, and you clearly are the superior baby.
<<>>
Nah, that’s not how it goes. As I’m sure you know full well, it’s not the fact of me disagreeing with you per se, it’s about the obvious specifics of that disagreement, and how you purposely misrepresented what I mean. The false witness is yours, by saying that I want to prescribe for God how can reveal things. I don’t try to prescribe anything for God, unlike when Calvinists try to prescribe HOW God is allowed to exercise His sovereignty. I was DE-scribing what I see God doing in His Word. So for you to turn that into “you think God is your lackey” is utterly ridiculous, but not atypical.
What is not atypical is your self-worship. I see that you worship yourself, Ed worships himself, brdmod worships himself, and none of you non-Calvinists (except Heather, she seems nice and not puffed up with pride and arrogance) want to worship God. You’d rather just make yourselves the authorities and forget about the Bible altogether.
Regeneration is only needed for those UNDER THE LAW OF MOSES, and that did not include Noah, Adam, Abraham, Abel, or YOU.
You’re making that up. I know that because you gave zero evidence for your claim. If you could give evidence for your claim, you would have.
Spurcalleth: “…the people here seem to be more against Calvinism than for truth.”
Since we believe Calvinism contradicts the truth, then opposing Calvinism is taking a stand for truth.
Roland: “[Calvin] is speaking of the reprobate not the elect. The reprobate do not participate of the same faith or regeneration with the children of God. He also writes in the same section that “the elect ALONE have that full assurance which is extolled by Paul… ” … It is a false accusation to say that Reformed theology and Reformed Christians cannot have assurance of their election unto salvation.”
And yet Calvin says that “the reprobate are sometimes affected in a way so similar to the elect that even in their own judgment there is no difference between them.” This means that the reprobate feel the exact same way about their salvation as the elect do, to the point that they can say “I know for sure I am saved.” Isn’t that exactly what the elect feel and say? (It is a total contradiction for Calvin to say that reprobates can be convinced they are elect and feel certain they are saved … but then to say that the elect can know for certain that they are saved. But this is what Calvinism is: talking out of both sides of the mouth, saying one thing in one place and contradicting it in another.) How then can you know for sure that you are one of the elect and not one of the reprobate who truly believes they are elect but who really got the “temporary faith,” the evanescent/fading grace, which only makes them FEEL elect for a time?
You can say all you want that the elect can have full assurance that they are saved, but that’s exactly what the reprobate with evanescent grace say … until the end, until that grace fades and they realize they really weren’t elected at all. And they might not realize this until they die and find that they were really chosen by Calvi-god for greater condemnation in hell, for his glory and pleasure.
Where is there room for real assurance here?
You see, the non-Calvinist can have assurance that if they do what God told them to do (believe in Jesus, put their faith in Him) then He will do what He said He would do (save them). But the Calvinist has no control over whether they believe or not, whether they put their faith in Jesus or not, whether they get saving grace or evanescent grace … and so all they can really do is hope and convince themselves that they really were chosen for heaven and that their grace won’t fade. But they can’t know for sure till the end of their lives. Because until they die, there’s always time for grace to fade, if they got the evanescent kind.
Plus, adding to this “non-assurance of salvation,” is the fact that there’s nothing they could do about it anyway if it does fade – whereas if a non-Calvinist person realizes they never truly put their faith in Jesus, that they just tricked themselves into thinking they were a believer, they can do something about it. They can change their destiny by choosing at that point to truly put their faith in Jesus. Because God leaves that decision up to us. Everyone has the opportunity and ability to believe and be saved. But in Calvinism, if the person is tricked into thinking they are elect, it’s God who did the tricking, and nothing can change it.
Once again, where is there room for assurance in that? Can you explain your assurance of salvation in a way that the reprobate who got evanescent grace wouldn’t explain their “assurance”?
Roland
the elect ALONE have that full assurance…..
br.d
Assurance of what exactly?
In Calvinism – a Calvinists election status is INVISIBLE to himself and every other Calvinist – and is a DIVINE SECRET.
The only “assurance” a Calvinist has – is the ‘Assurance” that his god will do whatever he pleases.
The Calvinist is also faced with the statistical probability – that Calvin’s god has created/designed him specifically for eternal torment in a lake of fire – and – as John Calvin states – has given the Calvinist a -quote “SENSE as can be felt without the spirit of adoption”
Divine deception of the believer is built into Calvin’s doctrine.
How does one have “Assurance” when one is being divinely deceived?
Roland is simply providing us with another example of Calvinist DOUBLE-SPEAK
That’s because Roland like many calvinists, doesn’t understand what calvin is actually saying here, and even less so what the implications are for himself and every single calvinist.
Personally – I see this as an excellent example of Calvinism’s *AS-IF* thinking pattern
The doctrine stipulates – the Calvinist believer has NO CERTAINTY of his election status
But the Calvinist cannot emotionally live with that – because he does not find it palatable – and because it produces DOUBT.
And when the Calvinist experiences DOUBT it is interpreted as an indicator of NON-Election
And he thus goes into a down-hill spiral – in what Calvinism has historically called “The Dreaded FALSE hope”
The only way to avoid “The Dreaded FALSE hope” is to condition the mind go into THOUGHT-BLOCKING mode.
The Calvinist doesn’t permit his mind to THINK about what the doctrine stipulates.
So the Calvinist treats the doctrine *AS-IF* it is FALSE
The doctrine stipulates the Calvinist has NO CERTAINTY of his election.
He holds that doctrine to be TRUE – while treating it *AS-IF* it is FALSE
By treating his doctrine *AS-IF* it is FALSE – the Calvinist can go about his office *AS-IF* he has CERTAINTY of his election.
*AS-IF* thinking is ubiquitous within Calvinist thinking.
The Calvinist holds his doctrine to be SACRED TRUTH – while going about his office *AS-IF *that SACRED TRUTH is FALSE.
Calvinism as a belief system requires the believer to exist in a constant state of DOUBLE-MINDEDNESS
Must be tiring to be a Calvinist. When a Calvinist gets COVID, his god ordained it, then ordained for the Calvinist to seek treatment against the very thing his god ordained. When a Calvinist campaigns against abortion, he is ordained to campaign against the thing his god ordained. His god ordained abortion for its maximal glory, then ordained for him to campaign against abortion for its maximal glory. Must be confusing being a chess piece on the Calvinist god’s board, when the Calvinist God is playing both sides of that board. Are all the pieces white, or are all the pieces black? As a Calvinist, you just don’t know ..
Good one Pastor Loz
John Calvin understood the dilemma and his only answer was
-quote
“Go about your office *AS-IF* nothing is determined in any part”
In other words – hold the doctrine as TRUE – while treating it *AS-IF* it is FALSE. :-]
It wasn’t confusing for those who crucified Christ. God ordained both. Acts 4:28-29. God predetermined that Christ’s crucifixion would happen. When you worship the true God of Scripture you can rest in His sovereignty.
Roland
It wasn’t confusing for those who crucified Christ.
br.d
On Calvinism – the people who crucified Christ would have been simply moved by impulses which infallibly came to pass within their brains.
All of those impulses were AUTHORED by a mind external to theirs
And it is impossible for a fallible creature to resist an impulse that comes to pass within the brain infallibly
NOTHING about any of it would have been *UP TO* them.
They were simply functioning as INSTRUMENTS moved by the will of an external mind
And being an INSTRUMENT that is simply moved by an external mind – doesn’t require any intelligence necessary to be confused.
Roland,
You had said:
It wasn’t confusing for those who crucified Christ. God ordained both. Acts 4:28-29. God predetermined that Christ’s crucifixion would happen. When you worship the true God of Scripture you can rest in His sovereignty.
My response:
Why was Christ crucified? Why did God predetermine Christ’s crucifixion? And MOST IMPORTANT, WHO crucified Christ?
That crucifixion could ONLY BE from the Jews, just like I’ve been discussing JEWS ONLY that are blind all along. The Crucifixion was not by Gentiles, no matter how much some want to blame ROME, aka ROMAN soldiers or Pilot. Pilot’s wife told him about a dream/vision she had, and in that dream/vision was told not to kill Jesus. And Pilot washed his hands of it, and the Jews took the responsibility with:
Matthew 27:24
When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it.
Matthew 27:25
Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children.
And IMMEDIATELY before Jesus died, Jesus said:
Luke 23:34
Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.
WHY did the Jews not know what they did? Keep in mind, Gentiles didn’t kill Jesus, the Jews did. But why did the Jews kill Jesus?
You want to talk soveriegnty, but not LOGIC about the reason, which is in the Bible, that the Jews are blind.
Had the Jews KNOWN that Jesus was the Messiah, they would NOT have killed Jesus, and NO ONE’S sins would be forgiven, and Jesus would have died at a ripe old age, solving NOTHING.
This is due to the JEWS being blind, not the Gentiles. Let’s put some REASON into the discussions. Speaking of which, when you talk to atheists, ask them the following:
Why reason why when there’s no reason why?
Ed Chapman
This topic of Acts 4:27-28 is typical of a pattern with you Roland. You cite your calvinistic interpretation of a Scripture. Others rebut it, showing an alternative interpretation, with reasons. You do not respond, to follow through, but then at some other place in the thread you simply reiterate your original point. Both Heather and myself responded to your calvinistic interpretation of Acts 4:27-28. God predetermined the laying down of His life as a perfect sacrifice for humanity. This is why in John 10:17-18 Jesus said, “I lay down My life in order to take it up again. No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of My own accord.”
God did NOT predetermine the sin that led to it. Because in accordance with James 1:13, which was cited more than once, and which you never responded to, God does not sin and He does not tempt men to sin.
We both pointed out that it was not even necessary for God to cause, or even manipulate any of those involved – not Judas not Pilate, not Caiaphas, or anyone else, to do something which they would not otherwise have done. These depraved individuals freely chose to do what they did. God did not tempt them, God did not manipulate them, God did not remove other options from them. He knew what they would do and used it in His plans.
You falsely accused people of twisting Acts 4:27-28, using your favored translation of that passage that says God predetermined “what would be done”. In doing so you showed your ignorance of the Greek, which is correctly translated “what would happen”. The Greek word “genesthai” means to come into being.
You did not respond to this, to explain how this translation of the Greek is wrong. You didn’t, because you couldn’t. You have done this same thing with numerous other passages. It’s dishonest, lazy and cowardly and it won’t wash.
Pastor Loz
You falsely accused people of twisting Acts 4:27-28, using your favored translation of that passage that says God predetermined “what would be done”. In doing so you showed your ignorance of the Greek, which is correctly translated “what would happen”. The Greek word “genesthai” means to come into being.
roland
I am ignorant of biblical Greek as I don’t know how to read it. But I do know how to read English. I read this verse in almost every available English translation on Biblegateway and none offer “what would happen” as a translation of the Greek word genesthai. The translations use the words predetermine, predestine, decided beforehand, etc. They are all wrong and Pastor Loz is the only right one. Got it, thanks for reading.
<<>>
You weren’t even looking at the correct part of the verse. There are over 40 English transations of the verse that use happen, occur, take place as well as Strongs #1096 – genesthai, to come into being, to happen, to become. The word “DO” is nowhere contained in that word.
ASV – come to pass
AMP – to occur
CSB – to take place
CEB – would happen
CJB – should happen
CEV – would happen
DARBY – should come to pass
DLNT – to take place
EHV – should happen
ESV – to take place
GNT – would happen
HCSB – to take place
ISV – to take place
LEB – to take place
NABRE – to take place
MOUNCE – to be
NASB – to occur
NCB – to take place
NET – would happen
NIRV – should happen
NIV – should happen
NIVUK – should happen
NLV – would happen
NRSV – to take place
NTE – to take place
OJB – to occur
RSV – to take place
TLV – to happen
VOICE – should happen
WEB – to happen
YLT – to come to pass
You are leaving out the most important part of the verse: God PREDETERMINED, PREDESTINATED, ALREADY DECIDED what would happen. God is not a passive observer of creation, He is active in creation.
Roland <<>>
1. As discussed in previous exchanges in this verse, I did not leave out predetermine at all. Do you want me to go back and quote what I said? I said that God PREDETERMINED WHAT WOULD HAPPEN. He predetermined the laying down of His life. I quoted John 10 on this and you completely ignored it. He DID NOT PREDETERMINE THE SIN THAT LED TO IT. I explained that to you and quoted James 1:13 at least 3 times in this thread to show how the two verses have to harmonize. Again you ignored it. That’s what you do time and time again You completely ignore any verse that does not fit your narrative. You simply can’t deal with them, because they not part of your indoctrinated script. Your list of cherry picked, out of context, misinterpreted “proof tests”.
2. Like a willful, unrepentant liar, you continue to set up your false dichotomy between “God predetermined it” and “God is a passive observer”. As shown in numerous exchanges, biblical non-calvinists do NOT believe God is a passive observer. In my list of your eight misrepresentations on this thread, I listed NUMEROUS examples of God being very active. Again, you ignored them. So dishonest.
Pastor Loz
Like a willful, unrepentant liar,
Pastor Loz
So dishonest.
roland
Well, thanks for calling me a liar. I don’t believe I have ever resorted to name calling and if I have, I APOLOGIZE as I do not believe it is Christ-like to call other believers, I consider non-Calvinists Christians, names. I also apologize for being dishonest as I am not intending to do so. I do not respond to all of your comments or threads because first I don’t have time to do so and I will not address some things I believe to be irrelevant. If my posts on this site have been interpreted or come off as being dishonest I APOLOGIZE. I do not want to be dishonest and I have tried my best to be honest. However, since the conversation has resorted to name calling, it is my opinion that it is best FOR ME to dismiss myself. I would add furthermore, that since I HAVE BEEN PERCEIVED AS DISHONEST, I should improve my communication so that I am no longer perceived as being dishonest.
Again, I apologize for my lying and dishonest and I judge it best for me to exit the conversation so that I do not continue in sinful behavior as I do not believe there is anyway to remedy the situation through the internet. Any further comments or responses you make Pastor Loz will be ignored for the sake of my own sanctification, not anything you done nor any negative impression I have of you, God bless and thanks for interacting!
Roland
God is not a passive observer of creation, He is active in creation.
br.d
In Calvinism this is correct
He is not a passive observer of any sin or evil
Every sin and evil is FIRST-CONCEIVED in his mind – and then decreed to come to pass irresistibly within human brains and bodies.
And then punishes humans for the sins and evils he MAKES them irresistibly perform.
Exactly just like God did in Isaiah 10 with the Assyrian king and those who crucified Christ in Acts 4:27-28. And other places as well. Yet God is not the author of sin.
There you go with the irreconcilable contradiction you created, which you have to punt to “mystery”. If you are really agreeing with what Br D said, by saying “exactly”, then you are agreeing that the Assyrian king and those who crucified Christ were nothing more than completely passive vessels, sock puppets being manipulated in every detail by God, not making any kind of choices of their own, and thus God was the author of those sins. He committed those sins, through them. Of course we know you will try and wriggle out of that but it’s the unavoidable, inevitable conclusion of what you have stated.
Just to clarify a point: Do you believe there are any mysteries in the Christian faith, or do you believe that you with your puny mind can find out God to perfection? Can you plumb the unfathomable depths of God and completely comprehend God in every aspect of His being and His actions?
Just to clarify for your puny yet philosophically pretentious mind, I recognize that there are wonderful mysteries concerning God and His ways.
And then there are irreconcilable contradictions that Calvinist philosophical theory creates, then dishonesty punts to “mystery” when actually God has made Himself plain on those issues.
By doing so, Calvinists insult the genuine mysteries of God. As you reek of Calvinism yourself, it would not surprise me if you do the same.
If I made posts which appear to be harsh and/or insulting to Calvinists – I apologize.
I post a lot of facts concerning what logically follows with Calvinism
And in the process post examples of how Calvinist language is a language of DOUBLE-SPEAK
And I post examples of how lying by omission is not deemed a sin in Calvinism – as long as the Calvinist is doing it “supposedly” for god.
But I try not to be too overly harsh or insulting.
So if I have done so – then I’ve been a bad example – and I apologize
br.d
My puny mind understands. What I don’t understand is the non-Calvinist’s insistence that WHENEVER a Calvinist says something is a mystery, it automatically has to be because they are trying to be dishonest. That seems more like hatred of people than hatred of a position to me. But hey, maybe my puny mind just does not understand the glorious mysteries of being a non-Calvinist.
It isn’t whenever a Calvinist says something is a mystery, since there are things Calvinists and non Calvinists may agree are mysteries, like how can God have no beginning and no end, how can God simultaneously listen to millions of prayers, when exactly is Jesus coming back.
I’m glad that you don’t think that EVERY time a Calvinist “punts to mystery”, there is no genuine mystery involved. Please clarify for me, when do YOU think that a Calvinist “punts to mystery” when there is none? Is it only in soteriological issues? Some other Christological issues? I am genuinely curious.
I’m not really familiar with other aspects of calvinism outside TULIP / soteriology, other than their view of determinism which goes beyond it. The biggest, most common “mystery” I see calvinists falsely appeal to is the “mystery” of how God UNCHANGEABLY ORDAINS / METICULOUSLY PREDETERMINES every choice and action a person makes/does, such that they CANNOT DO OTHERWISE, and yet that person still has a choice, which they are morally responsible and accountable for. The WCF, which many calvinists subscribe to, is a prime example.
Well, since this is still a topic of active debate among Christian philosophers, I think it is okay to say that it is a mystery, since the best and brightest minds in the academic world still has no consensus on whether we have libertarian free will or not.
I disagree, since one set of “bright minds” has created an irreconcilable contradiction, the other has not. One sees a mystery, the other sees how God has made Himself plain in the Bible on this matter, without any apparent contradiction. The fact there are debates between scholars about things does not automatically render them to be mysteries. There have been debates for many years between Christian scholars and Muslim scholars. That does not lead to the conclusion that it is a mystery whether Christianity is true, or Islam is true.
Well, you can disagree, and so can I. Of course I don’t think that every topic where there is a lack of consensus among scholars is also a topic of mystery, but that was not what I was saying either. My point was more along the lines of: You claim that “your side” has proven that it is the truth of Scripture. However, whenever that is being investigated to see if your claim is true, your claim either changes (shifting goalposts), comes out inconclusive (non sequitur), or is shown to be nonsense (reductio ad absurdum). One example is Jerry Walls’ definition of a free action, that still makes no sense despite you claiming that there is some sense that you can detect in it.
<<>>
So, one alleged example. Feel free to provide others. I made my point very clear regarding the relationship between a free actor and a free action. And it hasn’t changed. I said that a free actor is a necessary prerequisite for a free action. That’s a no-brainer. An actor who is not free cannot frelly choose. That’s why “compatibilism” is a myth, because a person’s “free” choose” in that system is predetermined by their desires, which are predetermined by their sinful nature, which they were predetermined to inherit. So the causal chain simply has more links in it than so-called “hard determinism”, but as even the calvinist site Monergism acknowledged, it is no less deterministic.
I said that the actor does not need to be absolutely free, and I have made it clear to Roland that biblical non-calvinists don’t believe people have unconstrained free will. There is absolutely nothing inclusive or absurd about that. I also said that the existence of a free actor does not determine which action they will freely choose. Again nothing shifting, inclusive, illogical or nonsensical about that. See if you can show me to be wrong, using plain English.
Wasn’t it you that recommended Jerry Walls’ “What is wrong with Calvinism” to me? I would assume that this would mean that you endorse the MOST CENTRAL arguments of Jerry Walls. Yes, it is one example, but what is that example? It is the definition of free action. Jerry Walls’ definition of free action makes no sense, because it says that there is a free action whenever there is NO condition. You seem to be agreeing that the existence of a free actor IS a condition for a free action. Well, if that is the case, then Jerry Walls defines freedom in a way that is logically incoherent, and since he is your champion, I think it follows that your position falls flat.
<<>>
I watched the video again. Walls is saying that a free choice / action is one that is not DETERMINED by prior causes or conditions. He is talking about the NATURE of the choice that is made, WHICH option is chosen from those available. He is saying that the option the person chooses is not determined by prior causes or conditions. And that is absolutely coherent. You are just blowing smoke.
I’m not blowing smoke, I am pointing out how dishonest you are and how incoherent Jerry Walls is. YOU just made the statement that a choice is made FROM THOSE AVAILABLE. That is a condition. Stop lying!!
You’re not fooling anyone except yourself and maybe Roland. Blowing so much smoke it has blinded you to the ACTUAL POINT Walls is making. Which is to contrast genuine choice with fake calvinist “choice”. In real life, a person can genuinely choose between two or more options. The specific option they will choose has NOT been predetermined by God. In your calvinistic philosophical ivory tower, they can’t genuinely choose, because the specific option they will choose HAS been determined by God. Whether through so-called “hard” determinism, or the myth of “compatibilism”, where God has just as meticulously pre-ordained which choice they will make, just with more links in the deterministic causal chain.
Therefore it is nothing more than an ILLUSION of choice. It’s so simple and so clear that you have to practise calvinistic, philosophical sophistry to try and muddy those waters. Deny it all you like, we can see through you.
The point Jerry Walls is trying to make is that Calvinism is philosophically incoherent. The fact that his foundational definitions contain philosophical incoherencies makes him a less reliable witness to supposed philosophical incoherencies in Calvinism. He might still be right that Calvinism is philosophically incoherent; I am capable to keep that possibility in mind. But I would like to first hear someone offer me a less incoherent position before I just jump to the conclusion that Calvinism is philosophically incoherent. So far, you have not been able to provide that. Just invoking the tu quoque fallacy does not prove your point, dude.
Well dude, pretending that a person has the “freedom” to make a “choice” when the option they can and will “choose” has already been unchangeably ordained, predetermined, such that they cannot choose an alternative option, is logically, philosophically incoherent whichever way you want to look at it or dress it up. Unless you live in the upside down, back to front fantasy world of Alice in Calvinland. Don’t have to have twenty seven philosophy degrees to know that. My 5 year old can put you straight on that one. If we had a dog he probably could too.
And so we see that you just double down on the tu quoque fallacy like your life depends on it. Which, considering how vicious you are towards Calvinists and how you teach others to act the same, it probably does. If you were to become a Calvinist, I suppose your congregation would execute you in an honour killing, because that is the bed you made.
Spur… What is your definition of “chose”?
Would you agree with Webster’s first meaning?
past tense of CHOOSE –
transitive verb
1a: to select freely and after consideration
“choose a career”
If so, then it would be coherent to believe, according to Calvinism, there should be a moment before creation when all were unchosen and “after consideration” God chose some, and they became the “elect”. Right?
However, Calvinism must empty the meaning of “chose” to be consistent with its neo-platonist underpinnings. God makes no actual choice, because the so-called “elect” are just as eternal and immutable as they believe God is.
I hope that helps you begin to see the hubris and twisting of the normal meaning of words in God’s Word that Calvinism postulates. There are other examples.
I don’t think I would agree with the Webster definition of choose. The problem with the definition is that it relies on other terms that have not been properly defined (notably, “freely”) and that have not been properly defined in previous discussions on this forum either. Until we have a
1.) coherent, and
2.) non-vacuous
definition of doing something freely, I will have to withhold my agreement. By saying this, I am not arguing that Calvinism has a proper definition of freedom; instead, I am asking for any coherent, non-vacuous definition, whether it be Calvinistic or non-Calvinistic is not the issue. So the conversation will not move forward by proving or attempting to prove that Calvinism does not have a proper definition of freedom (because proving that something does not have a certain property in no way constructs an object with that property).
– According to the online Etymological Dictionary, to choose, means to “select from two or more”.
– The American Heritage Dictionary has: “To select from a number of possible alternatives”.
– The Merriam Webster Dictionary has: “To make a selection – to take an alternative”.
– The Online Free Dictionary has: “To select from a number of possible alternatives; decide on and pick out”.
– The online Cambridge Dictionary has: “To decide what you want from two or more things or possibilities”.
– The online KJV Dictionary has: “To pick out; to select; to take by way of preference from two or more things offered”.
Therefore we can see that a NECESSARY CONDITION for “CHOICE” as is NORMATIVELY understood – is the existence of at least 2 options.
Where there is only ONE SINGLE option – you don’t have “CHOICE”
And Calvinism – per the doctrine of decrees – represents a world in which every impulse that comes to pass in your brain is predestined.
And a predestined event can only resolve to ONE PREDESTINED OPTION.
As Peter Van Inwagen states:
-quote
Determinism may now be defined: it is the thesis that there is at any instant exactly ONE PHYSICALLY POSSIBLE FUTURE.
Okay, seems like a reasonable conclusion from Calvinistic principles.
Spurcalluth
Okay, seems like a reasonable conclusion from Calvinistic principles.
br.d
What seems like a reasonable conclusion?
Perhaps it would be best to put in as a YES / NO question.
Are you ever granted any option which would allow you to DO OTHERWISE from that which is infallibly decreed?
YES or NO?
The way you phrase the question (and what you seem to INTEND with it), the answer is obviously NO. If there is an infallible, exhaustive decree, then I cannot act in discord with that decree, otherwise it would be fallible. I also cannot perform a decree-neutral act, otherwise the decree would not be exhaustive. Since you did not include the word exhaustive in your original question, then the answer would be YES, since I can perform a decree-neutral act, but I am guessing you intend for the word exhaustive to be part of your question.
spurcalluth
the answer is obviously NO
br.d
Correct!
But then why do Calvinists treat the sacred divine doctrine of decrees *AS-IF* it is FALSE?
The Calvinist – such as yourself – is smart enough to know that a predestined human impulse can only resolve on ONE SINGLE human impulse.
And where there is only ONE SINGLE infallibly decreed human impulse made available to the Creature – there is no such thing as that human being granted a CHOICE because a necessary condition for CHOICE is a minimum of 2 options.
LEFT or RIGHT – UP or DOWN – FORWARDS or BACKWARDS
At minimum the Calvinist would require the options of : DO or NOT DO.
And that doesn’t exist for them either.
That is why – every time Roland declares he has the function of CHOICE – he is denying his own doctrine – and ASSUMING the very Libertarian function he claims is umbilical and doesn’t exist.
The fact that Calvinists claim their doctrine to be TRUE while treating it *AS-IF* it is FALSE is a clear indicator it is an UNLIVABLE doctrine.
You said “The Calvinist – such as yourself – is smart enough…”. Clearly not smart enough to be believed when I tell you I am not “the Calvinist”. How many times have I told you this now? 10? 15? 20??? Do you have ears, man?
I’m okay with those definitions, since they don’t resort to ever more nebulous concepts.
You are still faced with the possibility of communicating in a way that is deceptive – whenever you deviate from a definition that people are going to automatically assume.
The way a FALSE balance can come about – is when a money changer uses a weight which is labeled 5oz but which he secretly knows is more than or less than 5oz
When a customer comes to him to by silver coins to purchase a sacrificial animal he assumes the money changer is in compliance to the STANDARDIZED system of weights and measures used for the exchange of currency.
That money change however refuses to be held in compliance to the standard.
And he cheats his customer in every transaction – because he customer is unaware that he refuses to conform himself to the STANDARD which all participating parties commit to.
What do you think Jesus is going to do – when he sees that money changer operating a FALSE balance?
The same principle applies to the definitions of terms in language
Every word functions as a LABEL – just like the LABEL stamped on the side of a weight used on the balancing scale.
The actual definition is the actual weight of that word.
If you deviate from the STANDARD definition of a word – and the person you are communicating with is unaware – then we have the same problem that Jesus saw with the money changer.
Spur – Why are you unwilling to answer my simple question about Calvinism’s coherence, even if you are also asking for a coherent replacement for it? That stubbornness betrays an unwillingness to build common ground in conversation. If you really want conversation to move forward, you should answer simple questions and show if you can build that common ground or not… Right?
As for an coherent alternative, let me give you my explanation of God’s foreknowledge that best coheres to Scriptural evidence, imo.
Verses – future is not completely set in God’s foreknowledge.
Genesis 2:19 NKJV — Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to Adam 👉to see👈 what he would call them. And whatever Adam called each living creature, that was its name.
Exodus 33:5 NKJV — For the LORD had said to Moses, “Say to the children of Israel, ‘You are a stiff-necked people. I could come up into your midst in one moment and consume you. Now therefore, take off your ornaments, 👉that I may know👈 what to do to you.’ ”
Jeremiah 18:11 NKJV — “Now therefore, speak to the men of Judah and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, saying, ‘Thus says the LORD: “Behold, I am fashioning a disaster and 👉devising a plan👈 against you. Return now every one from his evil way, and make your ways and your doings good.” ’ ”
Matthew 24:20 NKJV — “And 👉pray that your flight may not be in winter👈 or on the Sabbath.”
Matthew 26:39 NKJV — He went a little farther and fell on His face, and prayed, saying, “O My Father, 👉if it is possible👈, let this cup pass from Me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as You will.”
God’s mind conforms univocally with what He has revealed in His Word. It’s not locked in right now to seeing everything as “will be” or “is”. God’s foreknowledge is dynamic and includes also the truth about what “might be” or “might not be”. This is called – dynamic omniscience.
1. Was God waiting to see what Adam would call the animals, to know what they would be called?
2. Was God waiting to see if Israel would take off their ornaments to know what He would do next?
3. Was God saying He was devising a plan which means making decisions in His mind not made before about the future.
4. Did Jesus affirm the disciples’ prayer could effect the setting of the date of Jerusalem’s fall, indicating Jesus’ believed it might not yet be set?
5. Did Jesus pray about possible changes that could be made in God’s will because He knew such changes were indeed possible?
The answer is an obvious “yes” to all those questions which are based on the clear meaning of those texts. If anyone thinks those texts don’t clearly show those self evident implications it must be because they are biased against the idea of the future being able to work out more than one way.
********
The underlying issue in foreknowledge is if one is willing to believe that there are truly changes taking place in God’s mind in His knowing a “before” that then becomes known as an “after” and a “might be” that then becomes known as either a “will be” or a “could have been”.
Calvinism rejects that such change in God’s mind exists before or after creation. Arminianism rejects that the idea of “before” creation means “before” and illogically accepts that changes in God’s mind exist and don’t exist at the same time. Molinism believes logically that some kind of change existed in God’s mind before creation but which cannot happen now after creation.
Only Dynamic Omniscience offers the idea that God’s mind corresponds with the truth and sequence revealed in His Word univocally. An event declared as “will be” was known only as “will be” in His mind. Once it happened, it became known as “fulfilled”. Those declared as “might be” are only known as “might be”. He will freely choose to cause or permit one “might be” to change in His mind to a “will be” and another “might be” into a “won’t be/could have been”.
The idea the future is limited to and locked in to working out only one way is a 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.
Dynamic Omniscience certainly sounds like a very reasonable position. I don’t know how Jesus, the apostles, and the church fathers felt about modal logic, but I don’t have any problems with it, as far as I understand it. Thanks for the explanation!
On the topic of Freedom – as it applies to Calvinism – what we have is called COMPATIBILISM
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
-quote
Compatibilism is the thesis that free will is compatible with DETERMINISM.
In other words – any FREEDOM Person_X has MUST be COMPATIBLE with what was DETERMINED concerning Person_X
Therefore in Calvinism it follows:
1) You are FREE to be/do what was DETERMINED by infallible decree
2) You are NOT FREE to be/do that which was NOT DETERMINED by infallible decree
As John Calvin puts it:
-quote
NOTHING happens but what he has knowingly and willingly decreed. ( Institutes xvi, secs. 3, 8, 175, 179)
Okay, so we have delineated two opposite positions that seem very unlikely to be true: 1.) people have zero freedom to choose, and whatever choices they seem to make, are completely unreal, or 2.) people can choose absolutely anything, including to not exist, to have different pasts, to change the laws of nature according to their whim, etc.
I think I can confidently say that I don’t hold to either of these two positions. I think you label option (1) as Calvinism, and it seems like Jerry Walls’ definition of freedom implies option (2). So I lie somewhere in the middle between those two extremes.
Walls’s position is not 2 and it is very clear from the video that it is not.
That’s certainly his definition of a free action, as I’ve pointed out before. If his position is not what his own definition says, then why aren’t you accusing him of DOUBLE-SPEAK? Either (2) is his position, or he is inconsistent and you don’t care about rectifying the situation, because you don’t care about truth at all. Which is it?
No, Walls position is that the particular option we choose from those available is not determined. The option to not exist is not an available. Option
I see that you insist on still being wrong. His definition says nothing of the kind. That is your interpretation of his definition. If he’s a professional philosopher and he can’t even set up a proper definition, then I shudder to think what kind of philosophy he publishes. He’s clearly just bad at his job, and you sticking up for him does not encourage him to become better at his job.
spurcalluth
That’s certainly his definition of a free action, as I’ve pointed out before
br.d
Are you manufacturing a straw-man again?
Are you simply making up a definition and claiming it is his?
Yep, that’s exactly what he is doing. We have both watched the video BrD and I have done so several times and read one of his books. I know what Wall’s position is and have clarified it many times, so this guy’s tactics are just an attempt at a red herring. Walls’s position is that the option a person chooses, out of whatever range of options is genuinely available to them is not predetermined. It’s not predetermined internally or externally.
The fact that God has decreed that human beings should be able to make genuine choices in no way means the option they choose is predetermined
You have repeatedly watched Jerry Walls’s presentation from a mindset that he is speaking ex cathedra. You come to the conclusion that his definition is infallible. What a surprise!
No, I am not making up a definition and claiming it is his. Thanks for the vote of confidence, though. In his videos “What’s wrong with Calvinism”, Jerry Walls has slides. Those slides occasionally have headings. At 10:48 of his first video on “What’s wrong with Calvinism”, he displays a definition of Libertarian Freedom. This is the definition I am referring to. Now, kindly go eat asphalt.
br.d
The total irony in all Calvinist / Non-Calvinist discussions about Libertarian human functionality – is the fact that all Calvinists ASSUME it exists for themselves while they claim it doesn’t.
see:
https://soteriology101.com/2021/11/11/calvinism-and-the-problem-of-damnation-and-hell/#comment-59317
The doctrine does not allow them to be call it what it is.
br.d
The total irony in all Calvinist / Non-Calvinist discussions about Libertarian human functionality – is the fact that all Calvinists ASSUME it exists for themselves while they claim it doesn’t.
roland
We assume freewill but we don’t assume libertarian freewill. We believe that man makes choices but those choices are always influenced by his nature, inclinations, desires, fears, circumstances, experiences, etc. There are multitudes of factors that go into a man making a decision. Our choices are never libertarian as Jerry Walls shows in his video. Calvinists do not assume libertarian freewill.
But you don’t just believe they are influenced. You believe they are unchangeably ordained, such that the person cannot choose otherwise than what they do
Correct!
As a matter of fact – the Calvinist – per his own doctrine – doesn’t have the function of CHOICE at all.
Your question hits the bulls-eye and serves as the red-flag that the Calvinist needs to BACK-PEDAL his own doctrine – in order to find it palatable.
I love how you think you can tell other people what they believe. It’s so adorably wrong and confident at the same time.
Thanks for interjecting your proboscis, but Roland has admitted God unchangeably ordained him to commit the last sin he committed. And the WCF, which many calvinists subscribe to, states that God unchangeably ordained whatsoever comes to pass. Not that He merely influenced it.
True, “Pastor” Loz shows his arrogance when he continues to tell others what they believe. Sounds like a cult leader, telling their followers what they believe, and not allowing for free thinking. I would hate to be a member in “pastor” Loz’s “church.” He probably controls his congregation like Jim Jones controlled his. “Pastor” Loz has already said he is anti-calvinist in his doctrine and church. He sounds like more like a cult leader than a pastor.
I Timothy 3:1-7
The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. 2 Therefore an overseer[a] must be above reproach, the husband of one wife,[b] sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3 not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. 4 He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, 5 for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God’s church? 6 He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. 7 Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil.
Let’s see if “pastor” Loz meets the BIBLICAL requirements of a pastor. Above reproach? No, his reproach is apparent on this website. “Sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable,” NO WAY!!! He is anything but this according to his posts on this site. “Able to teach”? More like to able to tell others what they believe. A true mark of a cult leader! “Not quarrelsome”!!! Another NO!!! He loves name calling and getting into arguments and quarrels!!! “Well thought of by outsiders”? NO WAY again!!! He’s so rude on this website towards Calvinist, how can we think well of him?
“Pastor” Loz sounds more like a cult leader, controlling the thoughts of his “church” and probably forcibly getting rid of any free thinking in his “church.”
There is a difference between what a person WANTS to believe – and the clear logical implications within that person’s belief.
A person can WANT to believe 2×3=6 while REJECTING the belief that 6/3=2
The question then becomes – can that person realistically maintain that position.
If that person simply goes about his merry way – never exposed to any logical scrutiny – he could conceivably maintain that belief system for a very long time.
br.d
If that person simply goes about his merry way – never exposed to any logical scrutiny – he could conceivably maintain that belief system for a very long time.
roland
I would prefer BIBLICAL SCRUTINY instead of logical scrutiny. But then again, this is just your humanism, you can’t help it, you depend more on logic than God’s revelation. This is you: you go about your merry way avoiding biblical scrutiny and you conceive and maintain a belief system for a very long time that is man-centered.
Roland
I would prefer BIBLICAL SCRUTINY
br.d
INTERPRETATION
I would prefer to go along my merry way treating my doctrine *AS-IF* it is FALSE – and call that “Biblical Scrutiny” :-]
br.d
INTERPRETATION
I would prefer to go along my merry way treating my doctrine *AS-IF* it is FALSE – and call that “Biblical Scrutiny” :-]
roland
INTERPRETATION
I would prefer to go along my merry way acting AS IF my behavior shows Scripture is superior to logic when I really behave that logic is superior to Scripture.
True, “Pastor” Loz shows his arrogance when he continues to tell others what they believe. Sounds like a cult leader, telling their followers what they believe, and not allowing for free thinking. I would hate to be a member in “pastor” Loz’s “church.” He probably controls his congregation like Jim Jones controlled his. “Pastor” Loz has already said he is anti-calvinist in his doctrine and church. He sounds like more like a cult leader than a pastor.
I Timothy 3:1-7
The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. 2 Therefore an overseer[a] must be above reproach, the husband of one wife,[b] sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3 not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. 4 He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, 5 for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God’s church? 6 He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. 7 Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil.
Let’s see if “pastor” Loz meets the BIBLICAL requirements of a pastor. Above reproach? No, his reproach is apparent on this website. “Sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable,” NO WAY!!! He is anything but this according to his posts on this site. “Able to teach”? More like to able to tell others what they believe. A true mark of a cult leader! “Not quarrelsome”!!! Another NO!!! He loves name calling and getting into arguments and quarrels!!! “Well thought of by outsiders”? NO WAY again!!! He’s so rude on this website towards Calvinist, how can we think well of him?
“Pastor” Loz sounds more like a cult leader, controlling the thoughts of his “church” and probably forcibly getting rid of any free thinking in his “church.”
roland
We assume freewill but we don’t assume libertarian freewill.
br.d
OH yes you do!!!!
See: https://soteriology101.com/2021/11/11/calvinism-and-the-problem-of-damnation-and-hell/#comment-59317
spurcalluth
Okay, so we have delineated two opposite positions that seem very unlikely to be true:
1.) people have zero freedom to choose
br.d
That is a non-sequitur!
I suspect you manufactured it as an emotional response – because it is irrational
I clearly laid out COMPATIBILISM for you
1) you are FREE to be/do that which was determined (by infallible decree)
2) you are NOT FREE to be/do that which was NOT determined (by infallible decree)
spurcalluth
, and whatever choices they seem to make, are completely unreal, or
br.d
If you are granted only one single option – and you are granted NO CHOICE as to what the option will be – and you are granted NO CHOICE as to your role in that option – then it logically follows you are not granted the function of CHOICE.
Its really that simple!
spurcalluth
2.) people can choose absolutely anything, including to not exist, to have different pasts, to change the laws of nature according to their whim, etc.
br.d
And you won’t find anyone but yourself asserting that! :-]
So you missed the mark on both!
spurcalluth
and it SEEMS like Jerry Walls’ definition of freedom implies option (2). So I lie somewhere in the middle between those two extremes.
br.d
You need to take into consideration the fact that your responses tend to be emotional rather than rational
So what SEEMS to be the case within your thinking – should be the first thing you question.
I’m not sure how you manufacture a non-sequitur from a theoretically-possible-but-not-actually-asserted position. I was laying out the extreme positions and saying that I lie in between the two extremes. How is that a non sequitur?
spurcalluth
I don’t think I would agree with the Webster definition of choose.
br.d
There is a MAJOR “Ethical” problem with this spur
If you are going to use the word “CHOICE” with people who automatically assume the STANDARDIZED meaning in which there are MULTIPLE OPTIONS available from which to select – then you are communicating in a way that is guaranteed to deceive people.
So you either accept the STANDARDIZED meaning which everyone automatically assumes for the word “CHOICE”
Or you don’t use the word “CHOICE” at all when you communicate to NON-Calvinist people.
The Calvinist may understand that a predestined event can only resolve to ONE SINGLE OPTION for every human impulse.
That Calvinist can therefore understand that you do not have multiple options and therefore do not have CHOICE
So that Calvinist is not going to be deceived by your use of the word “CHOICE”
But the NON-Calvinist automatically assumes the STANDARDIZED meaning of the word “CHOICE”
So any time you communicate that word to a NON-Calvinist person – your language will be deceptive.
And you need to ask yourself if Jesus wants you to communicate to people in a deceptive manner.
I don’t think it is an ethical problem to insist that in the debate between Calvinism and (what is this page? provisionist? Molinist? quietist? seems like it is trying to be generically non-Calvinist, but there are major differences between the different soteriological positions other than being against Calvinism) that certain words have a technical meaning. Choice would obviously be one of those terms. There is obviously room for having specialized discussions about things with specialized terms being used, because if there wasn’t, this webpage should not exist and there is an ethical problem with it existing in the first place.
spur
The point Jerry Walls is trying to make is that Calvinism is philosophically incoherent
br.d
No he is very clear to summarize the point he is trying to make – has to do with the picture Calvinism paints of God.
For example – he shows how it is easily within Calvin’s god’s ability to create a world in which all creatures love and serve him – and thus fulfill the divine purpose for all creatures (as prescribed by Calvinism).
But the fact clearly shows – that is not the world he chose to create.
He instead choose to create a world – in which he determines sinful and evil impulses to irresistibly come to pass within human brains and bodies – so that he can punish those people for the impulses he determined to irresistibly come to pass in their brains.
That is an Ethical concern – not a concern for coherence.
Where there is DOUBLE-SPEAK in Calvinism – and thus inconsistent Calvinism – is where the Calvinist halts between two opposing positions.
On one side of the equation – the Calvinist wants to say – god is god and if he wants to make evil irresistibly come to pass – then who are you oh man to judge. And there are SOME Calvinists who do take that position.
For example – Calvinist Vincent Chung:
-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,” and some kind of freedom that in their minds would render man culpable, and yet still leave God with total sovereignty.
But most Calvinists have the exact same problem with that – that the NON-Calvinist has.
These are the Calvinists who -quote “twist and turn and writhe on the floor, trying to give man some power of “self-determination”
So the ethical issue is one that is observable for both the Calvinist and the NON-Calvinist.
And the INCONSISTENT issue is observable – because most Calvinists struggle with the same ethical issue.
I disagree with you about the dilemma. As far as I see it, there is no dilemma. Jerry Walls is trying to point out BOTH the supposed logical incoherence AND the supposed ethical problem at the same time. In fact, the ethical problem is only an ethical problem BECAUSE OF the logical incoherence. If Calvinism was not logically incoherent with Scripture (in Jerry Walls’ argument) then there would be no ethical problem: he would just have to accept the truth of Calvinism if that were the case (in his reckoning).
What exactly is the “logical incoherence” that you believe Walls is trying to show?
The logical incoherence between believing Calvinism on the one hand and having the experience of freedom to choose on the other. I think he is trying to show (maybe successfully? I am still undecided) that Calvinism implies that people cannot choose, whereas experience shows that people DO choose, so that we must either reject Calvinism or universal human experience.
spurcalluth – what do you mean by “NO condition”?
I’m not familiar with that terminology.
I suspect what you mean is
“NO antecedent causal factor outside of the person’s control which (rather than the person) determines what they will do”
I did not come up with the terminology “no condition”. That’s Jerry Walls. Ask him. To me it sounds like just what it says, no condition. Your example, no antecedent causal factor outside of the person, just refers one of the many kinds of conditions that there can be.
I am genuinely curious as well. It seems to me, based on my experience, that as a Calvinist it is impermissible for me to punt to mystery but it seems that it is permissible for non-calvinists to punt to mystery. As a Calvinist, I have experienced a sense of responsibility, actually more like a burden, placed on me by non-calvinists to offer and have a reason and logical explanations for every single one of my beliefs.
One example is the mystery of God ordaining all things yet not being the author of sin. If, as a Calvinist, it is something I have experience, I say it is a mystery, the non-calvinist automatic reply is, “you can’t appeal to mystery on that one.” Yet, William Lane Craig on the podcast Unbelievable with James White, can’t provide an answer as to where the truth of subjunctive conditionals comes from, according to Craig, they just are or he appeals to truth maker theory, and that’s okay for Craig but not okay for the Calvinist.
Roland
I am genuinely curious as well. It seems to me, based on my experience, that as a Calvinist it is impermissible for me to punt to mystery but it seems that it is permissible for non-calvinists to punt to mystery
br.d
WHAT?????????????
How in the world can that thinking be rational??????
I agree that it is not rational. And yet, this is how the non-Calvinists we encounter often act. Especially the ones on this webpage. Strange, irrational behaviour indeed!
Funny!
I meant – how is Roland’s assertion possibly rational :-]
Roland for example wants to claim that humans have the function of choice in Calvinism.
When the doctrine clearly specifies that every creaturely action is predestined at the foundation of the world
And it is logically impossible for any ALTERNATIVE of a predestined event to ever come into existence.
Therefore all ALTERNATIVES of that which is infallibly decreed are EXCLUDED at the foundation of the world.
And since a NECESSARY CONDITION for “Choice” is the availability of more than one option (i.e. ALTERNATIVE) then it logically follows – in Calvinism- there is no such thing as “Choice” granted to the creature.
So in order for Roland to assert that “Choice” is granted to the creature – he has to deny the very doctrine he claims is from scripture.
Thus in order to get out from under that denial – he could easily punt to mystery.
The idea that I have the power to “NOT PERMIT” Roland punt to mystery in this case – is absurd!!!!!!
I don’t have any power to PERMIT or NOT PERMIT Roland to do anything.
Thus Roland’s statement is IRRATIONAL.
The question is – is Roland’s punting to mystery – simply a strategy to evade the logical contradiction he find’s himself in?
Roland
William Lane Craig on the podcast Unbelievable with James White, can’t provide an answer as to where the truth of subjunctive conditionals comes from, according to Craig, they just are or he appeals to truth maker theory, and that’s okay for Craig but not okay for the Calvinist.
br.d
Roland you got some of that backwards.
The Truth-maker theory is what WHITE was appealing too – not Dr. Craig
The logical fallacy of the Truth-Maker Theory which White was appealing too – was long ago proven by Dr. Alvin Plantinga
Alvin Plantinga
-quote
“It seems to me much clearer that some counterfactuals of freedom are at least possibly true than that the truth of propositions must, in general, be grounded in this way.”
In other words – if you are going to demand counterfactuals or subjunctive-conditionals be “Grounded” by a Truth-Theory – then you obligate yourself to first find a “Ground” for the Truth-Theory.
When we discover – no one positing the Truth-Theory can come up with any “Grounds” for it – then it simply destroys itself.
Dr. Craig
-quote
What Plantinga understands—and grounding objectors apparently by and large do not—is that behind the grounding objection lies a theory about the relationship of truth and reality which needs to be articulated, defended, and then applied to counterfactuals of freedom if the grounding objection is to carry any probative force. Anti–Molinists have not even begun to address these issues.
Now lets talk about Subjunctive-Conditionals for a minute
Here is an example:
If God were to decide to create man – would he create man as both male and female?
Does God know the TRUTH-VALUE of this subjuctive-conditional?
The answer is YES
Since divine omniscience entails knowing the TRUTH-VALUE of all propositions – then God would have to know the TRUTH-VALUE of this subjunctive Conditional.
But where do we find the “Grounds” for this subjunctive-conditional?
The answer any Calvinist is going to tell you – is that God knows his own character a nature so perfectly – that he knows what he would do in this circumstance.
How then is it impossible in the Calvinists mind – that God couldn’t have the same divine knowledge of a creature he is going to create?
Thus we can see that White’s argument collapses.
WLC accused White of using truth maker theory. But WLC used that accusation to deflect and not respond to White. That’s what I meant and that is what happened.
That is because – Dr. Craig recognized – White’s argument was in fact predicated on or aligned with the Truth-Maker Theory argument.
Dr. Craig wanted the audience to understand the various historical arguments that have been raised on the subject.
The Truth-Maker Theory – as I showed you in the response from Alvin Plantinga – has been proven to collapse in on itself.
I then gave you an additional example of a subjunctive Conditional
And I don’t know any Calvinist would dare to claim that God doesn’t have the ability not know its TRUTH-VALUE
White then raises another argument concerning human complexity – and how can God possibly know all of those subjunctive conditionals
Well – who is more complex – God or the creature he creates?
If God can know the TRUTH VALUE of any subjunctive conditional concerning himself with infinite complexity that he has – why is he then limited such that he can’t have the same degree of omniscience concerning a simple creature he creates?
The idea is pretty absurd – because it paints a picture of an impotent god.
I don’t believe White’s objection to Molinism is premised on the belief that God cannot have full knowledge of His creatures. White’s objection to Molinism is based, at least one of his objections, on the focus in Molinism of God’s predetermination based on the creature’s decision in particular circumstances. What White I believe is objecting to in Molinism is that it is too simple, decisions and circumstances, and fails to take into account the complexity of God’s creatures. According to White’s objection, I don’t believe Craig addressed this, is that God is just plugging in creatures into particular circumstances and from there God’s creates the world He desires. Molinism leaves out a lot of the creature’s complexities such as gifts, character, etc.
brdmod:
The idea is pretty absurd – because it paints a picture of an impotent god.
roland
Do you really believe that James White believes or would even hint at the picture of an impotent god?
You don’t understand what Calvinist want to know about subjunctive conditionals and their origins. WLC seems in the podcast to be arguing that some truths just are and that they don’t need a origin or as he put it, a maker. White wanted to know where these truths come from and WLC never gave an answer.
Are there truths that do not come from God? Middle knowledge sounds to me like there are truths that do not come from God.
And I gave you an example of one.
Are you now going to argue that God doesn’t have the ability to know what he would do in any circumstance?
brdmod:
And I gave you an example of one.
Are you now going to argue that God doesn’t have the ability to know what he would do in any circumstance?
roland
I’m a Calvinist, a Reformed Christian, do you really think I would deny that God has this ability? I would go further and say that not only knows or has knowledge of circumstances, He determines them. In Molinism God is not determining the circumstances, it is whatever circumstance is available to Him.
brdmod:
How then is it impossible in the Calvinists mind – that God couldn’t have the same divine knowledge of a creature he is going to create?
roland
As a Calvinist I would affirm and believe that God has the same divine knowledge of a creature He is going to create as He does of Himself. I think White would affirm this as well.
The Calvinist objection to Molinism is at least threefold:
First, it denies God’s decree as revealed in Scripture.
Second, it limits God as the world available for God to create is dependent on the subjunctive conditional available to Him. Craig admitted this in the podcast with White as he stated something along the lines as God not being the determiner of the truth value of subjunctive conditionals. A Calvinist would firmly deny such a belief. We hold that God is the determiner of all truth.
Third, Molinism posits the idea that there are truths without a grounding or a maker. A Calvinist would firmly deny this as well as we believe Scripture has revealed God as the ground of all truth. Craig did not answer White’s inquiry as to where these truths come from. Craig deflected by saying that White was appealing to truth maker theory and then Craig went on to say that some truths “just are.” He gave an example of a person’s just being. But even the idea of a person, whoever that must be, must come from God. Persons do not just come out of nowhere nor are we just existing. A person must at least be a thought in God’s mind in order for that person to even be considered to exist or not.
Craig implies that there are truths that just are, they have no grounds, no maker. Where does the idea of eternal truths come from if not from God?
brdmod:
Does God know the TRUTH-VALUE of this subjuctive-conditional?
The answer is YES
roland
I have to go back and listen again but I believe Craig said that God does not determine the truth-value of subjunctive conditionals. I believe he said this either with White or Helm. I don’t exactly recall, correct me if I’m wrong on this. The Calvinist objection to this question is not so much as to God’s knowledge of truth-value in subjunctive conditionals but whether God determines the truth value of those subjunctive-conditionals.
brdmod:
In other words – if you are going to demand counterfactuals or subjunctive-conditionals be “Grounded” by a Truth-Theory – then you obligate yourself to first find a “Ground” for the Truth-Theory.
roland
For the Calvinist God is the ground of all truth. If there are truths that just are, outside of God, does this make those truths equal to God in essence? And if God is not the source or ground of all truth, what is or who is? If there is any truth outside of God, then that creates a lot of problems, and Craig seems to imply that there are truths outside of God. If God is not the source of all truth, then this means humans can find truth apart from God, and that is not something the Bible reveals to us.
Roland
The Calvinist objection to Molinism is at least threefold:
First, it denies God’s decree as revealed in Scripture.
br.d
And Dr. Craig answered this – the reason the Calvinist denies this is because the Calvinist mind PRESUPPOSES Determinism within the text of scripture. The NON-Determinist does not read Determinism INTO the text.
Roland
Second, it limits God as the world available for God to create is dependent on the subjunctive conditional available to Him.
br.d
But you don’t really have a problem with this – because you just got done acknowledging that God can have knowledge of subjunctive conditionals concerning himself – which means you are OK with whatever limitations that knowledge poses to himself.
So you can’t have it both ways.
If its ok for YOU that God WOULD NOT do [X] in a given circumstance concerning himself – then its ok for you that he would not decree [X] in a given circumstance.
So without realizing it – you contradicted yourself here
Roland
Third, Molinism posits the idea that there are truths without a grounding or a maker.
br.d
And this has already been addressed
If you are going to require a “Grounding” for subjunctives based on a TRUTH-MAKER – then you are required to first find a “Grounding” for the TRUTH-MAKER theory.
If you can’t find a “Ground” for your TRUTH-MAKER theory – then your TRUTH-MAKER theory collapses because it has no “Ground”
Roland
The Calvinist objection to Molinism is at least threefold:
First, it denies God’s decree as revealed in Scripture.
br.d
You know what is really hilarious about this – is the fact that as the Calvinist moves along – declaring that Calvinism is what is REVEALED in scripture – that Calvinist is guaranteed to bump up against an aspect of Calvinism that he finds unpalatable.
And every time that happens – he will instantly DENY the very thing he just got done declaring is REVEALED in scripture.
This is sometimes called Calvinism’s “ROCKING-HORSE”
He’s ROCKING into his doctrine one minute – and ROCKING out of it the next
But most of the time it is called Calvinism’s “DOUBLE-SPEAK-TAP-DANCE”
So whenever a Calvinist tells me – he is following what is -quote “REVEALED in scripture”
I can say “YEA RIGHT!!!!” 😀
So Roland, in another thread you wrote “we calvinists know what calvinism really is”. My question to you is, which of the multiple versions of calvinism (around 9 main ones) that God unchangeably ordained (not that He is the author of confusion or anything), is the “real” calvinism, and why are all the others wrong?
brdmod:
When the human brain is conditioned to FORCE extra-biblical concepts onto the text of scripture – those extra-biblical concepts are what that brain sees when it reads scripture.
roland
This happens with the idea of libertarian freewill.
br.d
Yeah!
The very LIBERTARIAN function you automatically assume every time you claim to have the function of CHOICE
Because that function logically requires you being granted the option of DOING OTHERWISE than what you were infallibly decreed to do.
Making it the case that the Calvinist ASSUMES the very human functionality he claims is not biblical and doesn’t exist.
That is why the Calvinist is like a man who while driving a car – claims cars are not biblical and don’t exist.
Its called DOUBLE-MINDED! 😀
Roland
Exactly just like God did in Isaiah 10 with the Assyrian king…….yet God is not the author of sin.
br.d
Right!
He did AUTHOR every sin that came to pass – but in such a way that he didn’t AUTHOR them!
Thus the Calvinist is forced to into a TRUE/FALSE = YEA/NAY language
Forced to disobey Jesus’ command – let your communications be YEA YEA or NAY NAY for anything else comes of evil
Come to the school of Calvinism:
We’ll teach you 10 easy lessons in how to condition your brain to recite a library of DOUBLE-SPEAK talking points. :-]
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 every good Calvinist knows that AUTHORING a program – is not the same thing as AUTHORING a program – wink wink! 😀
Roland
Exactly just like God did in Isaiah 10 with the Assyrian king…….yet God is not the author of sin.
br.d
Then the Calvinist looked straight at the judge and said:
Yes your Honor, I did willfully and actively murder my wife.
But not in such a way that I had anything to do with her death! ;-D
br.d
Then the Calvinist looked straight at the judge and said:
Yes your Honor, I did willfully and actively murder my wife.
But not in such a way that I had anything to do with her death! ;-D
roland
This is why non-calvinists, at least one of the reasons, will never understand Calvinism. There is no Creator/creature distinction in non-calvinist theology. And if there is then it is a very weak one. As long as non-calvinist continue to analogize from the creature to the Creator such as in your example above, you will come to non-biblical conclusions and beliefs about God.
What you fail to see is that in SCRIPTURE God operates differently than man does. Man is never excused from his sin. In Genesis 4 Cain killed Abel and God cursed Cain for it. It is against God’s law for man to kill. Yet in Exodus 12 we read about God
12:12 For I (God) will pass through the land of Egypt that night, and I will strike (to kill) all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and on all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgments: I am the Lord.
God operates from a position and character of pure holiness. Man does not. Because LFW proponents make man as free as God is, they fail to see the distinction between God and man. Scripture shows us that it is not sinful for God to kill because He is just. But it is not okay for man to kill because man is unjust. God ALWAYS has JUST reasons for doing what He does even when it appears sinful to us. Man can have just reasons for what we do BUT only because God has given us those reasons in His Word to do so. Man is unjust in many of his actions, most I would argue. Calvinists reason with the presupposition that God is HOLY, JUST, and PURE in all of His actions. Non-calvinsits reason from the position that God must be as man is and man must be as God is, both have LFW.
<<>>
Yet more flat out lies. Quote me ONE believer in the freedom to choose God gives us who believes this. As has also been explained to you in this thread, but which yet again you conveniently choose to disregard, biblical non-calvinists do NOT believe in unlimited freedom of will. But history shows that you will continue to repeat this misrepresentation anyway. If you apologise for being dishonest and then wilfully continue to be dishonest, it shows just little your apology was worth.
You just accuse me of lying and misrepresentation but I never posted a comment about “unlimited freedom of will.” I’ve never written that non-calvinists believe in “unlimited freedom of will.” I’ve written that there are proponents of libertarian freewill on this site.
Since I have misrepresented you I would like to know if you believe man has libertarian freewill? If not, what kind of freewill does man have? What is your position?
<<>>
You can’t even remember what you have written. Here is a direct quote from you, from earlier in the thread:
<<< Roland: "All non-Calvinists begin with the unbiblical concept of libertarian freewill. Nowhere in Scripture is man presented as being or having libertarian freewill. There is always something that at least affects man’s freewill in some sense or degree."
So you set up libertarian free will in OPPOSITION to there always being something that affects man's free will. Ergo, you were saying that those who believe in libertarian free will believe that there is nothing that affects man's free will. Which is absolutely not what biblical non-calvinists believe.
God has given man genuine freedom to choose, within certain parameters. Adam and Eve had the genuine freedom to choose between eating the fruit and not eating it. They did not have the freedom to change the consequences of that choice. Cain had a genuine choice between doing what was right and not doing what was right, He did not have a choice over the consequences of his actions He did not have a choice to change the definition of what was right and what was wrong. Men have a genuine choice between accepting or rejecting salavtion. They do not have a choice over what happens if they reject salvation.
Libertarian free will means that our choices are free from the determination or constraints of human nature and free from any predetermination by God. All “free will theists” hold that libertarian freedom is essential for moral responsibility, for if our choice is determined or caused by anything, including our own desires, they reason, it cannot properly be called a free choice. Libertarian freedom is, therefore, the freedom to act contrary to one’s nature, predisposition and greatest desires. Responsibility, in this view, always means that one could have done otherwise.
https://www.theopedia.com/libertarian-free-will
Would you agree, disagree or agree with some of this definition or none of it?
Am I correct in believing THAT YOU ARE NOT A PROPONENT OF LIBERTARIAN FREEWILL according to this definition of LFW? (capitals for emphasis not yelling). I want to understand you correctly so that I am not misrepresenting what you believe.
<<>>
I believe that God has given us freedom to make certain choices within the parameters that He has set, as previously stated. Our will is subject to a whole range of external and internal INFLUENCES. None of these influences DETERMINE our choices. This freedom to choose is indeed essential for moral responsibility. Our sinful human nature influences our choices, however by His grace, God draws all men, enabling all men to believe nd repent. John 1:9, John 5:40, John 6:44, John 12:32, John 20:31, Romans 1, so that we are left without excuse.
Roland
Libertarian free will means that our choices are free from the determination or constraints of human nature
br.d
FALSE
Roland
and free from any predetermination by God
br.d
Only in that which god himself chooses.
Compatibilism is the view that everything that happens, such as the actions humans take and the events that happen, have already been pre-planned and predetermined before they actually happen. Nothing is *UP TO* any human being. And there is not anything a person can do to prevent or alter any event because god has designed every event to happen exactly the way he has predestined it to happen. On this view there is no such thing as multiple options granted to the creature for any event – because a predestined event can only resolve to one single predestined option.
A Libertarian believes that not everything is predestined
And as such people are granted multiple options, i.e. Alternative Possibilities.
For example, when faced with a decision to have coffee, a Libertarian believes he is granted the option of having coffee as well as the option of NOT having coffee. Thus he has more than one option available.
This is what philosophers call:
– The ability to DO OTHERWISE
– The ability to REFRAIN.
– PAP The (Principle of Alternatives Possibilities).
Since Determinism rules out Alternative Possibilities from that which was infallibly decreed – then Determinism rules out multiple options for the creature.
Since on Determinism – multiple options are never granted to the creature – the necessary condition for CHOICE is also not granted.
Therefore in Calvinism – human beings are never granted the function of choice.
Pastor Loz
God has given man genuine freedom to choose, within certain parameters.
Roland
As a Calvinist I can agree with the whole paragraph this sentence was taken from.
Our disagreement is probably over which parameters limit man’s freedom and to what degree those parameters affect man’s freedom. I believe the parameters limiting man’s freedom are God, including His sovereignty, will, providence, attributes, plan, counsel, etc. as well as man’s fallen sinful nature. But I would not limit man’s limitations to just these, I’m sure there are others that I can’t think of.
Roland
I would like to know if you believe man has libertarian freewill?
br.d
Roland – you assume you have libertarian freewill – every time you perceive yourself as making a choice between alternative possibilities
Every time you claim to have the function of choice.
The difference between you and the Non-Calvinist – is you refuse to call it what it is.
br.d
Roland – you assume you have libertarian freewill – every time you perceive yourself as making a choice between alternative possibilities
Every time you claim to have the function of choice.
The difference between you and the Non-Calvinist – is you refuse to call it what it is.
roland
But the difference is I KNOW I DON’T HAVE LFW (capitals for emphasis not screaming). I confess and believe that my will is affected by sin. That’s why I pray to God for help. If I had LFW then I would not need help from God. If my choices are not constrained by my nature then I have no need to seek God’s help. See definite of LFW below.
https://www.theopedia.com/libertarian-free-will
Libertarian free will means that our choices are free from the determination or constraints of human nature and free from any predetermination by God. All “free will theists” hold that libertarian freedom is essential for moral responsibility, for if our choice is determined or caused by anything, including our own desires, they reason, it cannot properly be called a free choice. Libertarian freedom is, therefore, the freedom to act contrary to one’s nature, predisposition and greatest desires. Responsibility, in this view, always means that one could have done otherwise.
You claim something about Biblical non-Calvinists, but so far not you nor any other non-Calvinist here has shown that there is such a thing as a Biblical non-Calvinist. So far, all we have seen is philosophical non-Calvinists, and poor philosophy at that. You still have not really answered how a free action can be without conditions, despite your insistence that you have answered it. There is still the problem that a free action is requires as a condition that there be a free actor.
br.d
Then the Calvinist looked straight at the judge and said:
Yes your Honor, I did willfully and actively murder my wife.
But not in such a way that I had anything to do with her death! ;-D
roland
This is why non-calvinists, at least one of the reasons, will never understand Calvinism.
br.d
Oh we understand Calvinist DOUBLE-SPEAK very clearly! 😀
Roland
There is no Creator/creature distinction in non-calvinist theology.
br.d
What the Non_Calvinist theology does not have – is a god who is forced to deny himself in order to give the Calvinist everything he wants.
The Calvinist wants a god who FIRST CONCEIVES every sin and evil – and BRINGS those sins and evils which he CONCEIVES into existence
But they also want that god to deny himself by not being the AUTHOR of the things he CONCEIVES and brings into existence.
And everyone knows a god who denies himself is a superior god! 😀
Isaiah 45:7
I form light and create darkness;
I make well-being and create calamity;
I am the Lord, who does all these things.
Calvinists want to remain faithful to God’s revelation in Scripture. If God says He makes both light and darkness, well-being and calamity, He is the Lord who does all these things, WE BELIEVE IT. We don’t attempt to conform God’s revelation to our presuppositions. We take our presuppositions from God’s Word.
It is non-calvinists that form their own god from a distorted understanding of Scripture. They want a god who loves everyone, wants everyone to be saved, etc.
Psalm 5:5
The boastful shall not stand before your eyes;
you hate all evildoers.
Yet God’s revelation is contrary to the con-calvinists understanding of God in His Word. Can a non-calvinists preach Psalm 5:5 without running to John 3:16 to explain away God’s hatred towards, no God doesn’t hate, He is love, He loves the world, see, John 3:16?
So you want us to believe you were never an evil-doer?
No. I still do evil. I still sin. Yet, God as Romans 5:6-8 says, sent His Son die for sinners.
6 For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. 7 For one will scarcely die for a righteous person—though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die— 8 but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
The apostle Paul includes himself in this as verse 8 says “us” and “we”. Finally, Christ died for US. At some point in my life as with all believers, GOD REVEALED His love for us in that we see that Christ died for the ungodly. Yes, I am an evil doer that God hated but at some point I saw God’s love in the death of His Son and I went from being a child of God’s wrath to a child of God.
You just confirmed that Psalm 5:5 applies to all people, yet God still died for them.
Yes, as Paul wrote also in Romans. Christ died for the ungodly.
Who else would Christ die for? The godly, the righteous, the keepers of God’s Law?
If “For all have sinned”, then there is no one godly, so Jesus could not have died for the godly, for there is none. There is no one who are law keepers either, due to “FOR ALL HAVE SINNED”.
Thus you trying to use Psalm 5:5 as a calvinist proof text is pointless.
How do Calvinists use Psalm 5:5 as a prooftext? A prooftext for what?
Did you not bring that verse up? What were YOU trying to prove by citing it?
I believe it was in an exchange with br.d or brdmod about Calvinists wanting their own god. An accusation one of them was making. I brought that verse trying to explain that Calvinists only want to remain faithful to God’s revelation. I was trying to prove anything about Calvinism. I do know this though: I attended two non-Calvinistic churches before I became a Calvinist. I listened and read non-Calvinistic authors, pastors, preachers, and teachers only before I became a Calvinist (about 8-9 years I was non-calvinist) and I never once heard any of them mention Psalm 5:5. The first time I had heard a sermon on Psalm 5:5 was from a Calvinist. As a non-calvinist learning about Calvinism I was mad at the Calvinist preacher because I believed John 3:16 superseded Psalm 5:5. I believe that Psalm 5:5 was historical and did not apply because Jesus came and showed God’s love for the world, not hatred of sinners.
I received affirmation from one of my pastors about Psalm 5:5 that God did not hate sinners. How God hate sinners if He sent His Son to die for us? That made sense but it still bothered me that Psalm 5:5 was in the Bible. It wasn’t until I began to understand how holy God is that I began to understand how God could hate sinners.
I brought it up because we Calvinists are not trying to create our own God. We trying to be faithful to Scripture even if it means preaching something men would find unacceptable about God.
You wouldn’t mind giving CONTEXT/EXEGESIS to Isaiah 45:7, would you? It’s the same CHAPTER that states the following:
4 For Jacob my servant’s sake, and Israel mine elect, I have even called thee by thy name: I have surnamed thee, though thou hast not known me.
5 I am the Lord, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me:
6 That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the Lord, and there is none else.
7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.
8 Drop down, ye heavens, from above, and let the skies pour down righteousness: let the earth open, and let them bring forth salvation, and let righteousness spring up together; I the Lord have created it.
But what does verses 1-3 state?
1 Thus saith the Lord to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have holden, to subdue nations before him; and I will loose the loins of kings, to open before him the two leaved gates; and the gates shall not be shut;
2 I will go before thee, and make the crooked places straight: I will break in pieces the gates of brass, and cut in sunder the bars of iron:
3 And I will give thee the treasures of darkness, and hidden riches of secret places, that thou mayest know that I, the Lord, which call thee by thy name, am the God of Israel.
WHO IS CYRUS? What’s the STORY here?
What does verse 4 say again?
4 For Jacob my servant’s sake, and Israel mine elect, I have even called thee by thy name: I have surnamed thee, though thou hast not known me.
Israel mine what?
Your whole understanding of the Church’s relationship to Israel is blown up in Ephesians 2:11-22
11 Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called “the uncircumcision” by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands— 12 remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. 14 For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility 15 by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, 16 and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility. 17 And he came and preached peace to you who were far off and peace to those who were near. 18 For through him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father. 19 So then you are no longer strangers and aliens,[d] but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, 20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, 21 in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord. 22 In him you also are being built together into a dwelling place for God by[e] the Spirit.
If you want to understand some of this language in the text in sort of CODE manner, then I don’t know how you read Scripture. I can only respond to you with Paul’s words about the Gentiles and Israel being ONE IN CHRIST.
Your Ephesians 2:11-22 is APPLES/ORANGES to what I’m discussing.
Your Ephesians 2:11-22 is discussing ETERNAL LIFE stuff, not CARNAL EARTHLY STUFF, as I’m discussing.
ON THIS EARTH, there is a difference between Jew/Gentile
In Christ, there is no Jew/Gentile.
Outside of Christ, there is Jew/Gentile.
That’s what Apples/Oranges is all about.
Oh, and here is some “CODE” for you. What was promised to Abraham as an inheritance was a small piece of real estate in the middle east.
That’s the CARNAL EARTHLY STUFF.
The Eternal inheritance stuff that Ephesians 2 is discussing is NOT a small piece of real estate in the middle east. So the COMMONWEALTH is a DIFFERENT discussion…a discussion of ETERNAL LIFE inheritance, not a carnal piece of land.
But you can’t see the difference.
Ed Chapman
I’m not a dispensationalist as I don’t believe God promised Abraham a small piece of real estate in the middle east. The promise God made to Abraham is explained by the apostle Paul in Romans and Galatians. It is a spiritual promise, not a carnal promise as in a small piece of real estate in the middle east.
Really?
What about this:
Genesis 15:
7 And he said unto him, I am the Lord that brought thee out of Ur of the Chaldees, to give thee this land to inherit it.
8 And he said, Lord God, whereby shall I know that I shall inherit it?
9 And he said unto him, Take me an heifer of three years old, and a she goat of three years old, and a ram of three years old, and a turtledove, and a young pigeon.
10 And he took unto him all these, and divided them in the midst, and laid each piece one against another: but the birds divided he not.
11 And when the fowls came down upon the carcases, Abram drove them away.
12 And when the sun was going down, a deep sleep fell upon Abram; and, lo, an horror of great darkness fell upon him.
13 And he said unto Abram, Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years;
14 And also that nation, whom they shall serve, will I judge: and afterward shall they come out with great substance.
15 And thou shalt go to thy fathers in peace; thou shalt be buried in a good old age.
16 But in the fourth generation they shall come hither again: for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full.
17 And it came to pass, that, when the sun went down, and it was dark, behold a smoking furnace, and a burning lamp that passed between those pieces.
18 In the same day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates:
19 The Kenites, and the Kenizzites, and the Kadmonites,
20 And the Hittites, and the Perizzites, and the Rephaims,
21 And the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Girgashites, and the Jebusites.
NOTE: TO DATE, THAT HAS NOT BEEN FULFILLED. Notice the SPECIFIC borders, from the river of Egpyt to the Euprates River.
Do you even READ the Bible?
Ed Chapman
Jesus never affirmed this promise in the New Testament. I’m not concerned about a promise that Christ never affirmed.
So, according to the Calvinist, WHAT IS THE PROMISED LAND?
The promised SEED is ISAAC in Genesis. BUT Galatians 3:16 states JESUS.
Isaac is a carnal depiction of a spiritual story about Jesus.
The small piece of real estate is a CARNAL depiction of the SPIRITUAL heaven.
Hebrews 11:16
16 But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city.
There is a difference between CARNAL AND SPIRITUAL. Carnal is here on earth, spiritual is…an heavenly.
You dismiss Genesis 15, WHEN that was the promise of INHERITANCE. LAND. The PROMISED LAND.
Galatians 3:18
For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.
Hebrews 11:8
By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went.
1 Peter 1:4
To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you,
In carnal terms, it is indeed a small piece of real estate in the middle east. In spiritual terms, it is HEAVEN.
And consider this regarding CARNAL / SPIRITUAL
Galatians 3:29
29 And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.
Are you Abraham’s seed CARNALLY, or SPIRITUALLY?
Isaac is Abraham’s promised seed CARNALLY. Jesus is the Promised seed SPIRITUALLY.
We are Abraham’s seed SPIRITUALLY, the children of Jacob is Abraham’s seed CARNALLY.
Also, consider the following…
The children of Israel was in Egypt under BONDAGE. This is the CARNAL. Now, liken that slavery to sin.
Egypt is spiritually to live in sin.
But Christ set is FREE. PASSOVER LAMB.
Now we wander the desert, meaning, we are living our Christian life.
When we die, it’s crossing the Jordan River.
Then we enter into THE PROMISED LAND.
And that’s how you are supposed to take what was written carnally, and reinterpret it spiritually.
The inheritance we receive is the promised land… heaven.
But carnally, the Jews still get a small piece of real estate, also called, THE PROMISED LAND. And that’s why I’m a hyper (times a thousand) Dispensational Zionist.
Ed Chapman
Hebrews 11:16 refutes your claim that Abraham only hoped for a piece of real estate in the Middle East. Do YOU even read the Bible?
Dude… stop. The promise God gave Abraham is ONE PROMISE of a piece of real estate. Land. Read genesis. That ONE promise of inheritance is BOTH carnal and spiritual. The Jews get a small piece of real estate in the middle east. That is a carnal story to REINTERPRET to a spiritual story about Christians, and heaven. You reform people are so hard headed, you can’t see both?
Of course I see both. My point is that you are claiming that both aren’t there. Spiritual stuff is only for Christians, and Jews only get carnal stuff. Your whole theological system is a mass of inconsistencies and outright denials of Scripture, but I guess nobody here is interested in telling YOU that you engage in DOUBLE-SPEAK. No, double-speak is apparently only bad when a Calvinist supposedly does it. So far my impression of non-Calvinists is that they will tolerate any and every heresy except the “heresy” of Biblical Christianity. Once you guys sort your house out, I don’t think I want to be under the same roof as you, for fear that God will pull the building down on my head.
What are you talking about that I said that both aren’t there? I keep arguing the exact opposite. Both are there. The Jews get the small piece of real estate, which is the promised land, by a covenant of circumcision, in that the decendants of Isaac, as opposed to Ismael, gets as an inheritance. That is real. That’s why they get circumcised. The sole reason.
But that promise is a REFLECTION, aka, type/shadow, of the spiritual PROMISED LAND. It’s no different than Issac being abraham’s promised seed indicating SPIRITUALLY Jesus. Ismael of the flesh, Issac by promise. Type/shadow of Jesus. Galatians 3:16. But Issac is real, and so is Jesus… both are the same promise in two different directions. One carnal, the other spiritual. In a sense, yes, it’s double speak. Carnal is one, spiritual is another… hence double. I know it’s hard for a calvinist to understand, because the LOVE EXPOSITORY so much, that they refuse to acknowledge the difference between carnal stories being reinterpreted to the spiritual. That’s a problem with reformers.
The problem with Reformers is simple: we believe the Bible and not Ed Chapman who keeps on saying the Bible is a pack of lies. When Hebrews says that Abraham was looking for a heavenly city, we believe that Abraham was looking for a heavenly city and not just a piece of real estate in the Middle East. Sure, he was looking for a piece of real estate also, but he definitely was also looking for a heavenly city. YOU keep saying that the people in the Old Testament had no idea of the spiritual meaning of all of this and they were only looking for the carnal blessing. Your exact words were “That’s why they get circumscribed. THE SOLE REASON. [capitalized for emphasis]” That is a straight up lie, and Hebrews 11:16 proves that it is a straight up lie, and if you do not repent of this lifestyle of incessant lying, you will end up in hell. I’ve warned you about that several times now. Get the hint!
How can you believe the Bible when you’ve never read it?
I would ask you the same question, but it wouldn’t make any sense, because you don’t believe the Bible, so I won’t ask you that. Instead, I’ll just shake my head at your ability to search the Scriptures and not find God or salvation in it. Your heart must be hard as adamantium.
It’s funny that you refuse to read the Bible, because I can back up what I say, but you can’t. You just deny.
You can back up that Ephesians 2 is false? You can back up that Genesis 1 says we are pre-existing spirits? Then why don’t you?
I already did. Good gives grace thru faith. That’s what it states. It does not say that God gives faith at all. It’s our faith. But if I say that, you will retort that’s a work. Then I’ll retort with that work is the law of Moses only. And about genesis 1, I already have. Click on my name and it will get you to my blog. It’s under the title why young earth creation is wrong. But in short, I already did in a response to you before. I guess you aren’t paying attention. But, in short, genesis 1, animals created before Adam, not after. Genesis 2, Adam was FORMED before the animals, not after. Now, figure that one out.
You did it again. You make a claim about Genesis 1, I challenge that claim, and IMMEDIATELY you jump to somewhere outside of Genesis 1. Don’t make claims you can’t back up, dummy.
Is that how you read normal books? You just read chapter one, and make a book report? I did back it up. You are not a serious student. To the principals office!
Lol, you are so funny! Imagine making a claim, being challenged on it, not being able to back up your claim, and then sending the challenger to the principal’s office! Do you do stand-up?
Answer the question. In genesis 1, man was created AFTER the animals. But in chapter 2, Adam was FORMED before the animals, NOT AFTER. So can you figure it out, or are you just going to call me names?
Nah, I don’t need to call you names. I do that for fun. But to answer your question: nothing in Genesis 2 says that the animals were created after Adam. There’s nothing to harmonize between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2, because Moses wasn’t an idiot that forgot by Genesis 2 what he wrote in Genesis 1.
Spur … Who does not know how Hebrew expresses a pluperfect idea “had formed” especially in historical narrative? Who does not know what Hebrew word is, used for “create”, and which one is used for “formed”? Do they have a problem with accepting a reasonable explanation of an apparent contradiction, if there is one? 😎
Further, tho, is that when you die, you go somewhere. Those who don’t believe that, believe in soul sleep. So since you go somewhere when you die, the question is, when was that part of you created.
Many think at birth, many think at conception.
Me, I look at Hebrews 4, where it clearly states that God is still at rest from his creation. And if that is true… what’s the logical answer?
Seed time and harvest. Seed is a spiritual representation of our ghost (spirit) self.
Adams body is made of dirt. Plant seed in dirt, and…Adam became a living thinker (Soul).
The breath of life that God breathed in Adam, was Adam himself (spirit), meaning that Adam existed before life.
Many don’t, or have never studied the difference between spirit, soul, and body.
If we go somewhere when we die, and God is still resting… what does that conclude?
Ed Chapman
I’ve already said that I am done commenting here and I won’t get roped back in, but if you want to continue a monologue about Hebrew pluperfect verbs, then be my guest. I just won’t be interacting.
spurcalluth
You can back up that Ephesians 2 is false?
br.d
Bible verse XYZ teaches that the earth is flat.
If you disagree – then your position is – that bible verse XYZ is FALSE.
Can you back up that bible verse XYZ is false?
This is the same juvenile thinking that Roland falls for!
Its a Calvinist phenomenon!
What a hoot! :-]
Ephesians 2 teaches that Jesus removed the middle wall of separation between Jew and Gentile. Ed Chapman teaches that Jesus did not remove the middle wall of separation between Jew and Gentile. Tell me, oh enlightened one, how I am supposed to interpret these two facts?
Oh, did God give you faith to believe in something you’ve never read? Lololololol
Read Deuteronomy 29:4, and then read that same reference in Romans 11:8. I stand by what I said. Also read genesis chapter 17. I stand by everything I said.
Of course you do. I wouldn’t expect anything else. Once you start calling Scripture a pack of lies (like you do with Ephesians 2), then you have a hard enough heart that nothing that I say or anyone else says can penetrate it. You are preparing yourself a nice little nest-egg in hell, but you will find it is not as comfy as you think.
I never ever called Ephesians 2 a pack of lies. But I will call your calvinist reform interpretation of it a pack of lies, everyday of the week, and twice on Sunday.
Roland
Calvinists want to remain faithful to God’s revelation in Scripture.
br.d
While subtly denying the very doctrines they claim come from scripture – whenever those doctrine result in something the Clavinist doesn’t want! :-]
Roland
God’s revelation is contrary to the con-calvinists understanding of God
br.d
That same revelation that the Calvinist is willing to BACK-PEDAL on and DENY anytime it results in something the Calvinist finds unpalatable. :-]
We know how Calvinism works! 😀
John Calvin on the subject of humans having the function of CHOICE
-quote
Both in doing and abstaining, 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. (Institutes book 2 chapter 2)
br.d
Notice here how Calvin appeals to “ABSTAINING”
This is a clear reference to the LIBERTARIAN function of “DO OTHERWISE” or “REFRAINING”
So Calvin is saying we SEEM to have a LIBERTARIAN ability.
Which means – the Calvinist PERCEIVES himself as having LIBERTARIAN ability.
But the question is – is that human PERCEPTION a FALSE PERCEPTION?
Calvin continues:
-quote
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. (Institutes – Book 2, Chapter 2- Section 3)
br.d
In other words – because the Calvinist has the PERCEPTION of multiple options ( i.e. both the option of DOING as well as the option of ABSTAINING) – then the Calvinist can SAY he has a CHOICE.
The problem is – the condition of multiple options existing for the Calvinist would FALSIFY the infallible decree
Because it would allow for an ALTERNATIVE to come to pass – instead of that which was infallibly decreed.
No ALTERNATIVE of the infallible decree – equates to only one singly infallibly decreed OPTION – for every creaturely event.
Therefore the Calvinist is forced to DENY the doctrine of decrees in order to argue that he is granted the function of CHOICE.
And that is why Calvin says – man SEEMS to have the function of CHOICE
And because the Calvinist PERCEIVES himself has having the function of CHOICE – then the Calvinist can SAY he has CHOICE.
So the bottom line is – the Calvinist simply claims to have the function of CHOICE based on a predestined FALSE PERCEPTION of having CHOICE.
And the Calvinist is willing to DENY the very doctrine he insists is scriptural – in order to be able to make that claim.
Strong’s Concordance is ONLINE. Definitions are in English. Very simple to use.
When the human brain is conditioned to FORCE extra-biblical concepts onto the text of scripture – those extra-biblical concepts are what that brain sees when it reads scripture. And it eventually loses the capacity to differentiate one from the other. That is why the Calvinist mind is incapable of differentiating a man-made tradition of interpretation from scripture itself. They morph into one and the same thing within the Calvinist’s mind – and his mind is incapable of discerning the difference between them.
brdmod:
When the human brain is conditioned to FORCE extra-biblical concepts onto the text of scripture – those extra-biblical concepts are what that brain sees when it reads scripture.
roland
This happens with the idea of libertarian freewill. Non-calvinists read libertarian freewill into the text of Scripture. LFW is an extra-biblical concept. This is why LFW proponents do not understand simple reading of Scripture. They must always conform the truth being communicated in Scripture to the concept that men have LFW. A simple reading of Acts 4:27-28 shows this. For example, Pastor Loz seems to believe that God only knows what will take place in Acts 4:27-28. When these verses clearly state that God PREDETERMINED OR PREDESTINATED to take place.
Then the noncalvinists will jump to other text of Scripture to prove or disprove what God says in another text. I used to read the Bible like this and it is a very inconsistent manner to read God’s Word. The non-calvinists argument is, “this cannot mean that because over here in this text, God says this… ‘
brdmod:
That is why the Calvinist mind is incapable of differentiating a man-made tradition of interpretation from scripture itself. They morph into one and the same thing within the Calvinist’s mind – and his mind is incapable of discerning the difference between them.
roland
Anybody with presuppositions does this not just the Calvinist. To say that people are neutral in reading Scripture is just plain wrong. Nobody is.
Roland,
Have you ever sat down and PONDERED the age old questions, “What am I doing here?” “Who am I?”, etc.?
You believe in God. Great. Where is God? In heaven, right?
According to Calvinists, what are we doing here on Earth?
If God is in heaven, WHY didn’t God just form Adam in HEAVEN instead?
Why here on Earth where the devil resides?
The answer to that is FREE WILL. We can’t have free will unless evil is present. In heaven there is no evil. What “choices” can we make in heaven?
Did you ever stop to consider the following:
Isaiah 65:17
For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.
We are not going to remember ANY of this CARNAL LIFE on planet earth. Why?
Ed Chapman
<<>>
Yet more mis-representation, even after your “apology”. As I very clearly stated in this thread, at least twice, GOD PREDETERMINED WHAT WOULD OCCUR. Go back and read the thread, since you have such selective and distorted recollection. I’ll say it for at least the third time. God predetermined that He would lay down His life, John 10:38. He did not predetermine the SIN that led to it. Because God doesn’t do that. In harmony with James 1:13, that verse I have cited several times and which you have not addressed, perhaps because it comes into that category of Scriptures/points you conveniently labelled as “irreevant”.
Yet again, you have been found out.
Pastor Loz
God predetermined that He would lay down His life, John 10:38.
roland
But that is not what Luke recored in Acts 4:27-28. God predetermined that those who crucified Christ would crucify Christ. The text is speaking about the actions of those who crucified Christ not that God predetermined that He would all down His life. My accusation stands: non-calvinists, when a text doesn’t conform to their presuppositions, RUN to other text to explain away the plain meaning of another text so that their presuppositions are affirmed. THAT’S EXACTLY WHAT YOU JUST DID (capitals are for emphasis not screaming). You explained Acts 4:27-28 in light of John 10:38!
So, according to your interpretation of Acts 4:27-28, when Theophilus received it from Luke, Theophilus COULD NOT have understood Acts 4:27-28 UNLESS he had the Gospel of John 10:38 to interpret.
What is it that you want me to address about James 1:13? When have I ever written that God tempts men? I don’t see any point in addressing James 1:13 because I BELIEVE it. Calvinists confess and believe that God is not the author of sin. There are arguments out there about why Calvinists do not believe God is the author of sin. As I was told when it comes to Calvinists sneaking into non-calvinist churches, if I wanted evidence, I SHOULD GO LOOK FOR IT MYSELF! (capitals for emphasis not screaming) If you want to read about Calvinism and the accusation that it makes God the author of evil, you can look for it. Thanks for reading. I won’t apologize as my apologies have little meaning, no sincerity. I would apologize for not apologizing, something I feel compelled to do but see the previous sentence.
Roland,
You had said:
“But that is not what Luke recored in Acts 4:27-28. God predetermined that those who crucified Christ would crucify Christ. ”
My response:
WHY did those who crucified Christ crucify Christ?
Could it be, “for they know not what they do”?
So, Why did they know not what they do?
Because they couldn’t see Jesus as the Christ, because they were blind to that fact. The reason that Jesus came to this planet was to be crucified. That was his mission. The Cross was his mission.
And it was the JEWS who killed Jesus, for Pilot washed his hands of it, and the Jews took responsibility for it PROUDLY. But Jesus said, THEY KNOW NOT WHAT THEY DO.
They didn’t know they were killing God. They didn’t know he was God. They couldn’t SEE, they were so blind.
From the way I see it, BOTH you and Pastor Loz is correct. Jesus laid down his life by the hands of the Jews, IN ORDER for Prophesy to come true, that Jesus would be the PASSOVER sacrifice, the last SACRIFICE ever needed to atone for sin.
Jesus could not have laid down his life had it not been for the Jews. Imagine if the all the Jews did not have blinders on. Then Jesus COULD NOT HAVE laid down his life at all.
Ed Chapman
Acts 4:27-28 directly blames Pontius Pilate for conspiring to kill Jesus. Here again, your extreme hyper (x15, was it?) dispensationalism makes you say the exact opposite of what the Bible says.
Read the gospels. He washed his hands off it. Your comment is proof that you’ve never read the Bible at all.
Sure, Pilate washed his hands of it. And YOU apparently think that Pilate is the JUDGE OF ALL THE EARTH, and that in God’s courtroom, Pilate is the one upon the throne deciding guilt and innocence, while God is just some para-legal assistant that better do what the JUDGE says. You turn all of heaven and earth on its head. Acts 4:27-28 makes it plain as day that Pilate could have washed his hands until they were stumps, it doesn’t change the fact that he gave up Jesus to be crucified and therefore he shares in the guilt. But you think that if I read the Bible more, I will come to the conclusion (that you have come to) that Acts 4:27-28 is a lie. Nope, not gonna do it, not ever ever.
Pilot washed his hands of the crucifixion of Jesus. The Jews gladly said that his blood is on their hands. And Jesus said, father forgive them for they know not what they do. So… where does the guilt lie with them being forgiven?
Squarely on the shoulders of Pilate and Herod, among others. This is what Acts 4:27-28 implies. Thanks for asking. Maybe you can learn the Bible from someone other than whomever your heresiarch is.
I say again, Pilot washed his hands of it. WHICH MEANS, your constant reference of Acts 4 is irrelevant. Why? Because when Jesus said, “father, forgive them…”, who will be held to account, since it’s already forgiven? No one is the correct answer. No one will ever be held to account for killing Jesus, because Jesus forgave them. Pilot was the government official in charge, but he washed his hands of responsibility and the Jews gladly took the blame. You twist acts 4 based on ignorance of the gospels. Acts 4 does not say what you IMPLY.
And I say that the gospels don’t say what you IMPLY. We’re at a stalemate. You want to believe heresies, I want you to stop lying, it doesn’t look like you will stop lying, so what’s the point in continuing the conversation? You just love your daddy Satan and want to do what he desires, so you lie like it is your mother tongue, which it is. I guess I should be glad I’m not getting death threats from you, because your daddy is also a murderer and has been one since the beginning, according to the Scriptures.
Matthew 27:24_25 trumps you. And that just shows that you’ve never read the Bible. Especially if you also deny that Jesus said, “Father forgive them, for they know not what they do. “. I will continue to stand by all of my statements.
It’s comments like “you just love your daddy Satan” that show us calla hasn’t put his big boy trousers on yet.
Yep, that’s typical Calvinist, when they can’t win a debate.
It’s comments like yours that make me wonder why you are interested in what little boys have underneath their trousers.
I don’t deny that Jesus said “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do”. The question is, who did He talk about? I think the context is clear: He is talking about the soldiers crucifying Him. Pontius Pilate was not one of those soldiers, he was the governor, and he had full knowledge of what he did, so Jesus cannot be talking about Him. Are you willing to blaspheme Jesus by saying He was so stupid He thought Pilate had no idea what he was doing?
Who did he talk about, you ask? The Jews only. That’s who. Herod sent him back to Pilot, and Pilot found no fault in Jesus, and the Matthew reference that I gave you yesterday, which you deny exists, showed that Pilot washed his hands of it, and the Jews took full responsibility, as well as their children after them. It really boggles my mind how you include Harod and Pilot. Why have you never read the Matthew account where you flat out told me that it doesn’t say what I imply, when it does, word for word, 100 percent.
WHERE DID I DENY THAT PILATE WASHED HIS HANDS???? WHERE, LIAR?!!!! (All caps for shouting, just to be clear.)
No, Jesus was not talking about the soldiers at all. The Jews are the focus. They took responsibility, and they are the ones BLIND to who Jesus really is. Acts 3:13-15.
Spurchalluth,
Earlier you had said:
“WHERE DID I DENY THAT PILATE WASHED HIS HANDS???? WHERE, LIAR?!!!! (All caps for shouting, just to be clear.)”
My response:
FIRST OF ALL, WHAT DOES WASHING YOUR HANDS OF SOMETHING MEAN? WHAT DOES THAT MEAN TO YOU?
YOU ARE PLACING BLAME ON PILOT. CONSTANTLY. AND HEROD, TOO, IMPLYING THAT JESUS DIDN’T FORGIVE THEM, BECAUSE AS YOU IMPLY, THEY KNEW WHAT THEY WERE DOING, IN THAT THE ONLY ONES THAT DIDN’T WERE THE SOLDIERS.
BUT I SAY, YES, YOU ARE RIGHT, IN THAT JESUS DIDN’T FORGIVE THEM, AND WHY? BECAUSE THE JEWS TOOK RESPONSIBILITY, AND PILOT WASHED HIS HANDS OF IT, THEREFORE, PILOT HAD NO RESPONSIBILITY, OR, IN OTHER WORDS, PILOT IS INNOCENT OF THE DEATH OF JESUS…AND HEROD, TOO…HEROD SENT JESUS BACK TO PILOT. BOTH HEROD AND PILOT ARE INNOCENT OF THE DEATH OF JESUS, AND WHY? BECAUSE THE JEWS TOOK FULL RESPONSIBILITY AND IT WAS TOWARDS THE JEWS THAT JESUS SAID, “FATHER FORGIVE THEM FOR THEY KNOW NOT WHAT THEY DO AND THAT IS BACKED UP BY…
ACTS 3:17
And now, brethren, I wot that through ignorance ye did it, as did also your rulers.
When you had said the following:
I don’t deny that Jesus said “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do”. The question is, who did He talk about? I think the context is clear: He is talking about the soldiers crucifying Him. Pontius Pilate was not one of those soldiers, he was the governor, and he had full knowledge of what he did, so Jesus cannot be talking about Him. Are you willing to blaspheme Jesus by saying He was so stupid He thought Pilate had no idea what he was doing?
LET ME BE CLEAR, I HAVE ALWAYS DISCUSSED THAT THE JEWS ARE THE ONES WHO ARE BLIND. BUT YOU ARE IMPLYING THAT PILOT KNEW WHAT HE WAS DOING…WHAT DID HE DO? AND IF HE WASHED HIS HANDS OF IT, WHAT IS HE RESPONSIBLE FOR? WHO IS RESPONSIBLE? PILOT? SOLDIERS? OR THE JEWS?
SEEMS THAT YOU PUT THE BLAME ON THE SOLDIERS, IN WHICH YOU SEEM TO THINK THAT WAS THE FOCUS OF “FOR THEY KNOW NOT WHAT THEY DO” STATEMENT FROM JESUS. AND THEN YOU PUT THE BLAME ON PILOT FOR ORDERING THE SOLDIERS, AND THAT PILOT IS TO BLAME BECAUSE HE KNEW WHAT HE WAS DOING. THEREFORE, YOU PUT THE BLAME SOLEY ON PILOT FOR KNOWING WHAT HE WAS DOING.
AND THEN YOU HAVE THE NERVE TO RESPOND TO ME WITH, “WHERE DID I DENY THAT PILATE WASHED HIS HANDS????” Are you kidding me? You never acknowledged it, because you are BLAMING PILOT and putting the responsibility right at his feet, because, as you say, he knew what he was doing, so you think Jesus was discussing the soldiers when he said, “Father forgive them…”
and this:
chapmaned24 had said:
I say again, Pilot washed his hands of it. WHICH MEANS, your constant reference of Acts 4 is irrelevant. Why? Because when Jesus said, “father, forgive them…”, who will be held to account, since it’s already forgiven? No one is the correct answer. No one will ever be held to account for killing Jesus, because […]
To which you replied:
And I say that the gospels don’t say what you IMPLY. We’re at a stalemate. You want to believe heresies, I want you to stop lying, it doesn’t look like you will stop lying, so what’s the point in continuing the conversation? You just love your daddy Satan and want to do what he desires, so you lie like it is your mother tongue, which it is. I guess I should be glad I’m not getting death threats from you, because your daddy is also a murderer and has been one since the beginning, according to the Scriptures.
And finally…THIS…
spurcalluth
December 13, 2021 at 7:44 am
You said:
Sure, Pilate washed his hands of it. And YOU apparently think that Pilate is the JUDGE OF ALL THE EARTH, and that in God’s courtroom, Pilate is the one upon the throne deciding guilt and innocence, while God is just some para-legal assistant that better do what the JUDGE says. You turn all of heaven and earth on its head. Acts 4:27-28 makes it plain as day that Pilate could have washed his hands until they were stumps, it doesn’t change the fact that he gave up Jesus to be crucified and therefore he shares in the guilt. But you think that if I read the Bible more, I will come to the conclusion (that you have come to) that Acts 4:27-28 is a lie. Nope, not gonna do it, not ever ever.
chapmaned24
December 13, 2021 at 8:02 am
WHAT DOES WASHING YOUR HANDS OF SOMETHING MEAN?
chapmaned24 said:
Pilot washed his hands of the crucifixion of Jesus. The Jews gladly said that his blood is on their hands. And Jesus said, father forgive them for they know not what they do. So… where does the guilt lie with them being forgiven?
spurcalluth
December 13, 2021 at 9:32 am
You said:
Squarely on the shoulders of Pilate and Herod, among others. This is what Acts 4:27-28 implies. Thanks for asking. Maybe you can learn the Bible from someone other than whomever your heresiarch is.
So, I say again, WHAT DOES WASHING YOUR HANDS OF IT MEAN TO YOU? You keep placing blame on Pilot…and Herod. No mention of Jews, but you do mention the soldiers.
MY FINAL NOTE ON THE SUBJECT IS:
ACTS 3:12-17
12 And when Peter saw it, he answered unto the people, Ye men of Israel, why marvel ye at this? or why look ye so earnestly on us, as though by our own power or holiness we had made this man to walk?
13 The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath glorified his Son Jesus; whom ye delivered up, and denied him in the presence of Pilate, when he was determined to let him go.
14 But ye denied the Holy One and the Just, and desired a murderer to be granted unto you;
15 And killed the Prince of life, whom God hath raised from the dead; whereof we are witnesses.
16 And his name through faith in his name hath made this man strong, whom ye see and know: yea, the faith which is by him hath given him this perfect soundness in the presence of you all.
17 And now, brethren, I wot that through ignorance ye did it, as did also your rulers.
NOTE: RULERS HERE IS NOT PILOT, IT’S THE JEWISH RELIGIOUS COURT.
God placed the blame on the Jews, not Pilot, not Herod, not the Soldiers.
and God forgave the Jews. For they are the ones IGNORANT of their own Savior.
Ed Chapman
Ed, you’re insane. There were no aeroplanes in first century AD Judaea, so neither were there any pilots. Please get help.
You keep asking me what it means to me that Pilate washed his hands. Frankly, I don’t see what its meaning TO ME has to do with anything. Only what its meaning actually is, matters. And its meaning is that Pilate was trying to distance himself from the entire affair and trying to claim innocence. You assume that he was successful. But if that were the case, then any murderer could just wash his hands in court and the judge could do nothing to him, because he had washed his hands. As if that ACTUALLY removes culpability. It doesn’t, and any sane person knows that. The fact that you don’t, just underlines to me the need for the advice that I already gave you: Please get help. You are insane.
Pastor Loz: God predetermined that He would lay down His life, John 10:38.
<<>>
That might work for you if “genesthai” meant “ to be done”. It doesn’t. The concept of “do” is in no way present in the word, which means to happen, occur, come to pass, come into being. You just don’t want to accept this.
<<>>
So you are denying that Jesus laid down and His life and that He had predetermined to do this?
<<>>
What Theophilus understood or did not understand is completely irrelevant to the argument. He was recording what he was told.
<<>>
No, you don’t really believe James 1:13, because it does not harmonize with your belief in God pre-determining the sin that caused the crucifixion. Because pre-determining sin goes BEYOND tempting men to sin, to the degree of CAUSING them to sin. It means that God rendered it completely certain that they would sin, such that they COULD NOT POSSIBLY HAVE DONE OTHERWISE. Thus they had no choice in the matter. And since they had no choice in the matter, God made the choice for them. They were simply the guns in God’s hand. There is no other way for you to explain it.
Didn’t you know that Pastor Loz is such a great scholar of the Biblical languages that not one translator of the Bible or even a translation team holds the wish of a ghost of a whisper of a candle to his great erudition?
Don’t you know that Roland got this completely round his neck and was looking at the wrong part of the verse? Don’t you know that two thirds of English translations say happen, occur, take place, consistent with the Greek. Now you know, you can see that your usual attempt at being smart and sarcastic just makes you look foolish.
Yes, you are right, my snarkiness did lead to me looking like a fool. Maybe I should try to be less snarky in future.
I was looking at the word translated predetermined, predestinated, in verse 28. You seem to be looking at the words after …”to take place.” I did not look at the wrong part of the verse you just ignored my argument by avoiding or even acknowledging that God “predestinated or predetermined” to take place.
Acts 4:28 to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place.
Yet more lies. I think it is THREE Times now I asserted that GOD PREDETERMINED WHAT WOULD TAKE PLACE. You do realise that lying is a sin, don’t you?
I don’t recall you asserting that God predetermined what would take place. When I read your comment about Acts 4:27-28 you seemed to be implying that God only knew what would take. So if that is what you assert as the text states, then we agree!
I didn’t imply or suggest any such thing. Three times I clearly explained that God predetermined the laying down of His life, not the sin that led to it. I cited John 10:18 and James 1:13 in support of my explanation. You dimissed my use of John 10:18 as running away to other texts, despite the fact that it is clearly relevant. You made a simple assertion that you have no problem James 1:13, yet you failed to harmonize it with your interpretation of Acts 4:27-28, despite me showing how it does not harmonize. So no, I’m afraid we don’t agree.
Here’s your original comment I was referring to:
Pastor Loz
That might work for you if “genesthai” meant “ to be done”. It doesn’t. The concept of “do” is in no way present in the word, which means to happen, occur, come to pass, come into being. You just don’t want to accept this.
Roland
And then there’s this other post I was referring to:
Pastor Loz
You weren’t even looking at the correct part of the verse. There are over 40 English transations of the verse that use happen, occur, take place as well as Strongs #1096 – genesthai, to come into being, to happen, to become. The word “DO” is nowhere contained in that word.
ASV – come to pass
AMP – to occur
CSB – to take place
CEB – would happen
CJB – should happen
CEV – would happen
DARBY – should come to pass
DLNT – to take place
EHV – should happen
ESV – to take place
GNT – would happen
HCSB – to take place
ISV – to take place
LEB – to take place
NABRE – to take place
MOUNCE – to be
NASB – to occur
NCB – to take place
NET – would happen
NIRV – should happen
NIV – should happen
NIVUK – should happen
NLV – would happen
NRSV – to take place
NTE – to take place
OJB – to occur
RSV – to take place
TLV – to happen
VOICE – should happen
WEB – to happen
YLT – to come to pass
roland
I thought you were just looking at the end of Acts 4:28 to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined TO TAKE PLACE. My understanding came from this post where you wrote that I WAS NOT LOOKING AT THE CORRECT PART OF THE VERSE. Here’s another one of your post that gave me the impression that you did not believe God predetermined in Acts 4:27-28.
Pastor Loz
You falsely accused people of twisting Acts 4:27-28, using your favored translation of that passage that says God predetermined “what would be done”. In doing so you showed your ignorance of the Greek, which is correctly translated “what would happen”. The Greek word “genesthai” means to come into being.
roland
I MISUNDERSTOOD you, there’s no need to call me a liar again.To me your understanding of the text, and you are emphatic about it by citing all the different translations, comes from the text’s ending. I really don’t like to have interaction with people who call me names. But, can you see how my misunderstanding of your position could come from some of your posts?
The first time it happens I can understand that a person may mis-understand what someone else is posting. However when they have been corrected more than once, it begins to look wilful.
I know. I was referring to the word translated “predestined or predetermined” and he was looking at the phrase after.
Heather, I don’t know if I said this before, but your explanations of why and how calvinism is wrong are so brilliant I really think you should write a book on this topic. Also, don’t know if you have come across a calvinist “counsellor” called Jay Adams, but as you might expect his approach to counselling is extremely damaging.
I was thinking the same exact thing about Heather’s response to the “strong delusion” issue. I had to re-read her response again, it was so right on target. The Calvinist boasts about exegesis, but there was more to the story than what Roland presented BEFORE the verse about strong delusion. They can say the word exegesis, but they sure don’t use it.
Ed Chapman
Right on Heather!
Since
1) No Calvinist has any CERTAINTY of who the ELECT are
2) The same PERCEPTION of salvation – is divinely planted within the minds of both the ELECT and the NON-ELECT believer.
The point in time – in which a Calvinist will have CERTAINTY of his election status – is when he wakes up in the lake of fire – or not.
If he wakes up in the lake of fire – he will then have CERTAINTY of what he was created/designed for by Calvin’s god.
Until that time – the only thing the Calvinist can have “Assurance” of is the POSSIBILITY of election.
Roland: “My point in citing this verse is: Non-Calvinists on this site will argue that God wants all men to be saved, He gives grace to enable all men, etc. Calvinists reject this idea of God’s desire, will, or wish that all men would be saved. I reject it.”
Heather: 2 Peter 3:9: God is “not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.”
Ezekiel 18:32: “For I take no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign Lord. Repent and live!”
Titus 2:11: “For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men.”
Acts 17:27: “For God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him …”
1 Timothy 2:3-5: “This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of truth. For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all men…”
If Calvinists won’t take verses like these at face value, if they insist on hidden meanings, then there is no reasoning with them.
Roland: “So, I offered this verse to show two things. First, there is at least one group of persons whom God does not want to be saved nor does He appear to make an effort for them to be saved. He secures their judgment and condemnation by sending a strong delusion so that they will believe the lie. Second, if God wants all men to be saved, then why does God SEND them a strong delusion? Just from reading the text it sounds as if God is not giving this group of people any opportunity to be saved but is doing quite the opposite. He sends a strong delusion to those who already reject the truth and will not be saved….”
Heather: Where does it say that God never gave them a chance to be saved in the first place? That He caused them, from the beginning, to reject the truth and delight in wickedness? Why would He need to give them a lie to believe if they were already totally depraved reprobates who were predestined to hell?
It seems to me that Calvinists read into the text the idea that God never EVER gave them a chance, that He first predestined them to reject Him and then caused them to reject Him and then gave them a lie to believe (and caused them to believe it) because they rejected Him just like He predestined/caused. But I don’t see this in the text or in the Bible overall. I see that because they willingly chose to reject the truth first (which means they could have believed it), God eventually gives them the opportunity to confirm their decision, bringing punishment on themselves. (And I don’t mean the Calvinism version of “willingly chose” – where God causes people to desire to choose what He predestined them to choose, and they couldn’t do anything different.) But they were not predestined to reject the truth. They chose that themselves. And eventually, He gives them what they want permanently … and the consequences that go with it.
Roland: “If men are free, if they have libertarian freewill, can they resist the strong delusion sent by God and not believe the lie?”
Heather: What I believe is going on in this verse is the hardening of people’s hearts, the solidifying of their decision. “Hardening,” according to the concordance, is about God handing people over to their self-chosen resistance to Him, after they’ve rejected His patient lovingkindness too many times. So they had the chance to believe, to turn to God and accept the truth and repent of their wickedness, up to a point – the point of no return when God makes their decision permanent. And so yes, you might be right that the people in this verse, at this point, might not be able to change their minds. But my point is that at least up until that point, they did. God did not force them to reject the truth or to delight in wickedness. They could have repented, up to this point. But in Calvinism, they never had a chance. In Calvinism, God predestined them to reject Him and then He punishes them for rejecting Him. There never was a point in time when they could believe the truth or repent.
Roland: “Is it a loving act to send a strong delusion so that a person believes a lie?”
Heather: It was loving for God to send Jesus to die for them, to offer salvation to them, and to give them chance after chance to repent before deciding to harden them, to give them what they wanted permanently.
Roland: “How can God be good and just and still send them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie? The answer is that God righteously sends delusion because it is a beginning part of his just judgment…. God causes these people to be deluded because they refused to love the truth and so be saved and because they have not believe the truth but have delighted in wickedness.”
Heather: I agree that it’s part of His righteous judgment. The problem with Calvinism though is that God first predestined them to reject Him, then caused them to reject Him, then caused them to believe a lie as punishment for rejecting Him. How is that a just, righteous punishment?
Roland: “This text shows that God is in control of all events, even the restraining of the antichrist. Even the revealing of the lawless one is under God’s control. Nothing in this passage is outside of the scope of God’s power. God is even in control of the rebellion.”
I agree that God is in control. But not in the Calvinist sense. In Calvinism, “in control” means preplanning, actively controlling, causing everything that happens, even sin and evil, and that people have no real choice, no real influence over anything they think, decide, or do. Whereas I believe God sometimes causes things (but never sin or evil) but many others time He just allows things (like our choices, sins and evil), but that He is in control over it all by knowing how to work it all together for good and to accomplish His overarching goals.
And I agree that “universal salvation” is not biblical, but I believe the “universal opportunity for all to believe and be saved” is.
Pastor Loz, Brdmod, and Ed Chapman,
Thank you for your kind words. Maybe I’ll think about writing a book someday, when my kids are grown (4 boys. God, keep me sane!). Till then, I’m just enjoying adding comments here with you guys and posting on my blog. Blessings to you all! 🙂
I think you should definitely go for that Heather!
You’ve got a good head for it! :-]
What’s most horrifying is that you don’t care about your eternal souls. Just debates. Makes John 10 even more sobering.
No need to be horrified, because in your self-defeating philosophical theory, God unchangeably ordained everything we wall think, like, say and do. Just acting out a predetermined script. Just as your god unchangeably ordained for you to use vulgar language for his maximal glory.
Sinner
What’s most horrifying is that you don’t care about your eternal souls
br.d
And he knows that cuz he has super divine GNOSIS! ;-D
Sinner
What’s most horrifying is that you don’t care about your eternal souls
br.d
Which according to the doctrine:
1) Is infallibly FIXED at the foundation of the world
2) Cannot possibly be changed
3) No human has any say in the matter of
4) No Calvinist has any CERTAINTY about in this life-time
We always seem to be blessed with plenty of examples of the degree to which Calvinist thinking is DOUBLE-MINDED :-]
One needs no gnosis to see what is plain to the eyes. What is plain to the eyes here is that people like Ed Chapman and Wolf Loz has been lying about just about every topic they could lay their hands on. From there, it is easy to infer their attitude towards their souls.
Sinner Saved says “What’s most horrifying is that you don’t care about your eternal souls.”
Serious, fundamental question: How can the non-elect (according to Calvinism) care about their souls when Calvi-god doesn’t care about their souls, when he ordained them to hell for his pleasure and glory? Seriously, how?
I think what’s horrifying is that Calvinists constantly contradict/deny/downplay their own Calvinism while at the same time thinking they are so enlightened for believing what they claim to believe.
Well said, Heather! I hope SS will be willing to look more closely at the contradiction he/she has chosen to believe, and choose to believe that God never asks His children to believe in contradictions formed by the thinking of men!
Do you claim to be a Christian? Then the expectation is that you would care for your soul, if we were to take your words at face value. The same holds for everyone here. Sinner Saved is just pointing out that the expectation does not line up with what he finds here.
Spurcalleth: “Sinner Saved is just pointing out that the expectation does not line up with what he finds here.”
That doesn’t answer my question, especially since Sinner Saved thinks our god is Satan, which means, to him, that we are non-elect: “How can the non-elect (according to Calvinism) care about their souls when Calvi-god doesn’t care about their souls, when he ordained them to hell for his pleasure and glory?”
I am asking him (or her) to clear up the contradiction between him acting like we have any control/influence over our destinies (or even our thoughts/feelings) when Calvinism believes we don’t. His question of “Don’t we care about our souls” is, in Calvinism, meaningless, fruitless, and pointless … as are his efforts here to debate and change our minds, if everything’s been predestined already.
“Pastor” Loz
You’re right. If you can’t hear his voice, then yes, you aren’t one of His and this is futile. Still, it’s hard to watch.
No, it shouldn’t be hard to watch. You should be praising your demon god for unchangeably ordaining it. Just like you should be singing worship songs to him for every abortion.
I’m sure you’re praising your daddy (Satan). I have not heard one word about when you heard me expound John 3:16, but that lie is still FLAPPING in the wind. You need salvation.
He needs to be consistent with his philosophical theory. Just a tip for you, all this foaming at the mouth, snowflake “son of Satan” drama isn’t doing you any favours. It’s pretty hard to take you seriously. If you are really that outraged, you can always leave.
Yes, I can. Of course, you directly call Calvin’s God a demon, so why don’t you leave? If you can think of the reason that you aren’t leaving, then you probably have also hit on the reason why I am not leaving either.
CONSEQUENCE ARGUMENT – AS IT PERTAINS TO CALVINISM
(Adopted from Peter Van Inwagen’s consequence argument)
If Universal Divine Causal Determinism is true then:
1) Our every impulse, selection, desire, action, are the consequences of divine decrees which occurred at the foundation of the world – having been exhaustively (i.e. without exception) determined at a point in which we do not yet exist.
2) Additionally those impulses, selections, desires, actions, are framed within the boundaries of nature, which were also infallibly decreed to exist at the time in which those impulse, selections, desires, actions are actualized in our lives.
3) But then it is not UP TO US what immutable decrees were established at the foundation of the world before we exist.
4) And neither is it UP TO US what attributes of nature – including our own – were infallibly decreed to exist at any point in time.
5) Therefore, the consequences of these things are not UP TO US
From the original article: “Third, some say people in hell chose to reject God.”
One thing this very good article does not pick out is that when we follow the Calvinist philosophical theory to its inevitable conclusion (something Calvinists either don’t bother to do, are actively seek to avoid doing), the “non-elect” do not actually reject God / salvation / the Gospel, and in fact it is actually impossible for them to do so. Because:
1. God has already rejected them. You cannot reject someone who has already rejected you, because they are not seeking your acceptance.
2. Due to “Limited Atonement”, Christ did not intentionally die for the non-elect. Thus there is no atonement, no Savior, no salvation and therefore no good news genuinely being offered to them. There is no “well-meant offer” from God’s objective standpoint, this is just another part of calvinist mythology (along with “compatibilism” and “single” pre-destination). You cannot accept someone / something is not actually provided and intended for you.
Apparently you think that Calvinists are unaware of the verse “God commands all men everywhere to repent” (Acts 17:30). I assure you that they are not unaware.
You missed the point. If Calvinism is true, then God’s command to all men everywhere to repent in Acts 17:30 is completely disingenuous, since their version of God intentionally witholds the grace necessary to be able to repent, from the majority of humanity.
spurcalluth
If God commands all men everywhere to repent and they don’t, then they are rejecting God…… it is functionally irrelevant whether they are able to comply to the command or no
br.d
This is faulty logic – because it omits the fact that there are TWO divine WILLS in Calvinism.
1) The SECRET WILL is the DETERMINATIVE will – it is the will which DETERMINES whatsoever shall come to pass
2) The ENUNCIATED WILL is NON-DETERMINATIVE
3) The ENUNCIATED WILL is in most cases the opposite of the SECRET WILL
4) When the ENUNCIATED WILL is the opposite of the SECRET WILL – it functions as a FALSE REPRESENTATION of the SECRET WILL.
5) The SECRET WILL is what the creature will infallibly and irresistibly do.
Doing what the SECRET WILL infallibly and irresistibly makes you do – logically equates to “Perfect Obedience” to Calvin’s god
It is a non-sequitur to construe “Perfect Obedience” to Calvin’s god with “Rejecting” Calvin’s god.
False. I could elaborate, but you have not yet recognized that when I said “I have experience about demonic possession”, you interpreted that as “I don’t have experience about demonic possession”, so I don’t know yet that communicating with you makes any sense. It seems like you not only have cognitive dissonance, you ARE cognitive dissonance. Until I know that you aren’t cognitive dissonance, I can’t trust that explanations will help you any closer to the truth.
I have no idea why your website decided to dox me, but yes, you now have my name and surname. If there was a way that I could delete my name and surname, I would, because I don’t like being doxed. Is there a web admin here that could do that for me?
We have no problem with the REPENT part, but WHY would anyone repent to a god that gets glory if you burn or turn? I’d rather repent to a God that is SAD that I refuse to repent, which is a NATURAL respnse to NORMAL LIFE if your friend did you wrong, and your friend refused to apologize.
You assume that there are people who are friends of God pre-conversion. Please explain how you come to this assumption in direct opposition to clear Scriptural verses that say the opposite?
<<>>
You are still missing the point by a country mile. In Calvinism, when God commands the non-elect to repent, He is being completely disingenuous, because:
(a) He does not want them to repent
(b) He knows they are completely unable to repent without His irresistible grace
(c ) He purposely withholds His irresistible grace from them
Thus repentance, belief, salvation and a Savior is never genuinely intended for them, or on offer to them. Thus there is nothing for them to reject. You can’t reject something that doesn’t exist in relation to you. So for the integrity of God it is absolutely relevant whether He enables them to comply or not.
<<>>
No, obedience and disobedience, acceptance and rejection / refusal all require ability, as they are functions of the will, not functions of ability.
<<>>
Your analogy falls to pieces, since as per my first point, in Calvinist mythology, the one telling the drunk man it is against the law to drive drunk is the only one who can enable the drunk to sober up, and that one chooses not to do so.
I am not missing any points. Ed Chapman was saying “if your friend did you wrong” while trying to create a parallel with God’s relationship with unregenerate unbelievers. How am I missing any point if I then point out that this analogy is completely baseless, because unregenerate unbelievers are not the friends of God? You are either mistaken or lying. Either way, you are engaging in false accusation.
I explained exactly why you are missing the point and how your own analogy fails. Not sure why you are bringing your interaction with Ed here as that is a separate line of debate. Here you go with your histrionics again, talking about lying. Calm down, grow up and address the points.
If you read carefully, you will find that I did not accuse you of lying. Of course, at this point it is probably hopeless to assume that you will ever read anything carefully, but I thought it is probably a good idea to point out what you would find if you read carefully, regardless of whether that is a real possibility or not. The reason I made mention of my interaction with Ed Chapman, is because you commented on my reply to Ed Chapman. If you can’t keep the lines of conversation straight, maybe get yourself a caretaker that can help you in your doddering old age.
So no response to my actual points. No surprises.
I think I might have missed your points. Maybe make them again, and this time I will ignore that you butted into a conversation, pretending that there was no history to the conversation. If you can, number your assertions so that I can look at them one by one and respond to them pointwise.
Why do Calvinists, and REFORM folks assume that unbelievers are all UNREGENERATE? That word is in the bible TWICE, and I have a hard time figuring out why the REFORMERS (all) do that. That word ONLY APPLIES TO JEWS ONLY, no one else.
Ed Chapman
So you say, but then again, you say many things that bear no relation to reality.
That didn’t answer my question, tho. Reform people took a word used twice in the whole bible, used only twice in the NT writings, and made a doctrine out of it. And it is clear that it is only for Jews, but as with REFORM folks, anything that is for JEWS ONLY seems to be a doctrine for EVERYONE, because as REFORM people tend to say numerous times, “FOR THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN JEW AND GENTILE”, and yet, REFORM people definately put a difference between MALE AND FEMALE. Howbeit that the statement “FOR THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE” is only in the bible ONCE. But I have found that the FOR THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE has a CONTEXT in ONE SINGLE REGARD ONLY, and when you see that, in all other regards, there is a HUGE difference between Jew and Gentile. But what I find, is that the Jews are the ones blind, and the Gentiles are NOT. Therefore, there is no such thing as a unregenerate Gentile.
Proof Texts:
JEWS:
Romans 11:8
(According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear;) unto this day.
Which is a quote from:
Deuteronomy 29:4
Yet the Lord hath not given you an heart to perceive, and eyes to see, and ears to hear, unto this day.
BUT AS TO THE GENTILES:
Romans 15:21
But as it is written, To whom he was not spoken of, they shall see: and they that have not heard shall understand.
Which is a quote from:
Isaiah 52:15
…for that which had not been told them shall they see; and that which they had not heard shall they consider.
And when you consider that it is through the Jews that we see God clearly, and that Jesus said in Matthew 5:17-18 that he did not come to destroy the “Law and the Prophets”, but to fulfil…there is still prophesy that needs to be fulfilled, written in the Law of Moses (Genesis to Deuteronomy), and the Prophets (Joshua to Malachai).
The Jews who are blind are under the law of Moses until THAT WHICH IS PERFECT COME. The Gentiles are not under the law of Moses, never have been, never will be. So, there is a huge difference between Jews and Gentiles, in that the blind Jews are unregenerate, and the Gentiles are NOT.
The Gentiles who reject God are unbelievers, but not unregenerate. The believing Gentiles are not elect, either. Somehow, the REFORMERS has made the word ELECT into a synonym of SAVED/CHRISTIAN (BOTH JEW AND GENTILE).
So, why do REFORMERS take a word used twice in scritpure and make a doctrine out of it to include both Jew and Gentile?
Ed Chapman (MY REAL NAME)
First of all, the Bible only records in one passage that “the Word became flesh and dwelt among us”. I guess we can reject the doctrine of the incarnation of the Logos, because Ed REAL NAME, REAL MAN (Yeah, Murica!!!! bald eagle screeches, muskets firing) Chapman, the greatest expositor of Scripture for the past 2000 years, has solemnly defined and declared, from his cathedra, for the teaching of the whole church, in virtue of his supreme excellency in the chair of Peter, that if something only appears in Scripture once, then it is neither true nor a doctrine that might be believed in Christian liberty. All hail, the great and mighty Ed (will dox himself because he is the bravest, Champanahu razul Allah) Chapman, savior from bad exegesis!
Dude… it’s one thing to read the Bible. It’s a completely different thing to study it. Most of your caliber of people likes philosophy, and commentaries. You will lean to study them. It’s people like you who boast exegesis, but fail at it. Even your hero, Dr. JAMES WHITE.
That’s why I said we should stop believing in the incarnation of the Word. Because we all read Scripture, but ONLY Ed Chapman STUDIES it, and so Ed Chapman is the only competent arbiter for what we should and should not believe. All hail, Ed Chapman! May your pontificate be extended for us until the end of days!
First of all, Peter is the apostle to the Jews, therefore, he never would have went to Rome to be a pope, so I do not believe in a “chair” of Peter. But I will say this… you outed your own self. No one doxed you. You’ve done it before in another post back in August on flowers bad man. Speaking of exegesis, however…tell me about Communion. Lay it on me.
I’m not going to waste my time talking to you about communion. You think you are so spiritual, you can tell us which Scriptures are lies, so why talk to you about Christian things at all? You just need to hear that you condemn yourself to HELL for being your own god. You have no interest in respecting God and His word, so go where those with that attitude has gone before.
Paul says that Christ broke down the middle wall of separation between Jew and gentile (Ephesians 2), but Ed Chapman has said no, and NO it will be. Ed declares and God is his little lap-doggy that does whatever Ed orders.
If you are that far up your rear end that you think that is the truth, then God have mercy on your soul, you sad man.
That same guy that you talk about, Paul, I think… when did he write that Ephesians Epistle? There is a reason that I ask this. How many years went by after that wall was torn down before anyone knew that Gentiles were even allowed? In Acts 10, is the first mention. Before that, Peter had no clue. And after Stephen was stoned, the gospel was only preached to the Jews only. Acts 11:19. So when did Paul, who was the one designated by God to preach to the gentiles, come into the picture to preach to the gentiles. And isn’t he also the one who wrote about the BLIND JEWS in Romans 11:8, 11, and 25?
Let’s suppose Ephesians was written yesterday and that I just got a copy of it this morning, but that is nevertheless Scripture. YOU are claiming that it is false because people didn’t know that Christ broke down the middle wall of separation until this epistle was written and that therefore SCRIPTURE IS FALSE. Well, your opinion is worth nothing and you can just get back under your bridge, troll.
Spurcalluth,
Without sorting thru all my emails, this response is going to be out of order, but…
I had said:
God created mankind, at the same exact time he created Adam. Adam was the first one with a dirt body. The rest of us was already with God as a spirit without a body. We were already friends with God before being born with a dying body. You are a spirit, you did know that, right?
To which you had replied:
Ohhhh, you’re a Mormon. I get it now, why you refuse to face the truth of Scripture. Because you believe any nonsense that any false prophet brings your way.
To which the following is my response:
NO, I am not Mormon. We all know that when you die, you GO SOMEWHERE. You are not JUST YOUR BODY in that when you die you go back to dust. You exist, and your spirit GOES SOMEWHERE. Even I know that you believe that.
So the question is, don’t you believe that you are a ghost in a body, right now? If not, WHY NOT?
You are a ghost in a body RIGHT NOW, since you GO SOMEWHERE when you die.
So the question now is, when was you, as a ghost created?
According to the Bible, you were created in Genesis 1 as a ghost, but you don’t believe that, accusing me of being a Mormon.
So, man (that includes you), was created on DAY NUMBER 6, after the animals…NOT BEFORE THE ANIMALS.
But in Genesis 2, Adam was formed BEFORE the animals, not after the animals.
Read and comprehend the last 2 sentences very closely. Then do it again.
There is a huge difference between CREATION OF SPIRITS, and the FORMATION OF DIRT.
But here is the proof text…
Hebrews 4:3-4
3 For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world.
4 For he spake in a certain place of the seventh day on this wise, And God did rest the seventh day from all his works.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but God isn’t in the creating business since he took his rest (a PERPETUAL 7TH DAY REST). He’s still resting.
But you seem to think that God is STILL CREATING people by means of mankind procreating, I’ll bet, then accusing others of being Mormon. HA! LOL.
Ed Chapman
I think you really need to get out more. Did you know that there are women out there in the real world, away from your computer? Did you know that if you marry one, and then do what married people do, very often they do in fact procreate (something that you seem to think is absolutely impossible, which indicates to me that you maybe haven’t seen a woman in a year or five).
Meanwhile, you claim that Genesis 1 says you were created “as a ghost”. You really ARE just like Mormon “prophet” Joseph Smith. He too wrote himself a version of Genesis that accords better with his likings, by adding words directly into the text of Genesis that hadn’t appeared there ever before. Of course, you are most welcome to direct me to the precise verse of Genesis 1 that contains the words “as a ghost” to prove to me that I don’t know what I’m talking about, but my guess is that you’ll say the words aren’t there, but that is what the passage means. If that is your tactic, you still have to point to a specific verse in Genesis 1 that means you were created “as a ghost”. Good luck finding that verse!
You refuse to study the Bible. Tell me, you didn’t read that in genesis, animals were created before Adam? And yet, Adam was FORMED before the animals. Instead of you attempting to teach me of the birds and the bees, try studying 1 Thessalonians 5:23. Then figure out why animals were formed after Adam, yet created before Adam.
I don’t have to go to 1 Thessalonians 5:23. YOU said that Genesis 1 says we existed “as a ghost” since the sixth day of creation. YOU have the burden to prove that, FROM GENESIS 1. Don’t go running around to every other verse in the Bible when YOU said this comes from Genesis 1. Typical cultist.
Reality in this case – all to often boils down to a PERSONA the individual wants to have of himself or of his guild or group.
There are women for example who will not be seen in public until all of the makeup is completely on.
That is the PERSONA they want people to see – and it is the way they want to perceive themselves.
It would not be a surprise if they become upset when someone recognizes what is behind the cosmetics.
Reality is never anything other than reality. What you analogously call “putting on the make-up” is perception of reality, and I agree, you have done an excellent job of adopting a PERSONA that perceives reality the way you want to. My point was that you cannot keep doing that successfully if your PERSONA is based on how you want reality to be instead of how reality is, because at some point those things will be at odds with one another, and then your PERSONA will have to yield to what is actual reality.
God created mankind, at the same exact time he created Adam. Adam was the first one with a dirt body. The rest of us was already with God as a spirit without a body. We were already friends with God before being born with a dying body. You are a spirit, you did know that, right?
Ohhhh, you’re a Mormon. I get it now, why you refuse to face the truth of Scripture. Because you believe any nonsense that any false prophet brings your way.
I apologize and retract what I said. Of course you’re not a Mormon. How dare I be so naïve as to describe you with only one heresy? You are a melting-pot, a hodge-podge, nay, a veritable cornucopia of heresies. It just overflows from you. No, we did not pre-exist our conception. No, we did not originate in heaven. No, we aren’t spirits, I am one whole composed of spirit and body together. If your gnosticism (the idea that we are spirits imprisoned in bodies) was true, then I would have to say that I steer my flesh-prison to kiss the flesh-prison of my wife. Nobody says that, because that is not true; in fact, it is incoherent. But I’ll repeat what I said earlier: If you don’t care about truth, then philosophy, theology, and Christian doctrine is simple. And you don’t care about truth. So you find it really simple. The only problem is, you keep hitting your toe on reality.
Wow… your response here is laughable. I can’t wait for your response from almost 2 hours ago when I responded to your first accusation of me being a mormon. Yes, you are a spirit, dressed in a dirt body. Your body goes to dust when you die, but your spirit goes to one of two places. You exist after you die. If you really believe what you indicate here, you sound like a 7th Day Adventist, or Jehovah’s Witness, believing in SOUL SLEEP, which is, you cease to EXIST until the resurrection, and that there is no conscious thought until then. And if you believe that, then when Jesus died, he also had no conscious thought until he rose from the dead. But the Bible indicates otherwise.
I don’t believe in soul sleep. I believe my soul can continue consciously without my body, at least for a while. I don’t know whether it can continue consciously without my body indefinitely, but I do know that my soul will be reunited with my glorified body after a while, and that that glorified body will be tangible (because Jesus’ glorified body was tangible and He could eat a fish). However, proving that in the future my soul can continue consciously without my body IN NO WAY proves that it existed before my conception. You have done zero to prove your claim of the pre-existence of our souls. You just allege it and hope nobody asks any questions.
Then you have a lot of homework to do. If I were you, take advise from 2 Cor 4:18.
Of course, now that you are not me, you are in such an exalted spiritual condition that you can tell us all which Scriptures are true and which are lies. Thank you for that. Thanks for discerning with your ultra-amazing powers of discernment that Ephesians 2 is false.
Oh, and keep this in mind… seed time and harvest. Plant seed in dirt.
I’m not sure what that means. I guess I am just not spiritual enough. But thanks to the SPIRITUAL MAN, nay, in his own eyes, God’s God, we now know for certain that Ephesians 2 is false. Ed Chapman, who in his own eyes can tell God to shut up and puny god has to listen, has told God to stop spreading the lies of Ephesians 2 and be quiet, since ED CHAPMAN, the man himself, has STUDIED SCRIPTURE.
Spurcalleth: “If God commands all men everywhere to repent and they don’t, then they are rejecting God.”
Heather: What are the non-elect rejecting really, if salvation was not really offered to them?
Spurcalleth: “If there was a way that I could delete my name and surname, I would, because I don’t like being doxed. Is there a web admin here that could do that for me?”
Heather: I second this! I hate people being doxed online. If someone doesn’t want their real name out there, it shouldn’t be out there. There are too many crazy people in this world, and you never know what they might do. I wouldn’t want my real identity known either. So please, admin, would you switch his name back to spurcalleth in his comment and in any comments that follow (such as BRDMOD’s comment)? Or delete it altogether and let him retype it. (I will act like I never saw your real name, spurcalleth.).
Thanks, Heather. There is a reason why you are Heather on here and not whatever your full name is. Similarly for brdmod, Pastor Loz, etc. I am a little distressed that my name is still on this website after I asked that the doxxing be removed. I assume it was some sort of glitch in the webpage software and not a deliberate doxxing, because I have no reason to expect anyone else and my username has appeared correctly ever since, but the long wait to have the situation rectified has me a little worried.
spurcalluth – there is no such thing as doxing here in any form that I am aware of.
The system has very limited algorithms
It presents what people type into the post field
So its a mystery what you are thinking of in regard to doxing.
brdmod, my name and surname appears on this webpage, and I would like you to remove it and replace it with “spurcalluth” if possible. Is that too much to ask?
Whats the deal with doxing????
Do you not know what doxing is or are you asking something else?
BRDMOD: “Whats the deal with doxing????”
I was recently in a situation (still in it) where, if people had known my name or been able to find me, we would have gotten death threats like my family members who did, because of something a close relative of ours did. People did dox me online, revealing my name, town, and where I went to school as a kid, but thankfully the site removed my identifying information (as far as I know, but I haven’t seen all the comments on all sites that reported the story of what my relative did). Even though we never got the death threats, we had to prepare for it, putting up black-out curtains and withdrawing our kids into our house for months. Of course, nothing about spurcalleth commenting here should lead to threats like that or serious consequences, but NO ONE should have their identity revealed online if they don’t want it revealed. It’s too precious. Once it’s out there, there’s no telling what happens to it. I, for one, would have to leave a website that refused to protect someone’s identity if they didn’t want it revealed. Please fix it. I would greatly appreciate it because it would be very distressing to me to know someone’s identity was revealed without their consent. Thank you
BRDMOD: “there is no such thing as doxing here in any form that I am aware of.”
Of course, I don’t think spurcalleth was doxed by this site on purpose (and I don’t think he’s saying that either), but some glitch or mistake must have happened (maybe spurcalleth clicked something wrong) that revealed his name. But there’s got to be a way to fix it. Even if just by deleting the comments that mention his name altogether. Thanks.
What post does he want deleted?
I’ve had to delete a few of his vulgar language posts – so I can delete anything he likes.
I don’t remember using vulgar language, so I don’t know what happened there (did someone else post in my name? I’m very confused about this) but the one I want deleted starts with “You missed my point. If God commands all men everywhere…”. You probably should delete your reply to me as well, since that also contains my full name.
Ok, I was able to dig through the posts and find that one and delete it.
I also had to go back and edit my “Hello and Welcome” to you.
You must have typed in that name into the name field when you made that post.
The system did not recognize that name.
So it interpreted you as a new participant – and presented your post to me as a new participant.
That is why I responded with the standard “Hello and Welcome” response.
So I think that explains what happened there.
I appreciate it.
You are correct, I really don’t think anyone did anything on purpose to dox me. I notice that if I enter my email address below, my real name flashes for an instant, and then is replaced by my username. Possibly I clicked on Post Comment too fast and the software assumed that I am happy with the name given.
Are you able to just change his name above his comment? If not, would it erase his name if you deleted the whole comment? I don’t know if he wants his whole comment deleted or not (he could retype it), but I’m sure he would say to fix the one that accidentally identified him by name (December 5th, 2021, 4:29 a.m.) and your reply where you welcomed him by that name (December 5th, 2021, 6:55 a.m., you could just remove his name the couple times it’s mentioned). (And any others I didn’t notice, if they say his name.) Thank you. This issue is important to me, for all people, for obvious reasons I just shared.
If I personally welcomed him by a given name – then that name is exactly what he typed into the name field.
The system displays only what he types in.
Thanks for your help, Heather. And I am truly sorry to hear about your terrible experience with doxing. I chat with some Muslims online, and you never know when you hit the wrong nerve just too hard.
BRDMOD: “If I personally welcomed him by a given name – then that name is exactly what he typed into the name field.”
In no way am I accusing you of anything, just so you know. I respect you and appreciate all you’ve done here, your comments, insight, and all the work you do to manage the comment section here. It’s not your fault at all that his name was revealed. Most likely, it’s something he clicked accidentally. I myself have had panic moments, wondering if I accidentally included my last name on comments or if I picked the wrong “automatically fill in your name and email” selection, one of which includes my full name. If I go too fast, I could easily click the wrong one. Anyway, thank you for doing whatever you can to fix this. I have spent enough time worrying about myself and my family being identified online, I don’t want to have to worry for someone else too. 🙂
Points now numbered as requested, to help you not miss them again.
<<>>
1. You are still missing the point by a country mile. In Calvinism, when God commands the non-elect to repent, He is being completely disingenuous, because:
(a) He does not want them to repent
(b) He knows they are completely unable to repent without His irresistible grace
(c ) He purposely withholds His irresistible grace from them
2. Thus repentance, belief, salvation and a Savior is never genuinely intended for them, or on offer to them in Calvinism. There is no genuine opportunity for them to repent, because there is no ability for them to repent. Thus there is nothing for them to reject. You can’t reject something that doesn’t exist in relation to you. So for the integrity of God it is absolutely relevant whether He enables them to comply or not.
<<>>
3. No, obedience and disobedience, acceptance and rejection / refusal all require ability, as they are functions of the will, not functions of ability. This is where Calvinism has to redefine terms. When Jesus rebuked His audience in John 5:40, it was because they REFUSED to come to Him. They were not willing. They were not unable.
<<>>
4. Your analogy falls to pieces, since as per my first point, in Calvinism, the one telling the drunk man it is against the law to drive drunk is the only one who can enable the drunk to sober up, and that one chooses not to do so.
1.) I can see your point. Maybe I am missing Calvinism by a country mile, because I don’t think this is something I am answerable for. I believe God’s command to the unbeliever to repent is a sincere command.
2.) You seem to be saying that these things, chief among them being faith, is something that either 1.) naturally exists in the unbeliever, but is just not being exercised yet, or 2.) is owed to the unbeliever. Contra option 1, Philippians 1:29, faith is a gift, which it would not be if the unbeliever already owned faith, but was just not exercising it. Contra option 2, if it is something owed, it is no longer grace, so that you fall into the Pelagian trap of thinking your good behavior will earn you heaven.
3.) This is why I used the analogy of the drunk driver, because you apparently think that the human will is all-powerful. It is not; in fact, the will is very strictly bounded in by ability. Of course, you don’t want to talk about that analogy because you know that you can’t refute it, so I suspect you’ll just call me “unspiritual” again for logically thinking through a subject.
4.) My analogy stands. Under any sane worldview, it is a consequence of the constraints of reality that nobody can sober up a drunk man except God, but when the drunk man is held responsible for driving drunk, how many law courts do you think “God could have sobered me up” is a valid excuse for why the man was driving drunk? Nobody thinks like this, yet when it is God’s law that is at stake, suddenly God’s law is supposed to be trampled upon more than human law and a guy can just throw responsibility back into God’s face. If you don’t have any respect for God or His law, just say so. You don’t have to try to come up with clever philosophical reasons why you do so.
S <<>>
L 1. You are still missing the point by a country mile. In Calvinism, when God commands the non-elect to repent, He is being completely disingenuous, because:
(a) He does not want them to repent
(b) He knows they are completely unable to repent without His irresistible grace
(c ) He purposely withholds His irresistible grace from them
S <<>>
L For God’s command to the unbeliever to repent to be sincere, God would genuinely want them to repent and enable them to repent. Neither of those two conditions is met in Calvinism.
S <<>>
L 2. Thus repentance, belief, salvation and a Savior is never genuinely intended for them, or on offer to them in Calvinism. There is no genuine opportunity for them to repent, because there is no ability for them to repent. Thus there is nothing for them to reject. You can’t reject something that doesn’t exist in relation to you. So for the integrity of God it is absolutely relevant whether He enables them to comply or not.
S <<>>
L Then you don’t understand what I am saying. I am not saying that God owes faith, or anything else, to the unbeliever. Neither am I saying that anyone can earn it. However in His love and grace God enables all to believe and repent. John 1:9, John 5:40, John 6:44, John 12:32, John 20:31, Romans 1.
3. No, obedience and disobedience, acceptance and rejection / refusal all require ability, as they are functions of the will, not functions of ability. This is where Calvinism has to redefine terms. When Jesus rebuked His audience in John 5:40, it was because they REFUSED to come to Him. They were not willing. They were not unable.
S <<>>
L Again you don’t understand what I believe. I don’t believe the human will is all powerful. What I believe is that God has enabled all to believe and repent, and thus holds them justly responsible and accountable for the choice to make between believing and repenting, and not doing so. I already talked about your analogy and showed how it does not hold together, so put your handbag away.
S <<>>
L 4. Your analogy falls to pieces, since as per my first point, in Calvinism, the one telling the drunk man it is against the law to drive drunk is the only one who can enable the drunk to sober up, and that one chooses not to do so.
S <<>>
L: Once again you show just how confused you really are. You are mixing up your inapplicable analogy with what it is supposed to represent. In your analogy, God is also the judge in charge of the court. So for your analogy to be accurately analogous to Calvinism, it would go as follows:
(a) God unchangeably ordains that the man will drive drunk, such that the man cannot choose to do any differently.
(b) God tells the man he must sober up, knowing full well that the man is incapable of doing so without God enabling him to do so, and knowing that He will not enable him to do so.
(c) God as the judge condemns the man for not sobering up, even though He knows that the man was unable to do so without His intervention, and knowing that He did not enable the man to do so.
I respect God and His law, together with His just judgment of those who choose to refuse to believe and repent, so your snidey little comments (which you seem to feel compelled to pepper pretty much all of your posts with) just won’t fly here.
You are a wall, not a man. Anything I write, comes back with “You still don’t understand” or “You have missed the point by a country mile”. I could have written that on a wall and addressed everything I said to you, to the wall, and I would have gotten the exact same response. It is like you don’t even read what I write, you just dismiss it immediately because it didn’t come from your brain and therefore must be stupid. Try to be a man and not a wall.
How ironic. I address each of your points, one by one, with specific explanations as to why they are wrong, then you come back with,,, precisely nothing. You are as weak as it gets.
Think of me whatever you want, oh living wall. I answered your points, but then I just heard the faint echo of a non-Calvinist “pastor”, a wolf’s howling, you might say, replying “you don’t understand anything at all”. Go fraternize with your gnostic, Arian pal, Ed Chapman.
See each reference to a specific point made, where you came back with nothing. It’s there in black and white, but of course you will just continue to close your eyes, stick your fingers in your ears, and hide behind your lack of argument with “you are wall”. Only person you are fooling is yourself.
S <<>>
L 1. You are still missing the point by a country mile. In Calvinism, when God commands the non-elect to repent, He is being completely disingenuous, because:
(a) He does not want them to repent
(b) He knows they are completely unable to repent without His irresistible grace
(c ) He purposely withholds His irresistible grace from them
S <<>>
L For God’s command to the unbeliever to repent to be sincere, God would genuinely want them to repent and enable them to repent. Neither of those two conditions is met in Calvinism. SPECIFIC POINT MADE. YOU CAME BACK WITH NOTHING.
S <<>>
L 2. Thus repentance, belief, salvation and a Savior is never genuinely intended for them, or on offer to them in Calvinism. There is no genuine opportunity for them to repent, because there is no ability for them to repent. Thus there is nothing for them to reject. You can’t reject something that doesn’t exist in relation to you. So for the integrity of God it is absolutely relevant whether He enables them to comply or not.
S <<>>
L Then you don’t understand what I am saying. I am not saying that God owes faith, or anything else, to the unbeliever. Neither am I saying that anyone can earn it. However in His love and grace God enables all to believe and repent. John 1:9, John 5:40, John 6:44, John 12:32, John 20:31, Romans 1. SPECIFIC POINT MADE. YOU CAME BACK WITH NOTHING.
3. No, obedience and disobedience, acceptance and rejection / refusal all require ability, as they are functions of the will, not functions of ability. This is where Calvinism has to redefine terms. When Jesus rebuked His audience in John 5:40, it was because they REFUSED to come to Him. They were not willing. They were not unable.
S <<>>
L Again you don’t understand what I believe. I don’t believe the human will is all powerful. What I believe is that God has enabled all to believe and repent, and thus holds them justly responsible and accountable for the choice to make between believing and repenting, and not doing so. I already talked about your analogy and showed how it does not hold together, so put your handbag away. SPECIFIC POINT MADE. YOU CAME BACK WITH NOTHING.
S <<>>
L 4. Your analogy falls to pieces, since as per my first point, in Calvinism, the one telling the drunk man it is against the law to drive drunk is the only one who can enable the drunk to sober up, and that one chooses not to do so.
S <<>>
L: Once again you show just how confused you really are. You are mixing up your inapplicable analogy with what it is supposed to represent. In your analogy, God is also the judge in charge of the court. So for your analogy to be accurately analogous to Calvinism, it would go as follows:
(a) God unchangeably ordains that the man will drive drunk, such that the man cannot choose to do any differently.
(b) God tells the man he must sober up, knowing full well that the man is incapable of doing so without God enabling him to do so, and knowing that He will not enable him to do so.
(c) God as the judge condemns the man for not sobering up, even though He knows that the man was unable to do so without His intervention, and knowing that He did not enable the man to do so. SPECIFIC POINTS MADE. YOU CAME WITH NOTHING.
Spurcalleth: “Thanks for your help, Heather. And I am truly sorry to hear about your terrible experience with doxing.”
Thank you. And I appreciate your sympathy. 🙂
And thanks to Brdmod for fixing it and for putting up with me. 🙂
The conflict that I see happening today between Calvinists and non-Calvinists in regard to scripture – is the same conflict I saw between the Catholic church and Galileo.
The Holy Roman *DIVINE iNTERPRETERS* of the text – proclaimed that the Bible clearly teaches the sun rotates around the earth.
Galileo.acquired evidence through a telescope which revealed the opposite.
Everything was fine between Galileo. and the Roman church – up to the point where he had his meeting with the Holy Roman *DIVINE INTERPRETERS*
It was at that point – that Galileo.dared to infer that their interpretation could possibly contain the human error of presupposition – imposed upon the text.
That was the LAST STRAW!
Now you’ve done it Galileo!
We would like to burn you to the stake!
However – too many people would end up realizing we did it out of jealousy.
So we’ll put you in solitary confinement – and minimize the damage to our reputation as the *DIVINE iNTERPRETERS* of the text
The Calvinist today – for all intents and purposes – is playing the same role – assuming himself the *DIVINE iNTERPRETER* of the text.
Thanks for your baseless accusation and your misreading of the history of Galileo. If you read about the history of Galileo instead of just assuming that what you heard through the grapevine, maybe you will know what you’re talking about, but it is clear to me that you haven’t read up on the subject, since almost everything that you said about his trial was wrong.
Yea!
That explains why Nicolaus Copernicus refused to have his works published until after his death! :-]
Okay, YOU explain to me why the Roman Catholic magisterium COMMISSIONED Galileo to inspect the writings of Copernicus and to determine if they were correct if they had already decided that they are not correct?
You explain to me – why Copernicus refused to have his works published while he was alive.
The reason should be obvious!
Perhaps he understood the Catholic church had the power to kill anyone they wanted at their whim.
And all they had to do is claim someone a heretic.
But of course that would have only been done after a well informed judiciously sound magisterial commission! :-]
Are you aware that Nicolaus Copernicus and Galileo Galilei are not the same person. I berated you for your ignorance about Galileo while you respond with questions about Copernicus. Copernicus was not in view here, Galileo was. So again, do you know that Copernicus is not the same person as Galileo?
I answered you point for point.
The point is – the Catholic Church did in fact have the power to kill anyone they wanted to – and on any whim they wanted to.
However if they were faced with egg in their faces after killing either Galileo or Copernicus – they would have to live with it.
They were at least smart enough to realize they could end up shooting themselves in the feet.
I still think you are misreading the history of Galileo, but since this is not an important point, I’ll rather just drop it. We have far more to disagree about than the history of Galileo and his altercation with the church of Rome.
I do not assume that I know the motivations of Copernicus before I have studied the history of Copernicus. If you have studied the history of Copernicus to the same extent that you have studied the history of Galileo (which seems to be entirely based on atheistic memes attempting to show that religion is inimical to science) then I suggest you study the history of Copernicus more before you think you know enough about him to post your opinions about his motivations. I strongly recommend that we all study more.
While we are doing that – we can try to calculate how many thousands of people the Catholic church has murdered throughout the years – in the name of being the vicars of truth. And why anyone in Copernicus’s position would find being burnt to the stake undesirable.
We could, but why bother? I take it we both belief that Catholicism is false, so its damage that it does to the souls of men by leading them to hell is far more severe than the damage that it did to believers’ bodies. That still doesn’t give you license to lie about history. It is truly sad that you think that it does give you license.
sourcalluth
That still doesn’t give you license to lie about history.
br.d
Yes – I indeed touched a sacred cow! :-]
Oh, okay, so if you touch sacred cows, you are entitled to lie about history. Interesting! Can you provide me with the Scriptural reference for that?
spurcalluth
so if you touch sacred cows, you are entitled to lie about history.
br.d
One non-sequitur after another! 😀
Not a non sequitur. You did lie about history (the distinction being that I corrected you on the history of Galileo and you just doubled down, somehow thinking that saying things about the history of Copernicus would make your error on the history of Galileo correct).
I’d call that good wisdom! :-]
MORE FUN CONCERNING THE CALVINIST READING OF THE TEXT
Oh no! Are we sharing stupid MEMES now? I hoped there was still a living brain cell in that noggin of yours, but my hope is busy dying.
Now I know I touched a sacred cow! 😀
Here is a post from br.d
So when a user is on the web-site – the interface presents 3 fields for the user to type in.
The first field is for the comments the user wants to post.
In this example above – I typed in “Here is a post from br.d”
Below that input field is where the user types in whatever name he wants to appear.
In this example above – I typed in “any_name_a_user_wants_to_type_goes_here”
And that is what the system displayed as my name.
So if he is using the web-interface – he can have the system display whatever name he wants it to display.
There is a possibility that he is not cognizant of instances in which his personal browser may be auto-filling in fields.
If that is the case – then he needs to slow down and watch what his browser is doing when he makes posts.
Hello any_name_a_user_wants_to_type_goes_here and welcome
Above is an example of what happens when a new person makes a post.
I typical see this as a new person who is posting for the first time – and I respond with a “hello and welcome” post.
Additionally – no one who has administrative privileges in the system knows if that is his REAL name or not.
His REAL name could be Jerry Springer – and no one here would ever know the difference! :-]
BRDMOD: “His REAL name could be Jerry Springer…”
Oh, you caught me! (Just kidding)
And I looked up the definition of “doxing,” just to see … and it’s about deliberating searching out and publishing identifying information with malicious intent. So of course, “doxing” wasn’t the right word. But I knew what spurcalleth meant, that his name was published when he didn’t mean it to be, even if because of a mistake of his own.
(And I appreciate that you always take the time to welcome all new people, even those you/we disagree with. Keep up the good work!)
Hello Heather (or maybe it’s Jerry Springer)
Welcome to SOT101 :-]
Brdmod,
Sorry if it seemed like I was saying that you had any part in revealing his name. That never entered my mind nor was it driving any of my comments. I thought that when you asked “What’s the deal with doxing?”, you meant “What’s the big deal if people know your name?” Like a “don’t worry about it, it’s not a big deal” kind of response. That’s why I shared my story, to show why I think it’s a big deal.
But I realize now you might have meant it more like “What’s this about accusing me of doxing you?” In that case, I would have responded differently, such as by saying “We know you didn’t dox anyone. He probably clicked something wrong. But would you fix his name anyway? Thanks.” (If it can’t be fixed, then that’s just something he’ll have to live with. Unfortunately.) Hope this helps clear up where I am coming from. 🙂
No Problem Heather
I knew you didn’t mean that.
If in fact his real name got displayed – then the probability is – what it displayed is exactly what he typed.
The system isn’t capable of doing anything else but that.
Not to worry!
Your kindness is appreciated!!! 😀
And when I said “… but NO ONE should have their identity revealed online if they don’t want it revealed…”, I didn’t mean that you revealed it, just that “even if someone accidentally reveals it themselves, they should be able to fix it, to ask for it to be removed.” I do see how the way I worded it could sound like an accusation against you, but it wasn’t. I was trying to leave it broad enough to encompass those who accidentally reveal themselves.
And when I said I’d leave a website that wouldn’t protect someone’s identity, I didn’t mean that you outted him or that you would refuse to fix it if you could fix it. I was just trying to stress how important this issue is to me, important enough that if any website could fix it but didn’t, after being asked to, that would bother me enough to leave. I know I would hate it if I accidentally revealed myself and was upset about it and trying to fix it, but the person who could fix it, wouldn’t. But I don’t think you are like that. I know that you (and I) disagree with spurcalleth on almost everything, but I know you wouldn’t be petty like that. (I could have worded my replies a little better if I took more time on them. Sorry.)
Okay, I am done commenting about this now. I’ve made you work hard enough over this. (I just don’t want someone, especially you, to possibly feel badly because of a misunderstanding over something I said.) God bless! 🙂
Oh, I don’t know that I would say we disagree on almost everything. For one thing, we both believe there is a God (this is a big point of agreement), only one God (that distinguishes us from about a billion and a half Hindus and Buddhists), and that that God has a Son (now we are down to just Christianity). Further, we believe that the Bible is the only infallible rule of faith for our beliefs and practices (that gets us down to just Protestantism) and that Jesus actually did rise from the grave (there goes the liberal stream, leaving us both solidly in evangelicalism). I could go on, but my point is that our differences seem far less universal if you start thinking about what non-evangelicals believe. Also, I might come across as someone with very fixed convictions about Calvinism, but my allegiance is not to the Genevan, but to the Galilean. If Calvin is wrong, let him be shown wrong and let his name be forgotten in the annals of the history of heresies.
Spurcalleth: “… I could go on, but my point is that our differences seem far less universal if you start thinking about what non-evangelicals believe…”
Quite true, if you put it that way. (Of course, I meant the differences within our evangelical beliefs, but I know what you’re saying.)
Spurcalleth: “If Calvin is wrong, let him be shown wrong and let his name be forgotten in the annals of the history of heresies.”
And I agree with you on this too. 🙂
spurcalluth
If Calvin is wrong, let him be shown wrong
br.d
DONE!
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.”
(Institutes Vol. i. p.193)
Here Calvin takes what he knows to be FALSE according to his doctrine – and treats it *AS-IF* it it TRUE – simply to retain a sense of human NORMALCY.
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.” (Concerning the eternal predestination of God)
Here Calvin makes a declaration which he knows is a complete denial of the foundational core of his belief system
And again – for the same reason – in order to have a sense of human NORMALCY.
To hold to a doctrine as SACRED TRUTH – and then treat that SACRED TRUTH *AS-IF* it is FALSE – is called DOUBLE-MINDEDNESS.
And this is the pattern we find in all Calvinist thinking.
This is why the Calvinist (Roland for example) will claim Libertarian functionality is not biblical – while simultaneously assuming his brain was granted the LIBERTY of coming to that conclusion – through LIBERTARIAN functionality.
Calvinist thinking is like the man driving a car – while insisting cars don’t exist and are unbiblical!
Once you understand how DOUBLE-MINDED it is – it all becomes a joke! 😀
When, as a professional mathematician, you try to prove a theorem for which no proof is found yet, you treat it as both true and false at the same time. You treat it as true by trying to find a proof. You treat it as false by trying to find a counterexample. It might be the case that only one of these two options, true or false, is correct, in which case you make an assumption that contradicts the real case. It might be the case that neither of the two options, true or false, is correct, by Gödel’s incompleteness theorems, in which case you again make an assumption that contradicts the real case. So being a professional mathematician also forces you to “be DOUBLE-MINDED”, to “deny your belief system”. Should I expect you to start denouncing mathematicians and to demand that they be ejected from their university positions as well, or do you notice that there is a reason why such assumptions are necessary. The reason is that you can only make assumptions based on your epistemic access, and your epistemic access is not ALL OF REALITY.
Roland – would you have the time or inclination to do another thought experiment?
br.d
Inclination yes, time no, but I’ll get back to you if I have opportunity for a thought experiment.
Roland, here is a two-part linked question for you:
1. Did God unchangeably ordain for you to commit the last sin you committed?
2. Could you have chosen nt to commit that sin?
I’ll bet 5 bucks Roland will evade giving you a straight answer on question (1)
He’ll try to tap dance around it – and try to paint a picture of Calvin’s god granting man both options.
Let’s see what he does! :-]
I’m not going to answer as I have already been judged as evading the question. You guys have presupposed that I am going to evade the question, therefore, any response from me will just be an affirmation of your presupposition.
It’s pretty obvious why you won’t answer the question. To be consistent, you would have to answer that God did indeed unchangeably ordain the last sin you committed, such that you could not have done otherwise. You don’t want to admit that, because if you do, it would mean that you are making God a liar when He says that He will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you can bear. This is what happens when Calvinist philosophical theory collides with Biblical truth.
Calvinism does not make God out to be a liar. The problem is that non-calvinists have a very simple understanding of Calvinism, Reformed theology in general. When it comes to God’s decree and humans, to the non-calvinists it is very simple: God decreed, God cuased, therefore He is it to blame, He is the author of sin, He is a liar. Calvinists have been answering and defending charges leveled against us for centuries. Our view of God’s decree is not that simplistic as we allow for secondary causes and we also see God’s decree and intervention in history and time as manifold. We see it this way because Scripture reveals God’s activity in history and time as manifold. Humans are not robots. Humans are not puppets. The Calvinists rejects this concept not because of our philosophy but because of Scripture. Thanks for reading.
<<>>
In what sense? What qualifications? Either He did or He didn’t.
<<>>
<<>>
So, on the one hand God promised you, Roland, that He would never let you be tempted beyond what you can bear (Bible). But on the other hand (Calvinism), God decreed that you would be unable to resist the temptation that led to your last sin. He made absolutely certain that you would commit that sin. Please explain to us how that does NOT make God a liar. Promising ONE thing, while doing the OPPOSITE thing. What is that, if not a lie? And you accuse non-calvinists of imposing their presuppositions on Scripture? That is absolutely priceless. As ironic as it gets.
<<>>
The problem for you is that we have a very CLEAR understanding and we are not fooled by the complex, verbose obfuscations of Calvinists.
<<>>
Yes, it IS very simple. If God unchangeably decrees something, so that a person cannot do otherwise, He causes it. If God does that with sin, He is the author of sin. If God promises one thing and does the opposite, yes He is a liar. You trying to introduce your “nuances” and “paradoxes” and “mysteries” and “tensions” into that doesn’t change a thing.
<<>>
Secondary causes that God unchangeably ordains to do exactly what He decreed so that they cannot do otherwise. That makes God just as responsible as it He was the primary cause. Just as the mafia boss who hires the hitman as just as responsible as the hitman. In fact more so, because the mafia boss cannot render the hitman of being incapable of doing otherwise. And just throwing the word “manifold” inot the mix doesn’t get your philosophy of its self-contradictory hook either, because in every cause the determinism is just as unchangeable.
<<>>
In Calvinism, they are. They are doing what they have been programmed to do. They cannot do any other than what they do.
<<>>
If you can’t explain your reasoning clearly and concisely yourself, there is a problem.
Pastor Loz
If you can’t explain your reasoning clearly and concisely yourself, there is a problem.
roland
Are you joking? Calvinism has been judged to be the most irrational philosophy according to you? I’ve been judged to exercise irrationality multiple times. How can you have any expectation that suddenly I would provide “reasoning clearly and concisely yourself?” I have a problem, then, I feel as if it is vain to offer any answer because time and after time I have been discerned to be irrational and Calvinism to be irrational. I honestly don’t believe you really expect me to provide a rational response.
Of course you cannot provide a clear, concise, rational, consistent response. God is the most rational, logical being there is. All true rationality and logic comes from Him. He is the Logos. God’s Word is consistent, non-contradictory, rational and logical. Pretending it is not is just hyper-spiritual pretension.
Calvinism on the other hand is unclear, verbose, irrational, illogical, inconsistent, self-contradictory, re-definitional and equivocal. And if you try to actually answer, your answer will simply be further confirmation of that. So there we have it. In your philosophy:
God says, “I will never let you be tempted beyond what you can bear” from one side of His mouth, while at the same time, from the other side of His mouth, by virtue of His unchangeable decree, He says, “I will make sure you are unable to resist the temptation where I have unchangeably ordained you to sin”.
No amount of theological, philosophical, semantic gymnastics and sophistry is going to get you out of that one. Not your boy Turretin, no-one, however “learned” they appear to be.
Sure. Of course you would have been able to debate and defeat Augustine, Calvin, Turretin, Owen, Edwards, Bavinck, Van Til, Frame, etc. You are much more learned than these men who have put great effort and thought into these matters. You could have debated them and won because these men are irrational, convoluted, verbose, illogical, inconsistent, contradictory, etc. The great Pastor Loz! I will be waiting for the volumes of your writings to refute these men.
Reformed theology has been shown to be the most biblical expression and understanding of God’s Word. You don’t understand Reformed theology because you impose your own understanding of God onto Scripture, you fail to see that Scripture reveals to us a great distinction between Creator and creature. Non-calvinism brings God down to man to understand God as man understands himself. Until you understand and believe that God is holy and man is not, you will persist in your error that man is free. You tie God’s hands with your understanding of human freewill. God is freer than man, free to act in ways that are beyond our human understanding. I confess, along with Reformed theology and our history as recorded in our writings, confessions, and catechisms, that God is incomprehensible. When God has revealed to us in His Word that He acts in ways that appear contrary to logic and reason, then in faith, we accept those revelations. To pry into the secret things of God to obtain perfect understanding of His ways is arrogance only characteristic of the man outside of Christ. Oops, sorry about, I punted to mystery! Again!
I agree with the majority of your first paragraph, Even tho you were being sarcastic.
Have you ever read the chapter regarding Communion? I have, and it’s not about Communion. It’s about a church banquet. It’s about how to conduct yourself with manners at a church banquet. Jesus at the last supper was used as an example on how it’s done. But somehow, those experts came up with Communion… Catholics, the eucharist, which is got to be the most stupid interpretation I’ve ever heard.
Those experts that you give so much credence to, put their pants on the same way you do… figuratively speaking, since they wore dresses and dunce caps.
Ed Chapman
chapmaned24
But somehow, those experts came up with Communion… Catholics, the eucharist, which is got to be the most stupid interpretation I’ve ever heard.
roland
I will say that those experts, the early church fathers and Thomas Aquinas’s contribution to the Roman understanding of Eucharist, I can disagree with. HOWEVER, what I KNOW I could not do is challenge their intelligence and insightfulness. These men were far more intelligent and insightful than I am or ever will be. I am just saying that we should respect their level of intelligence and insightful. I disagree with William Lane Craig and Molinism, but I do say he is a far more intelligent and insightful man than I am or ever will be. I respect WLC for his thoughts and efforts into understanding God and His Word.I could not produce an argument that would defeat WLC, I look to other men to provide an answer to Molinism. I think some on here have no respect for Calvinists and their efforts and thoughts into understanding God and His Word. That was my point.
They were no more intelligent than the average bear. There is errors riddled in all of their understanding of scripture.
All you gotta do is read it for yourself. All this talk that you must know church history, in my opinion, is hogwash.
A Stong’s Concordane helps, tho.
The only church fathers we need is the apostle Paul. He’s our minister, according to Romans 15. Follow him as he follows christ.
<<>>
Sorry Roland, but simply parading the names of some of your favorite philosopher idols doesn’t change a thing. Calvinists may worship supposed intellectual superiority when it suits them, but the Pharisees and the Saducees had very learned men, as do Muslims and atheists, who put great effort and thought into matters. “Learnedness” and being a “great debater” therefore does not equal correctness. In many cases it just means you are very clever at being wrong, and very good at articulating wrong ideas. No wonder Jesus and Paul said what they said about the so-called “learned” and those who were wise by the standards of the world.
So you shot yourself in the foot with that one. It doesn’t change the fact that your version of God, and the version of God your philosopher idols believed in, simultaneously promised you that He would not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear, and unchangeably ordained that you would be tempted beyond what you can bear in regard to those sins He ordained you to commit. You can go to Westminster Seminary for 500 years and put great thought and effort into that, it is not changing. It is not going away.
<<>>
That’s just your opinion. An empty, unsubstantiated assertion.
<<>>
That’s just a standard cult defence, and again an empty, unsubstantiated assertion. I can just as easily assert that YOU don’t understand “Reformed” (in reality deformed) theology. You certainly don’t understand its inevitable conclusions (or you understand them but you don’t want to face up to them privately or admit to them publicly).
I’ll ask you the question I have asked you twice before. Which of the 9 main versions of Calvinism is the correct one, the one poor illiterate non-calvies like me “don’t understand”? Why did your version of God unchangeably ordain for there to be multiple variations of something that is simply supposed to be a plain reading of Scripture and a nickname for the Gospel?
<<>>
You mean like you did in relation to the version above about not being tempted beyond what you can bear? So again, just an empty, unsubstantiated assertion by you.
<<>>
Utter nonsense, again unsubstantiated. Iy is precisely BECAUSE biblical non-calvinists understand that God is holy, that they reject Calvinistic nonsense such as God lying to you in relation to not being tempted beyond what you can bear, and unchangeably ordaining all sin and evil, such that demons and men could not do other. Your version of God is as unholy as satan.
<<>>
Actually we acknowledge that God is free to sovereignly create men with genuine choice. You do not.
<<>>
God has made Himself plain in relation to sin, salvation, and choice. He doesn’t act in ways that appear contrary to logic and reason. Again you are confusing Calvinism with God and God’s Word.
Pastor Loz
God has made Himself plain in relation to sin, salvation, and choice. He doesn’t act in ways that appear contrary to logic and reason. Again you are confusing Calvinism with God and God’s Word.
roland
Contrary to logic? The Calvinists accepts the unpalatable parts of Scripture non-calvinists finds unpalatable. Such as the following verse:
Proverbs 16:4
The Lord has made all for Himself,
Yes, even the wicked for the day of doom.
Clear and straightforward, no need for logic here, it is plain that God has made all (of course the noncalvinst will argue all doesn’t mean all here but it does mean all when God desire all to be saved) for HIMSELF. YES, EVEN THE WICKED FOR THE DAY OF DOOM.
How can a good God make the wicked for the day of doom? You’re so logical, can you provide an answer.
Isaiah 45:7
7 I form light and create darkness;
I make well-being and create calamity;
I am the Lord, who does all these things.
How can God create light and darkness?
How can God make well-being and create calamity?
I’m pretty sure you have a logical explanation for this one as well.
In another post you used the phrase “butt hurt”, LOL!!! You continue to display the true marks of a pastor as given to us in 1 Timothy 3:1-7. “Butt hurt” is that the way you speak in the pulpit as well! I can just imagine you screaming, “THIS ONE IS FOR ALL THE BUTT HURT CALVINISTS, AND THEIR DEFORMED THEOLOGY OUT THERE!. YOU’RE IN A CULT! YOU WORSHIP AN IDOL!!!!”
roland
Contrary to logic? The Calvinists accepts the unpalatable parts of Scripture non-calvinists finds unpalatable. Such as the following verse:
br.d
Funny I don’t know any scripture verses I consider unpalatable – including the ones you posts
I think you are projecting your own struggle onto others.
But it becomes obvious what things about Calvinist doctrine you find unpalatable.
Your answer to the question of whether Calvin’s god FIRST CONCEIVES and then DECREES every sin and evil – which he MAKES you perform – was -quote “Yes in one SENSE God did ordain that I would commit the last sin I committed”
Which means for you – there is one SENSE in which Scripture is TRUE for you – and one SENSE in which Scripture is FALSE for you.
Your response thus serves as a clear indicator that you don’t find the doctrine of decrees palatable.
Which for you means you don’t find Scripture palatable.
Roland
The Lord has made all for Himself,
Yes, even the wicked for the day of doom.
br.d
So Roland -what percentage of the Calvinist fold represent the wicked he as made for the day of doom?
And a second question for you on the wicked he has made for the day of doom
How does it feel to know – that you HAVE NO CERTAINTY that you are not one of the wicked he has prepared for the day of doom?
And how does it feel knowing that God has revealed in His Word truth that is contrary to your personal beliefs?
Pastor Loz: God has made Himself plain in relation to sin, salvation, and choice. He doesn’t act in ways that appear contrary to logic and reason. Again you are confusing Calvinism with God and God’s Word.
<<>>
Sorry to disappoint you, but Biblical non-calvinists believe it means all.
Secondly, the root Hebrew word in Proverbs 16:4 means to answer or respond. This verse is not saying that God has created the wicked (in their wicked state), for the sole purpose of destroying them, even though you may enjoy that thought. It is saying that God has made everyone responsible and accountable for their actions, and they will do so on the day of judgment. If you believe that God created them in a state of wickedness, then you believe that God is wicked, since men are created in God’s likeness.
It says nothing about the wicked being unable to respond to God’s offer of salvation. I have repeatedly posted verses to show that they are (which you never respond to, just as you never respond to many points that are made and Scriptures that are cited). One where you did respond Psalm 5:5, where you admitted that you like everyone were an evildoer. In other words, you were wicked. Has God created you for disaster and destruction? If you want to use Proverbs 16:4 in this way you will have to be consistent and admit that He did. It is referring to the UNREPENTANT wicked, those who persistently refuse God’s offer of salvation. Not that they were selected to be unrepentant by some cosmic Calvinist lottery.
<<>>
Heather already explained this one perfectly. Go and find her post.
In the meantime, I wonder what sins your god has unchangeably ordained for you to commit today, despite promising you that he would never let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. What sins he has lied to you about today.
Since you are so rational and logical. Since God is logical and rational. Answer this question regarding the following verses, please. Is the following incident recorded in Scripture a contradiction?
2 Samuel 24:1 Again the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he incited David against them, saying, “Go, number Israel and Judah.”
1 Chronicles 21:1 Then Satan stood against Israel and incited David to number Israel.
Who incited David to number Israel? God? Satan? Or both? Can God and Satan work together to incite David?
That’s easy. Study it. It’s not the same time frame. But you have to study it to find out. Including the three punishments offered. Offered. Hint.
Pastor Loz
God’s Word is consistent, non-contradictory, rational and logical.
roland
Then answer this contradiction in Scripture.
2 Samuel 24:1 Again the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he incited David against them, saying, “Go, number Israel and Judah.”
1 Chronicles 21:1Then Satan stood against Israel and incited David to number Israel.
That is not a contradiction. A contradiction would be if one verse said, “God incited David” and another verse said, “God did NOT incite David”. Now you know what a contradiction is.
Just like the contradiction between God saying He will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear, and God unchangeably ordaining you to be tempted beyond what you can bear. A contradiction that doesn’t exist in the Bible, but which Calvinism inevitably creates between itself and the Bible,. And which none of your philosopher idols can explain away.
This morning, I decided to come back to this one, because I don’t think that it gets the attention that it should. I found a blog post, “Why I’m not a Calvinist, Even Though I Should Be: Determinism” yesterday from this site, in which jusklntime2442
February 10, 2020 at 7:01 pm said the following:
“Then we read the parrell passage and it was Satan that moved David to number Israel but it was God’s will for it to be done because we find David calling himself foolish, repenting and asking mercy. God used Satan to move David to number Israel which was a sin because God was angry with Israel and wanted to punish them. Go back and read both accounts in 2 Samuel 24:1 and 1 Chronicles 21:1…
…And the fact it illustrated how God moved David’s heart to number Israel which was a sin by using Satan as a “second cause/agent” and God was completely Holy in the whole matter…
…GOD USED SATAN TO MOVE DAVID TO DO SOMETHING THAT WAS EXCEEDINGLY SINFUL BEFORE THE LORD AND IT WAS GOD’S WILL BECAUSE GOD WAS ANGRY WITH ISRAEL 2 SAM. 24:1 AND DESIRED TO PUNISH THEM.”
I’m going to resond in part to that, but the main point in bringing that comment up, is because I see a trend that needs to be corrected. And that trend is…:
1. Parrellel passage
2. God used Satan
Those two myths must be put to rest.
I am going to prove here that both of those passages of 2 Sam 24:1, and 1 Chronicles 21:1 are NOT THE SAME EVENT AT ALL, which concludes that #2 above is NOT TRUE.
In my last comment about the subject, I noted the DIFFERENCES between the two references three CHOICES of Punishment given to David. But there is a lot more differences…if one is willing to READ THE BIBLE. I don’t find many Calvinists actually willing to do that.
As jusklntime2442 said in his/her comment:
“But we are told my one blogger on here that God gave David three choices of punishment. I think this is nothing more than a tactic to move one away from the fact that God moved David to number Israel which was a sin and God used Satan as a second cause/agent to accomplish this.
Not some supernatural power that God used to work directly upon David heart to produce fresh evil. ”
I completely disagree with his comment that this is a TACTIC, including the statement that God used Satan as a second cause/agent. Satan hates God, and uses man for HIS PLEASURE, to accomplish his will.
My NEXT comment on this subject in this thread will discuss WHAT MADE IT A SIN TO COUNT THE PEOPLE? What exactly was the sin in the 613 laws of Moses. Which one points to this sin?
See Numbers 1 and Numbers 26
But for now, I will show all the differences between 2 Sam 24, and 1 Chronicles 21
Preface:
David ordered Joab to count the number of Israel. Now, what most don’t realize is that Israel consisted of BOTH ISRAEL AND JUDAH together. And because there is Israel and Judah, both are counted separately.
2 Sam 24
Israel: 800,000
Judah: 500,000
1 Chron 21
Israel: 1,100,000
Judah: 470,000
NOTE:
In 1 Chron 21, Joab did NOT count all tribes. He did not count Levi and Benjamin.
Three Choices of punishment. One of those three is FAMINE.
2 Sam 24
SEVEN YEARS
1 Chron 21
THREE YEARS
The owner of the THRESHING FLOOR:
2 Sam 24
Araunah the Jebusite (No sons)
1 Chron 21
ORNAN the Jebusite (4 sons)
What David paid to purchase threshing floor:
2 Sam 24
50 Shekels of Silver
1 Chron 21
600 shekels of gold
THOSE ARE THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE TWO REFERENCES, therefore, it is impossible for those two to be parrelell references of the same event.
It is then a conclusion that God initiated one event, and Satan initiated another event. God does NOT use Satan as a second agent/actor/cause.
It’s not always a sin to count Israel, as NUMBERS is included in the canon of scripture as the 4th book of the Bible. So why was it a sin in THESE (two, PLURAL) cases? Let’s not speculate, let’s PIN-POINT. For by the law is the knowledge of sin. So, where in the law does it forbid the numbering of Israel, AND WHY?
It’s easy to say that it’s a sin, because David cops to it as a sin. We know that there is 613 commandments in the law of Moses, so which one of those 613 commandments forbids it?
Ed Chapman
Ed,
Is it possible that we do have the same event with two separate narratives concerning it?
The reason one would ask this question – is because scholars recognize this happens with gospel events.
Two different authors represent two different people
Two different people are recording information which comes to them through different sources.
We’ve all seen the experiment where we have a line of people in a room – and the 1st person whispers a statement to the 2nd person who repeats to the 3rd person etc. And by the time it gets to the last person – the last person’s statement is quite different from the 1st person’s statement – and may actually represent a total contradiction.
So is it possible that we have this vulnerability – in the process of different people repeating their own version of the event of David numbering the people?
brdmod,
I don’t think it’s possible at all. You said, “scholars…”. I have a problem with “scholars”. If they were so smart, why do we have lots and lots and lots of different denominations?
HOW do you account that one reference states 3 years famine as a choice, where the other reference states 7 years famine as a choice?
However, the numbers differ, the cash currency differs…one is gold, the other is silver, and the name of the owner of the threshing floor differs, and in one reference the tribe of Benjamin was not counted, and neither was Levi.
There is too much that need “accounted” for. Debits must equal credits in accounting.
Just because David counted, that’s an assumption, a pretty bad one at that, that these are both the same event.
There is also another thing to look at. The location of the Threshing Floor…in one reference, it was to be the place that Solomon builds the temple of God, indicating that the current tabernacle of the Lord is in Gibeon. There are hints all over to study time and location, but to say that these two are equal…the numbers don’t add up.
People are making their doctrine fit the scripture, instead of the other way around. The doctrine that God uses Satan as his agent. The sovereignty of God.
I saw the explanation that in Job, God used Satan to take away all that Job had…family, livestock, etc.
That wasn’t the point of the story. The point of the story is that God did a “Devil Went Down to Georgia” bet with the Devil, regarding the FAITH of Job….and God won. But it doesn’t fit the Calvinist (or Reform) narrative.
Both God and the Devil are working for the same souls…each wants us for himself. That’s what the bet was all about. Satan can’t touch what God has protected, with that hedge.
Has God used Satan in order to test the faith of others with a “Consider my servant br.d”. But God does not use Satan as a means to accomplish is good pleasure.
So, Satan takes a look at the trouble David got into the last time, and probably states to himself, “I know what will get David in trouble! I’ll entice him to count the people, causing him to sin!” That’s my take on it. But again, in order for the narrative to fit, the numbers must match.
Ed Chapman
This is the way that scholars account for what would otherwise be contradictions in the Gospel narratives.
It is one of the ways they resolve the Gospel stories as being genuine.
Atheists argue that a Gospel author has Jesus saying something or commanding something on a given occasion – and another Gospel author has Jesus saying something different – or commanding something different.
It is logical to assume that different people witnessing an event are going to come away with sightly different take on that event.
Therefore these are not places in the Gospels where there are contradictions – but rather slight differences in the way the story evolved.
When we events – such as a sabbath feast day etc – which are in all probability the same exact event – but which there is some variation in the details of the narrative – there is the possibility that one person simply remembered a detail slightly differently than another person did.
I don’t have a stake in this one way or the other.
But it is a possibility in my mind.
But this is where one has an interest is SOLVING the “alleged” contradictions, instead of bowing down to the thought of one of the witnesses got something wrong.
Scripture is INERRANT, right?
If that is true, we gotta scrap the idea that there are inconsistencies, and focus on solving the allegation so that it can be PROVEN beyond a reasonable doubt that it is NOT a contradiction at all.
That’s why I mention the location of one of the Threshing Floors, which is the THEN future of the Temple of God that Solomon would build.
What was the location of the other Threshing Floor? At this point, we don’t know, because no one, including myself, has actually searched the scripture to find out…but it is possible that the bible states it. I may be wrong in THIS specific issue about the location of a threshing floor, however, one way to resolve an issue is to seek the clues. I might take that to task soon.
Ed Chapman
Scripture in all Christian academia – is classified as God’s word – understood by human minds – and then recorded by human minds.
So when an author of one of the 4 Gospels presents the details of event [X] which are different from the details presented by a different author concerning event [X] then we don’t have contradiction. What we have is a different understanding of the details by two different individuals.
If you were to read “Evidence that demands a verdict” by Josh McDowell, this was his testimony.
He was an Atheist – trying to prove that the Gospel narratives cannot be trusted because one Gospel author wrote [A] about event [X] and a different Gospel author wrote [B} about event [X].
The fact that two different people can get details slightly different in any historical writing is what convinced him that that was not an issue of contradiction.
Like I said – I don’t have a stake in this
Its simply something that I am aware of as – something scholars point out as a reality.
2 Timothy 3:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
You had said:
“What we have is a different understanding of the details by two different individuals.”
You essentially are blaming the writer of the passage, thinking that the writer is the one confused because the writer has a different understanding.
That is irrelevent, considering that the passage is GOD BREATHED. The job of a scribe was to scribe, with no mistakes. It got proof read, and if one mistake was found…GARBAGE.
If the passage is God Breathed, then a writers understanding has no bearing at all. They just write what God tells them to write. The scribe just copies what was written.
The READER is the one who is confused.
The numbers must match regarding this topic. Gold is different than silver, and the count is different…by a lot. 7 is different than 3.
Again, 7 is not the same as 3, therefore, the writers cannot be saying the same thing.
“THREE FEET” is the same thing as saying “ONE YARD”. That’s two different renderings of the same thing.
But it’s another to say “sixty five inches” by telling folks that is the same as “Five Feet”.
I never used the word or inferred confusion.
It is a well understood fact that two people can record a historic event and not come up with the exact same details.
Josh McDowel – as an Atheist wanted to claim that the Bible is unreliable because different details were recorded for the same event.
However, once he understood that that can happen with writings concerning historical events – then he had to acknowledge it was not an issue the Bible contradicting itself.
Like I said now 2 times
I don’t have any stake in this
I’m simply letting you know this as something that is acknowledged within Christian academia.
Ed
They just write what God tells them to write
br.d
I don’t think this is what you mean by that statement – but it is also well established in Biblical scholarship that the authors of scripture were not functioning in what is called “Mechanical Dictation”
In other words – they were not functioning like someone does on a Ouija-board spelling out words planted into their minds by a spirit – or operating like a robot taking dictation.
Luke for example – was a Physician – and scholars recognize that he puts certain personal emphasis on certain things.
Peter is a fisherman and he does not have the same education as Paul or Luke – so the words he chooses to express his thoughts are representative of his personal vocabulary – and not the vocabulary of Paul or Luke.
Some of the original gospel manuscripts were believed to be originally written in Aramaic and translated into the Koine Greek.
So those authors spoke and wrote Aramaic and the vocabulary they used to write the text was their personal vocabulary.
If those authors had instead been Koine Greek speaking – they would have written the text in the common vernacular of their personal Greek vocabulary.
What does GOD BREATHED mean in biblical scholarship.
The section in acts where Peter states that David is dead and buried… Peter was saying that because altho it appears that David is speaking of himself, he’s not speaking of himself. I would indeed call that mechanical dictation. I’m sorry that academia is well established otherwise.
2 Chronicles 3:1
Then Solomon began to build the house of the Lord at Jerusalem in mount Moriah, where the Lord appeared unto David his father, in the place that David had prepared in the threshingfloor of Ornan the Jebusite.
See that? This is referencing 1 Chron 21 reference which also shows the owner of the threshing floor.
It doesn’t solve the issue yet, but I am showing that it is mentioned elsewhere.
brdmod,
You had said:
“Two different people are recording information which comes to them through different sources.
We’ve all seen the experiment where we have a line of people in a room – and the 1st person whispers a statement to the 2nd person who repeats to the 3rd person etc. And by the time it gets to the last person – the last person’s statement is quite different from the 1st person’s statement – and may actually represent a total contradiction.”
I’ve done that experiment. However, what is the job of the scribes? What happens if just one letter is incorrect? Is the scripture God breathed or not?
Is Chronicles a part of the Jewish Official Canon?
Look at the four gospels. Have you ever zippered Matthew, Mark and Luke together? The best way to do that is to utilize the NIrV as your means to zipper it. John, on the other hand is DIFFICULT to include in the zipper…but it can be done.
The 4 Gospels are “witness” statements. Believe it or not, after zippering them, NOTHING is out of order. However, usually two or three state the same thing about an event. Sometimes just one does, but even then, the timeline for the next event matches.
That’s how I determined that the “PARABLE” of the rich man and Lazarus is NOT A PARABLE. Matthew is the key to getting the rest of the story that Luke left out.
Ed Chapman
The following, regarding 2 Samuel 24 and 1 Chronicles 21, is provided to show that NUMBERING ISRAEL is NOT A SIN, but a commandment.
Exodus 30:11-16
11 And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying,
12 When thou takest the sum of the children of Israel after their number, then shall they give every man a ransom for his soul unto the Lord, when thou numberest them; that there be no plague among them, when thou numberest them.
13 This they shall give, every one that passeth among them that are numbered, half a shekel after the shekel of the sanctuary: (a shekel is twenty gerahs:) an half shekel shall be the offering of the Lord.
14 Every one that passeth among them that are numbered, from twenty years old and above, shall give an offering unto the Lord.
15 The rich shall not give more, and the poor shall not give less than half a shekel, when they give an offering unto the Lord, to make an atonement for your souls.
16 And thou shalt take the atonement money of the children of Israel, and shalt appoint it for the service of the tabernacle of the congregation; that it may be a memorial unto the children of Israel before the Lord, to make an atonement for your souls.
————————-
As one can see, there are RULES pertaining to numbering.
Rule #1:
Everyone counted MUST PAY a 1/2 a shekel.
Rule #2
The only ones to be counted are those 20 years old (Military age) and above
————————-
The purpose of the money:
1. To make an atonement for their souls
2. Service of the tabernacle
What happens when NO MONEY IS PAID/collected?
Verse 12:
12 When thou takest the sum of the children of Israel after their number, then shall they give every man a ransom for his soul unto the Lord, when thou numberest them; that there be no plague among them, when thou numberest them.
————————–
Exodus 38:26
26 A bekah for every man, that is, half a shekel, after the shekel of the sanctuary, for every one that went to be numbered, from twenty years old and upward…
————————-
So, can we determine what the sin of David was now, based on the law of Moses?
What was the purpose that God wanted David to number the people?
What was Satan’s purpose?
Ed Chapman
Roland
I honestly don’t believe you really expect me to provide a rational response.
br.d
Every time you declare Libertarian Functionality is not biblical – while assuming its ATTRIBUTES for yourself – doesn’t help your case any! 😀
I did not declare libertarian functionality. You continue to build up something easy to tear down. I thought you were only an expert on strawman Calvinism but now I am learning you are an expert on strawman Roland!
Roland
Calvinism does not make God out to be a liar.
br.d
Not quite – Calvinism has a god who misleads people with deceptive language – while technically not lying
A few examples:
1) He communicates to Adam -leading Adam to believe he will permit Adam to NOT eat the fruit – when the TRUTH is the opposite
2) He communicates to Cain – leading Cain to believe he will permit Cain to do well – when the TRUTH is the opposite.
3) He communicates to the people of Israel – leading lead them to believe he will permit them to CHOOSE LIFE – – when the TRUTH is the opposite. They don’t get any CHOICE at all. – He’s already made ALL CHOICES for ALL PEOPLE at the foundation of the world.
And they have no say in the matter of anything.
Technically – he is not telling abject lies
But he is a deceiver.
And he also deceiver Calvinist believers by given them – quote “SENSE such as can be felt without the spirit of adoption” and later he will -quote “Strike them with greater blindness”
So we do have the doctrine of DIVINE DECEPTION OF THE BELIEVER as a logical byproduct of Calvinist doctrine
More strawman Calvinism..
Roland
More strawman Calvinism
br.d
FALSE
John Calvin clearly states:
-quote
1) Nothing Happens that he did not knowingly and willingly decree
2) He foresees as a consequence of the decree
Therefore Calvin’s god
1) DECREED the act of Adam eating the fruit – would be the act that would infallibly come to pass
2) DECREED the act of Adam NOT eating the fruit – would NOT be that which would come to pass
3) Communicated to Adam with language that inferred he permitted Adam to NOT eat the fruit.
To not call that communication DECEPTIVE reveals what Calvinist ethics looks like.
Three times now I have asked Roland which version of the 9 or so main variants of Calvinism is the one we should believe. Needless to say he has avoided answering. But it’s interesting how calvi-god unchangeably ordained so much confusion, even within “calvinism”. Will the real calvinism please stand up?
Are there 9 versions of Calvinism? Wasn’t aware of that? Since I am so poor at answering questions, and your so rich as providing answers. You answer the question:
Which of the hundreds of versions of Christianity are correct?
I”m sure you will worm your way out of this one. You are a pastor so you should be able to discern which version of Christianity we should believe.
Unlike you Roland, I don’t need to worm my way out of anything. The answer is simple. No Christian has perfect theology. But for the calvinist, it is more of a conundrum, because you believe that God unchangeably ordained every doctrinal error within the church, including the 9 vairants of calvinism (which were identified by calvinists themselves, not by me). And since you so boldly claimed in this thread “WE CALVINISTS KNOW WHAT CALVINISM IS”
Same for Calvinism. I don’t know all Calvinists but the ones I do know would not say that their version of Calvinism is the only true form or correct version of Calvinism. I know Calvinist from all the ranges, Presbyterian, Dutch Reformed, 1689, etc. While we have our discussions amongst ourselves none I know would say that their understanding of Reformed theology is the correct and true one. No one has perfect theology, Reformed or non-reformed.
Roland
No one has perfect theology, Reformed or non-reformed.
br.d
But at the same time – we can’t subject reformed theology to logic – because doing so would be to subject scripture to logic!
Can anyone spell DOUBLE-SPEAK! :-]
br.d
But at the same time – we can’t subject reformed theology to logic – because doing so would be to subject scripture to logic!
Can anyone spell DOUBLE-SPEAK! :-]
roland
I’ve written this before and I will write it again. YES!!! You can subject reformed theology to logic. I’ve never written that you cannot. I deny that subjecting reformed theology to logic is the same as subjecting Scripture to logic. But you will continue to present this straw man of me over and over again. For you, in my mind, I equate reformed theology with Scripture. As much as I write that I do not, you will present a syllogism that I do.
That’s EXACTLY what you do! When you cite your calvinistic interpretation of a Scripture, then say “I’m only reading the text”, you are equivocating the two.
There is no such thing as “Only reading the text”
A computer can do that – without being cognizant of what the text means.
The human brain doesn’t work that way.
If Roland is not interpreting the text – then his brain is sub-normal
D.A. Carson asks the question
– paraphrased
What hermeneutical presuppositions are (implicitly or explicitly) appealed to in order for us to generate any conclusion from scripture?
Clearly the human mind in its NORMAL FUNCTION – adds into the text presuppositions (whether implicit or explicit) while reading the text.
Any Calvinist who claims his mind is not doing that while reading scripture – does not have a NORMAL FUNCTIONING mind.
The Calvinist library of presuppositions read *INTO* the text – is governed by the Calvinist TRADITION of interpretation.
Roland
I’ve written this before and I will write it again. YES!!! You can subject reformed theology to logic.
br.d
Give me one single scripture verse that I have posted here and subjected to logic.
If you can’t do that – (which you can’t) then you are either telling a fib – or speaking DOUBLE-SPEAK
Which one is it?
WE CALVINISTS KNOW WHAT CALVINISM IS”
We’re just not willing to be honest about it! 😀
Pastor Loz
because you believe that God unchangeably ordained every doctrinal error within the church, i
roland
Once again you continue to push a strawman version of Calvinism. Strawman fallacy is an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent’s real argument. WCF says that God is not the author of evil yet our understanding is continually misrepresented as God being the author of evil. We believe it is impossible for God to will evil because God is good, just, righteous, and holy. That’s exactly the behavior of a cult leader, misrepresent others so that you can easily persuade your audience that the other is wrong.
Pastor Loz
because you believe that God unchangeably ordained every doctrinal error within the church, i
roland
Once again you continue to push a strawman version of Calvinism.
br.d
Notice how easy it is for a Calvinist to RESHAPE Calvinism into Arminianism or Molinism or Open Theism.
In TRUE Calvinism – the only way Calvin’s god knows any doctrinal error in the church – is to decree that doctrinal error.
Who is the character – whom scripture declares can MORPH himself into any other shape? 😀
Pastor Loz: because you believe that God unchangeably ordained every doctrinal error within the church,
<<>>
The WCF states that God unchangeably ordains WHATSOEVER COMES TO PASS. “Whatsoever comes to pass” INCLUDES every doctrinal error within the church. Therefore, I am not straw-manning or misrepresenting in the slightest. Do you want me to provide you with the exact quote from WCF?
Pastor Loz
Do you want me to provide you with the exact quote from WCF?
roland
I can do it for you. But of course you will cherry pick what suits you in your arguments against Calvinism. You like the part that says God “unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass…” But you hate the part that says God is not the author of sin. And like a good cult leader you cherry pick Calvinist doctrine to misrepresent us before your audience and therefore, deny your audience a true representation of Calvinism.
WCF Chapter 3 Paragraph 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; yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin; nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.
Calvin’s god authors whatsoever comes to pass – yet so as thereby neither is he the author of whatsoever comes to pass. :-]
<<>>
Of COURSE they say “yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin…”! That’s what fork-tongued people do, And you have swallowed it. It’s like saying “Steve is taller than John, yet in such a way that John is not shorter than Steve”. Whatever spin you want to put on it, if you want to be consistent with your philosopher’s double-speak, the fact is that according to the WCF, your god has unchangeably ordained every single piece of doctrinal error within the church, as well as outside of the church. It’s there in black and white, unless you now want to tell us that “whatsoever comes to pass” doesn’t really mean “whatsoever comes to pass”, it actually means “some of whatsoever comes to pass”? You know, like you do with the Bible.
He has unchangeably ordained everything you moan about in this group. So you need to be taking it up with him. And by the way, continually calling me a “cult leader” is utterly meaningless to me, since you are a member of the calvinist cult. It would be like my Jehovah’s Witness brother calling me a cult leader. But I get that you are butt hurt about the fact that your god promised you that he would not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear, while secretly ensuring that you would be tempted beyond what you can bear, to commit the sins he ordained for you to commit, all for his maximal glory; That must be tough!
1.) Where do you get 9?
2.) Where can I read about the 9?
https://reformedforhisglory.wordpress.com/2013/08/09/types-of-calvinism-a-comprehensive-list/
Thanks
How many variants would you say there are spur?
I’ve never given it much thought, to be honest.
Well there are the more DETERMINISTIC Calvinists like Vincent Chung
And then there are what are called the “Moderate” Calvinists – who are much more LIBERTARIAN in their thinking model.
Personally – what I see is what I call the “CONTINUUM LINE OF DETERMINISM”
If you imagine a line in which Libertarian human functionality is on one extreme end – and Exhaustive Divine Determinism is on the other extreme end.
Like so:
LIB——————————————————————————–EDD
Arminians functionally place themselves somehwere up from the LIB end.
Like so:
LIB———–Arminian———————————————————–EDD
Moderate Calvinist tend to be very broad in where they functionally place themselves according to their personal perspect
But they obviously lean closer to EDD because Calvinism is predicated on EDD
Like so:
LIB——————————–Moderate Calvinist—————————-EDD
And then there are more DETERMINISTIC Calvinists who are more comfortable with a closer proximity to EDD
Like so:
LIB——————————————-Deterministic Calvinist————-EDD
These are typically the Calvinists who are accused by the Moderate Calvinists as being HYPER.
But I don’t know any Calvinist who is comfortable completely giving up Libertarian human functionality
So as far as I know – there is no such thing as a Calvinist who is completely comfortable with EDD
I WON 5 BUCKS!
That was sooooooooooo easy! ;-D
You shoulda bet your house on it 😉
Lol! Give back the 5 bucks, I answered the question.
1. Yes, in one sense God did ordain that I would commit the last sin I committed. My answer would need some qualifications as to why I answered yes.
2. No. As I Calvinist I would reject the idea that God’s will, determinations, ordinations, etc. can be nullified by man in any way.
Do what you will with what I answered above. I can provide Biblical examples of how God can ordain sin but not be the cause or origin of sin but I would only de drawing from men who are FAR FAR more intelligent and insightful than I am. I don’t have time today.
For the reasoning behind my answers I would point to you to Francis Turretin’s Institutes of Elenctic Theology volume I, Sixth Topic: The Actual Providence of God, Seventh Question: The Providence of God in Evil, pp: 515-538.
Roland
1. Yes, in one sense God did ordain that I would commit the last sin I committed.
br.d
The definition of CONTRADICTION is when something is said to be both TRUE and FALSE at the same time and in the same SENSE.
All the Calvinist has to do – to hide a CONTRADICTION – is to manufacture a SENSE in which it is both cases.
Since you know the SENSE in which it is FALSE – why can’t you summarize it?
Perhaps if you do – it will be all to obvious – the SENSE in which it is FALSE for you is nothing more than a FACADE
Roland
Yes, in one sense God did ordain that I would commit the last sin I committed.
br.d
If its that easy for you to have a SENSE in which an infallible decree can be falsified – then its just as easy for you to have a SENSE in which Libertarian freedom is biblical
Sure looks like the Calvinists is very selective about what SENSE he wants to manufacture in order to get what he wants when he wants it! Because he can manufacture a SENSE in which he has the power to falsify an infallible decree
And thus he manufactures a SENSE which allows him to deny his own doctrine. 😀
br.d
If its that easy for you to have a SENSE in which an infallible decree can be falsified – then its just as easy for you to have a SENSE in which Libertarian freedom is biblical
roland
Libertarian freedom is not biblical because NO WHERE in Scripture is libertarian freedom revealed. It is a human assumption brought to Scripture, read into Scripture, and results in non-biblical conclusions. God is not free, man is free according to proponents of libertarian freewill. You are more humanistic than you are theistic.
Roland: “Calvinism does not make God out to be a liar.”
Do you agree with Calvinists that Jesus really only died for the elect? If so, how does that NOT make a liar out of God when the Bible says:
“For God so loved the world that He gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” (John 3:16)
“He is the atoning sacrifice for all sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.” (1 John 2:2)
“And he died for all …” (2 Corinthians 5:15)
“… [Jesus] suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.” (Hebrews 2:9)
“The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, ‘Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world!’” (John 1:29)
Do you agree with Calvinists that God is glorified by people being in hell and that there are people who cannot respond to God’s grace, people whom God does not allow to repent? If so, how does that NOT make a liar out of God when the Bible says:
“… [God is] not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.” (2 Peter 3:9)
“For I take no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign Lord. Repent and live!” (Ezekiel 18:32)
“This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of truth. For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all men…” (1 Timothy 2:3-5)
“For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men.” (Titus 2:11)
Do you agree with Calvinists that God fore-ordains everything that happens, including all sins and evil, and that nothing can happen that God didn’t ordain/ decree/ preplan/ cause, that everything that happens is because God preplanned it and is controlling it? If so, how does that NOT make a liar out of God when the Bible says:
“They set up kings without my consent; they choose princes without my approval.” (Hosea 8:4, God’s words)
“They have built the high places to Baal to burn their sons in the fire as offerings to Baal – something I did not command or mention, nor did it enter my mind.” (Jeremiah 19:5, God’s words)
“Woe to the obstinate children,” declares the Lord, “to those who carry out plans that are not mine…” (Isaiah 30:1)
“He said to the king, ‘This is what the Lord says: ‘You have set free a man I had determined should die.”” (1 Kings 20:42)
Do you agree with Calvinists that it’s impossible for man to seek God, that they have to be brought to life by the Holy Spirit first before they can seek? If so, how does that NOT make a liar out of God when the Bible says:
“You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart…” (Jeremiah 29:13)
“For God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him …” (Acts 17:27)
“Seek the Lord while he may be found …” (Isaiah 55:6)
“Seek me and live …” (Amos 5:4)
Do you agree with Calvinists that we cannot choose for ourselves whom we will serve? If so, how does that NOT make a liar out of God when the Bible says:
“But if serving the Lord seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve …” (Joshua 24:15)
“The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 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 men are without excuse.” (Romans 1:18-20. If God made it impossible for someone to believe in Him, they would have a pretty good excuse, wouldn’t they?)
Do you agree with Calvinists that “believing is a work that we cannot do, that God has to do for us”? If so, how does that NOT make a liar out of God when the Bible says:
“Then they asked him, ‘What must we do to do the works God requires?’ Jesus answered, ‘The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent [Jesus].'” (John 6:28-29)
To say that Calvinism does not make God into a liar means that someone either doesn’t really understand what Calvinism teaches or doesn’t really understand what the Bible teaches. It is only by twisting the plain meaning of Scripture, by adding “yes … but” to verses like these, that a Calvinist can say Calvinism is biblical.
<<< Heather in response to Roland: “Calvinism does not make God out to be a liar.”
Do you agree with Calvinists that Jesus really only died for the elect? If so, how does that NOT make a liar out of God when the Bible says…: “He is the atoning sacrifice for all sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.” (1 John 2:2) “And he died for all …” (2 Corinthians 5:15) “… [Jesus] suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.” (Hebrews 2:9)
Remember, Roland would have us believe Calvinists simply read the plain meaning of the text. So:
The WHOLE WORLD (1 John 2:2) doesn’t actually mean the whole world. It means “the elect within the whole world”. Because that’s what the Holy Spirit said through John, right? I mean I would have thought the Holy Spirit does know the word “eklektos” and when to use it to get His meaning across.
“Everyone” (Heb 2:9) ACTUALLY means, SOME Jews and SOME gentiles. Even though the context for this verse is set by Heb 2:6 which says “what is MANKIND that You are mindful of them”. Mankind cannot be taken to mean anything other than the whole of the human race. I mean, even a Calvinist can’t twist that one to mean “some people”, can they?
<<>>
Calvinists want us to believe that 2 Pet 3:9 REALLY means “God is not willing that any OF THE ELECT should perish”. I mean that’s what the text says, right? I guess the workd “eklektos” is written in invisible ink. Their “logic” for this is that the letter is addressed TO the elect, so it can therefore only be ABOUT the elect.
This is where the ridiculousness of Calvinism raises its head again, since God is the only one who can irresistibly bring the elect to repentance, so He is not actually being patient with the as yet unregenerate elect, waiting for them to come to repentance. If we follow the “logic” of Calvinism, God is actually being patient with Himself, waiting for Himself to irresistibly bring the elect to repentance.
Amen, Br. D. – Molinism posits the same thing… just with more smoke and mirrors… because it is still God’s decree that sets the so-called feasible world to work out only one way, before man’s free will is even created and exercises its first freewill choice.
Thanks Brian,
I’m not sure of that – because it seems to me the feasible world that is decreed to come to pass – is a world which grants the existence of multiple options to be available to the creature. This then would facilitate the necessary condition for things like “CHOICE” and “DO OTHERWISE” etc – which are attributes of Libertarian freedom.
It seems to me – the difference between the Calvinist world and the Molinist world – is that the DETERMINER of the human inclination is a THEOS in one world – where the DETERMINER of the human inclination is the human – in the other world.
The human action is caused by antecedent factors outside of the human’s control in one world
And the human action is NOT caused by antecedent factors outside of the human’s control in the other world.
Is that the “Smoke and mirrors” you were referring too?
No, actually, in Molinism the divine decree leaves no “existence of multiple options”. Once middle knowledge is used to pick a feasible world that will work out only one way, with all God’s freewill choices already made in it and man’s freewill choices somehow already made “freely” to only one outcome, possibilities no longer existence for other choices.
All that exists after creation is a world that will work out only one known way by God and also His knowing a bunch of counterfactuals that existed as true possibilities before His decree, but not after.
Hmm – I can see that it is a world that will “work out” as divine Middle knowledge knows it will “work out” to.
But I don’t see how it logically follows that that eliminates multiple options
Lets forget about Molinism for a second and simply say we have a world in which Libertarian freedom exists.
We still have a world in which things will only “work out one way”.
But we do have multiple options available to the creature – along with DO OTHERWISE etc.
.
So we have to have characteristic beyond the fact that things will “work out only one way” in order to show the absence of multiple options and the ability to DO OTHERWISE
Do you see anything other than that?
We can’t equivocate on the meaning of “one way”. The future from now, if decreed before creation, already has only one way to work out, and only has had one way to work out since the dawn of creation.
But the future from now, if not decreed before creation, still has multiple ways to work out as one way, and always has had multiple ways to work out into the one way that eventually becomes the known present and past.
But if Molinism is true, the future from now does not have multiple ways of working out. It only has one way which was decreed for it using middle knowledge before creation of multiple ways, but decreeing those multiple ways out of existence as known possibilities and turning them all into known counterfactuals. Counter-to-fact means no longer able to be factual, else God would have been mistaken in His knowledge after the decree.
Brian
We can’t equivocate on the meaning of “one way”.
br.d
And I don’t think we are.
Even with Libertarian freedom – absent molinism – we have a future than can only work out one way.
Brian
The future from now, if decreed before creation, already has only one way to work out, and only has had one way to work out since the dawn of creation.
br.d
I don’t see that Brian
I see the circumstances being decreed to only work out one way.
But not a Libertarian choice decreed to work out only one way.
The difference is – Exhaustive Determinism – vs Semi-Determinism.
Brian
But the future from now, if not decreed before creation, still has multiple ways to work out as one way, and always has had multiple ways to work out into the one way that eventually becomes the known present and past.
br.d
And that would fit my model of a world in which Libertarian Freedom is granted to the creature.
And I don’t see how decreeing the circumstances ONLY makes it the case that human choices are also FIXED in the past by decree
Brian
But if Molinism is true, the future from now does not have multiple ways of working out.
br.d
That is the case for both Molinism and without Molinism – if we simply have a Libertarian choice available to the creature
Brian
It only has one way which was decreed for it using middle knowledge before creation of multiple ways, but decreeing those multiple ways out of existence as known possibilities and turning them all into known counterfactuals. Counter-to-fact means no longer able to be factual, else God would have been mistaken in His knowledge after the decree.
br.d
I understand God cannot be mistaken in his knowledge.
But I’m still not seeing how your conclusion logically follows from Middle-knowledge because Middle-Knowledge is not Knowledge of what WILL be – but rather knowledge of what WOULD be – and as such is theoretical rather than actual.
It still seems to me that the decree does not determine what the person will do – even though it is
case that the decree determines the circumstance the person will be in.
We can put 10 people into a room and make the same exact circumstances for those 10 people – over a period of 10 days.
And if we did so – we would not anticipate every person’s choices would be exactly the same.
Each person would react to those circumstances in accordance to their own unique nature.
So if I have Middle-Knowledge of each person’s nature – and what they WOULD do in those circumstances – then I can know what each person WOULD do. And I could have that knowledge without determining what each person WOULD do.
If I program a computer with all of the parameters of each person’s nature – that computer can project with pretty serious accuracy – what each person WOULD do. But that computer is not determining the person’s choices – even though the computer can derive high accuracy of what each person WOULD do.
So… God created hell for the devil and his angels. The Bible tells us this. I’m quite certain that this rebellion took place before man was placed on this earth. Long before. This is one of a few reasons that I don’t buy into YOUNG EARTH CREATION. But that’s another story. So, the question is, since Satan and his angels began their residence here before man, why did God put man here to begin with? He could have created man to remain where God lives, but he didn’t. Why?
The only logical reason is that God wants man to freely choose him, and the only way we can do that is to have evil here with us. Without evil, we can’t choose. Evil is necessary to make a choice.
This can be expounded, but long before I discovered Calvinism, this was my understanding of free will, because the ultimate destination for believers is heaven anyway.
This earth, our body, etc. is temporary. Why are we only temporary, where evil resides, when we could have started out as eternal where evil does not reside?
Free Will is the only answer that logic concludes.
So Calvinism and all there talk about no free will, or limited free will, is foreign to Christians that never heard of Arminian or Calvinism. We barely know anything about Luther, let alone Catholicism. All I knew about them as a kid was that our school lunch was Fish Sticks on Fridays. I didn’t know why, tho. Still don’t.
Ed Chapman
Br D you seem to be positing different natures for different people said designed circumstances that lead each to use their free will with only one result in each of the designed circumstances. Am I correct?
Also middle knowledge is not just theoretical in Molinism it is the foundation behind the decree. You did not deal with how it is not true that the decree ends the use of middle knowledge for further freewill decision making by God, (and us imo), since He has picked a feasible world with all His decisions already made about designed circumstances that lead to only one outcome, even for man’s freewill decisions.
Brian
Br D you seem to be positing different natures for different people said designed circumstances that lead each to use their free will with only one result in each of the designed circumstances. Am I correct?
br.d
In the example I gave – the circumstances are identical – but since each person has unique way of responding – then yes their choices are going to be unique to each person.
Brian
Also middle knowledge is not just theoretical in Molinism it is the foundation behind the decree.
br.d
I don’t believe this is correct.
If you read Molinist books and/or read Dr. Craig’s online articles – he does make a point to state Middle-Knowledge is theoretical knowledge.
Brian
You did not deal with how it is not true that the decree ends the use of middle knowledge for further freewill decision making by God, (and us imo), since He has picked a feasible world with all His decisions already made about designed circumstances that lead to only one outcome, even for man’s freewill decisions.
br.d
Again – I don’t think you have this correct.
I was thinking about your comment on equivocating on things “turning out one way”.
Lets see if an example might be helpful
Lets say we have the Trump vs Biden election and it is voting time.
Now lets start with a simple Libertarian world:
– The circumstances are determinative in that Person_X is restricted from voting for both candidates.
– So here we have an instance in which the outcome (i.e. Person_X’s vote) can “only be one way”
– That “one way” is either a vote for Trump or a Vote for Biden.
– Notice here how we have an outcome that will eventually be said to “only be one way”
– That “one way” is determined by Person_X
Next we move to the Calvinist’s world:
– The circumstances are again determinative in that Person_X is restricted from voting for both candidates.
– However every impulse that will come to pass within Person_X’s brain is determined by infallible decree.
– For every human action – the infallible decree establishes the “one way” that Person_X is permitted to act
– Again we have an outcome that can “only be one way”
– That “one way” is determined by Calvin’s god – and not by Person_X
– Divine knowledge of what Person_X WILL do is achieved by decreeing what Person_X WILL do.
Next we move to Molinism’s world:
– The circumstances are again determinative in that Person_X is restricted from voting for both candidates.
– An infallible decree establishes the circumstances – and Person_X’s vote can “only be one way” in that it can only be for Trump or it can only be for Biden.
– That “one way” is “MERELY” permitted by God – who “MERELY” permits Person_X to be the determiner of Person_X’s choice.
– Divine knowledge of what Person_X WILL do – is not achieved.
– Divine knowledge of what Person_X WOULD do is achieved by Middle-Knowledge – which is sufficient knowledge to facilitate comprehensive omniscience while facilitating libertarian choice for the creature.
BrD. I fear we will keep speaking past each other. 🙄 Craig believes and teaches Molinism. He only says it’s theoretical because there is no clear Scripture teaching its existence. But he’s totally invested in believing it as foundational to God’s decree… which also is purely theoretical.
And it is certainly true that in Craig’s Molinism God is no longer using middle knowledge. Some Molinists, not Craig, have God continuing in a timeless reality, sans creation. They would see see God eternally, simultaneously still decreeing and still using middle knowledge, but with middle knowledge being logically prior to the decreeing. But that makes a mockery of how God’s Word teaches a sequential reality.
If there is a LFW choice available between Trump and Biden, then, before the choice is made, the outcome might turn out two different ways. Molinism does not believe in the reality of might and might not possibilities, only in would have and would not have counterfactuals.
To say that the decree in Molinism does not cause “Divine knowledge of what Person_X WILL do” to be “achieved” is false. Once the decree is made, and before creation begins, God knows everything that WILL happen, including the outcomes of each freewill choice, as well as knowing everything that would have happened if He had decreed a different feasible world into existence.
In Molinism God no longer knows what might and might not happen, only what will not and will happen, and also what would have and would not have happened if He had decreed differently.
br.d
As far as I can tell – I don’t see how you have this correct Brian.
It is certainly the case – you don’t understand it the way I do.
I think you resolve it to be Exhaustive Determinism – where I see it as Semi-Determinism.
I’ll keep looking at it – but I simply don’t reach the same conclusions you do.
But I do acknowledge there are different Molinists who hold to different particulars.
But then we have what Tim Stratton calls “MERE” Molinism which he defines as follows:
1- God eternally possesses middle knowledge.
2- Humans possess limited libertarian free will.
Stratton has tried to broaden the Molinist camp beyond Molina and Craig. But Stratton still has trouble admitting that God’s knowledge of what will happen makes it impossible for God to also know at the same time that same outcome as what might not happen.
But if God does not have knowledge of what WILL happen with Person_X – but instead has knowledge of what WOULD happen – with Person_X – then that would seem to raise the question of whether or not that gives him sufficient knowledge of the TRUTH-VALUE of every proposition – in order to meet the definition of omniscience.
One more try, my friend, BrD… 😎 In Molinism God has both the knowledge of what will happen, after the decree is made, and knowledge of what would have happened, if He had decreed differently. Ask your favorite Molinist is you don’t believe me. 😂
In Molinism it’s not either God knowing what will happen or God knowing what would have happened, it’s God knowing both. But in Molinism it’s not God knowing what might or might not happen after the decree is made.
Yet the truth is God knows some things that will happen, other things that might or might not happen, and after events take place He knows some things that did happen and some things that would have happened.
And truth-values do change, since God’s omniscience is dynamic. His knowledge changes but remains truth for every proposition, as propositions of what will happen become known as what has happened and propositions of what might happen become known either as what will happen or what will not happen, but would have possibly happened.
Brian
In Molinism God has both the knowledge of what will happen, after the decree is made, and knowledge of what would have happened, if He had decreed differently. Ask your favorite Molinist is you don’t believe me.
br.d
I’ll have to reach out to someone who is a Molinist to get more particulars and how that works.
Good chat though!!!!
Thanks Brian! :-]
This is correct as far as I can see. Molinism = HARD determinism.
Spur since Molinism posits that true LFW and the Decree exist, it should be imo called Soft Determinism or Compatibilism.
Hard Determinism is the thesis that free will does not exist in any form.
The closest you will get to the belief that Free Will doesn’t exist in any form is probably Calvinist Mark Driskoll
Mark Driskoll
-quote
“We are brainwashed with 2 four letter words ‘Free Will’ and there is no such thing”
I happen to agree with Driscoll here. There is no such thing (in humans) as (completely) free will. So his statement is correct. I think he is trying to point out exactly what I’ve been trying to point out: libertarian free will as used by most non-Calvinists is philosophically indistinguishable from absolute free will, and humans just don’t have absolute free will. It just doesn’t exist for us. I realize that I am doing a large amount of exegesis from one sentence of Driscoll’s, and if I am wrong about my exegesis, I accept correction, but this is my current opinion.
I have never yet met a non Calvinist who believes in absolute free will. Feel free to quote one
What’s the point? You’ll just tell me it is misrepresentation. You have every time I’ve given the quotation before.
Where is your direct quotation? I’ll wait.
You’ll have to wait a long time before I’m gaga enough to think talking to a wall does anything.
In Molinism, God creates a world that has all the people doing precisely what He wants them to do, but because of the world they’re in, not because of God directly. But this does not create freedom, because God chooses which world He wants to create, and He creates the world where you WILL act the way He wants you to act and choose the way He wants you to choose. If you don’t, then He just picks another world to make where you do. THAT’S the smoke and mirrors.
For once we agree.
I’m not at all displeased to hear that! 🙂
spurcalluth
, and whatever choices they seem to make, are completely unreal, or
br.d
Look at this another way spur
Look at it in terms of what your god knows to be TRUE vs what you perceive
1) Your god knows that at the foundation of the world – he determined you would do [X] at TIME-T
2) Your god knows that he FIXED your act of doing [X] at TIME-T by infallible decree
3) Your god knows that it is impossible to falsify an infallible decree
4) Therefor your god knows – that he granted you only ONE SINGLE Option – to do [X] at TIME-T
5) You on the other hand have a perception. The perception that is coming to pass within your brain – is that your god has made available both the option of you doing [X] at TIME-T and you NOT doing [X] at TIME-T
6) Therefore you have the perception that multiple options are made available – meeting the necessary condition for CHOICE
Now ask yourself – is your perception what your god knows to be TRUE?
Is your perception a TRUE perception or a FALSE perception?
Obviously- if your god knows he granted only one PREDESTINED option – then your perception disagrees with what your god knows – which means one of you is wrong.
What your god knows is FALSE and the function of CHOICE you perceive yourself as being granted is TRUE.
or
What your god knows is TRUE – and the function of CHOICE you perceive yourself as being granted is FALSE
You are left with 4 possibilities here
1) What your god knows is FALSE – and what you know is TRUE
2) What your god knows is TRUE – and what you know is FALSE
3) What your god knows is FALSE – and what you know is FALSE
4) The doctrine of decrees forces the believer to survive in a psychological state of double-mindedness in which he is forced to claim the doctrine as sacred divine TRUTH – while treating that very doctrine *AS-IF* it is FALSE in order to have any sense of human normalcy in his life.
Personally – I go with (4)
Exhaustive Divine Determinism (aka Calvinism) is a logically self-defeating belief system – and it is also a belief system that is humanly impossible to live – and forces the human mind to survive in a state of DOUBLE-MINDEDNESS.
Lets say we have two worlds
World_1:
Person_X uses Libertarian choice – and selects the option of walking to the left
World_2:
Person_X uses Libertarian choice – and selects the option of walking to the right
Both worlds – at the point – are theoretical in nature.
Which means that Libertarian choice for the creature is theoretical in nature.
You as a third party have the power to choose which world WILL be the actualized world.
You (metaphorically speaking) look into the future to see which world Person_X chooses to walk to the left
You determine that that is the world you want to have actualized.
You have determined a world in which Person_X chooses to walk to the left.
You have determined to ACTUALIZE that world which prior to your decree is still a Theoretical world.
You are thus the ULTIMATE determiner of the outcome of Person_X’s world.
But it is still the case that you did not determine Person_X’s choice.
This is NOT the Calvinist model of Foreknowledge in which knowledge of Person_X’s impulse is derived by determining what that impulse will be. And that is the PRIMARY point of contention between Molinism and Calvinism.
So the two systems are both Deterministic.
But one system contains Libertarian human functionality – at least in Theoretical form
One area molinism appears to fall down from my point of view is how it accounts for the multiple interdependencies of millions of people’s choices. It “works” in the simple scenario you laid out because it is one person and one choice. It can quickly go sideways when you introduce even one more actor into the occasion.
Yes – I can see how that increases the complexity by a magnitude beyond our ability to compute.
I suspect the Molinist is going to say that God has no such limitations.
The problem I have with Molinism is how it plays out regarding a Person_X’s eternal destiny.
In World_1 Person_X uses his libertarian choice to reject Christ
In World_2 Person_X uses his libertarian choice to accept Christ.
A THEOS is the ultimate determine of which world will be actualized.
Person_X still gets (at least theoretically) a Libertarian choice – and is thus held accountable for that choice according to Biblical ethics.
However – just like in Calvinism – Person_X sitting in the lake of fire – can hold god accountable for the choice he made concerning Person_X’s eternal destiny. That blameworthiness is IMHO something that god has to accept. With decision making – comes responsibility. And with responsibility comes culpability.
Yes, it goes without saying that God’s computational skills are off the scale, however I suspect Molinism soon gets into square circle land, for example:
a) If God creates world 1, Person X will walk to the left. If Person X walks to the left, Person Y will walk to the right
b) If God creates world 2, person X will walk to the right. If Person X walks to the right, Person Y will walk to the left
However, the world God wants to create is one where both Person X and Person Y walk to the left.
Maybe the mathematician can help us with the probabilities…
I can definitely see what you mean when it comes to different worlds leading to different eternal destinies. From interactions I have had with Molinists (not that many), i seem to recall one or two saying that God creates/actualizes a world where the greatest possible number of people accept the gift of salvation.
Yes – on your last statement about Molinists wanting to point to a maximal situation in which the quantity of human souls who would freely choose Jesus – are actualized. However I kind of think that is wishful thinking on their parts. But I don’t know enough about it to say for sure.
Also some Molinists will say that the idea of Middle-Knowledge was not original to Molina. But that it dates back to the post apostolic fathers – but was not clearly delineated at that time.
The problem with this, however, is that ultimately in Molinism, it is not God that saves anyone. It is the network of possibilities that generate the different possible worlds. In this scenario, all God does is pick one of those possible worlds. If Person_X is saved, it is thanks to the possibility existing of a world in which he is saved and the happy coincidence that one of those worlds in which he is saved happens to coincide with the world in which the maximal number of people are saved. (Technically, the correct mathematical term is maximUM number of people, not maximAL number of people, but I’ll gloss over that.)
Of course, understanding the intricacies of such a billions-of-actors action network would be child’s play for God, so the complexity is not really an issue (except for us to visualize). What is an issue, however, is that in no single world is there any freedom of choice for any human. Once the world is established, so is everything that every person would ever do from the first breath of Adam to the last action that any human will ever perform while on this earth.
spurcalluth:
Once the world is established, so is everything that every person would ever do from the first breath of Adam to the last action that any human will ever perform while on this earth.
roland
I’ve always seen realized even before I became a Calvinist. How can non-calvinists argue that we have libertarian freewill if God already knows every human decision and action before those decisions and actions are realized in time?
If God knows, it must come to pass. If it does not come to pass, then God did not know, therefore God’s foreknowledge is fallible.
Jesus knew Judas was going to betray. Judas is going to betray Jesus because Jesus’s knowledge is infallible. If Judas does not betray Jesus, then Jesus’s knowledge is fallible. I don’t see how Judas had any libertarian freedom in this situation. When it came to the actual choice Judas made regarding betraying Jesus, did Judas really have a libertarian free choice? I would say no unless I wanted to believe that man has libertarian freewill, Judas could have betrayed Jesus, and I want to believe that Jesus’s foreknowledge is fallible. Two things I deny and I believe Scripture denies.
Roland
How can non-calvinists argue that we have libertarian freewill
br.d
Roland – you are hilarious!!!!!
You keep claiming Libertarian functionality doesn’t exist and is not biblical – while you simultaneously FULLY ASSUME Libertarian functionality for yourself.
You’re like the guy who claims cars do not exist – while he is driving a car! 😀
I’ve never made the claim of libertarian functionality. That is something you keep attributing to me and my comments. Spurcalluth is right, you are the true searcher of hearts.
Roland
I’ve never made the claim of libertarian functionality.
br.d
Now you’re lowering yourself to dishonesty???
Where did anyone say you CLAIMED libertarian functionality???
What was CLEARLY stated – is that you *ASSUME* certain functionalities which ONLY exist with Libertarian functionality.
See: https://soteriology101.com/2021/11/11/calvinism-and-the-problem-of-damnation-and-hell/#comment-59317
I came to this page originally to learn about viewpoints other than Calvinism. What I’ve learnt is that the non-Calvinists here fully believe they can read hearts and minds. As far as I’m concerned, that’s crossing a line, claiming to be God.
The answer to this is pretty simple:
The ability to observe behavior patterns of any individual – which are consistently repeated over and over – does not require any ability to read minds. Its simply characteristic or human intelligence.
I’ve seen your pattern of behavior time after time. You appeal to logic rather than Scripture. You rely on logic rather than Scripture . You subject Scripture to logic. You would have fit well with the humanists that the Reformers were fighting against. You raise Erasmus as your hero instead of Christ Jesus. You prefer logic instead of God’s revelation. It did not take much just simple human intelligence to see that you are a humanist and not a Christian.
Roland
I’ve seen your pattern of behavior time after time. You appeal to logic rather than Scripture.
br.d
I refrain from handling of scripture in such a way that turns it into a twisted pretzel of self-contradiction.
Roland hates the fact that God is rational and logical, and so is His Word. It doesn’t leave him anything to his behind. He wants us to believe that God is irrational and illogical, whereas we know that calvinists just project that aspect of their own philosophy onto God.
Roland
You subject Scripture to logic.
br.d
For you – the process of subjecting Calvinist doctrine to logic is the process of subjecting scripture to logic
Which simply serves to manifest – you have CANONIZED Calvinism.
Which more than likely means – you SUBJECT scripture to Calvinism’s tradition of interpretation.
Let the Lord be the judge between what you do – and what I do with scripture.
This is what Roland and many other calvinists do. They equate their interpretation of Scripture to Scripture itself. hence the “I’m JUST REAIDNG THE TEXT” charade. By implication, no other interpretation of Scripture could possibly be legitimate. By equating calvinism’s word with God’s Word, Roland and other calvinists effectively equate themselves to God. This is usually the point where Roland comes back with something like: “quote me where I said I am equivalent to God”…
<<>>
Because God’s foreknowledge is not causative. Because certainty and necessity are two different things. Because God is SO OMNISCEINT He can perfectly foreknow the free will choices of men. He’s clever like that. Because God does not have to predetermine a thing in order to foreknow it, since His omniscience is inherent. Because God is omnitemporal and is already there at the point when every decision is made in time. Jesus perfectly foreknew the free will choice that Judas would make. If the scenario would have played out differently, if Judas would have chosen differently, Jesus would have perfectly known that alternative scenario and not prophesied as He did.
I never wrote that God’s foreknowledge is causative. I said when God has foreknowledge of a human’s decision or action or some event, anything, that thing must come to pass or else God foreknowledge can be invalid. When God prophesies in Scripture He does because He infallibly knows what will come to pass. If anything about what God has prophesies does not come pass, then that would make God’s prophecies untrue. I did not write anything about necessity.
<<>>
I never said you did. You asked a question about how non-calvinists can harmonize God’s exhaustive foreknowledge and the freedom to make genuine decisions. I was providing an answer to that question. It’s not all about you. The fact that God’s foreknowledge is not causative is part of the reason why biblical non-calvinists can harmonize those two truths.
<<>>
I know what you said. And I answered it.
<<>>
Yes, that is what is meant by the word CERTAINTY. And I explained how God can be CERTAIN of men’s free-will choices, because:
a) He is inherently omniscient, in and of Himself
b) He is omni-temporal, simultaneously present at all points in what we experience in a linear sequence of time.
Do you deny either of a) or b)?
<<>>
The first part of your comment is redundant, since I am not saying that anything God prophesies does not come to pass. Yes, you did write about necessity, because you said, if God knows something, that thing MUST come to pass. You also said that Judas did not have any libertarian freedom. That is an argument from NECESSITY. You might want to look up the arguments around certainty vs necessity. And I am saying Judas could have chosen not to betray Jesus. If he would had made that alternative choice, God would have perfectly foreknown that in the same way that He knew Judas what Judas actually would choose – with absolute certainty, not necessity, and Jesus would not have made that prophecy.
You also refused to answer the question of whether God unchangeably ordained you to commit the last sin you committed. I say that God knew with certainty that you would commit that sin, but you could have chosen not to, because according to the BIBLE God promised He would never let you be tempted beyond what you could bear.
The problem with Pastor Loz is that he thinks that actualizing a possible world (which is what we were talking about) is not causative. I agree that foreknowledge is not causative, but actualizing a world kinda has to be causative, doesn’t it? Anyway, I’ve decided to not comment anymore. All I get is the same ten responses over and over again. If these people were trying to convince me that we are not just cosmic puppets, they were doing a terrible job of it, since I’m pretty sure most of the people here are practically “libertarian” NPCs.
One of your many problems is that you can’t distinguish who said what, since I believe actializing a specific world is causative.
spurcalluth
I’m pretty sure most of the people here are practically “libertarian” NPCs.
br.d
He said – while fully assuming the function of CONTRA-CAUSAL CHOICE granted to himself by his doctrine :-]
Well, that’s where they start with the special pleading. ERRRYBODY else has libertarian free will, but in that ONE case with that ONE choice, Judas suddenly didn’t have libertarian free will anymore. I’ve seen it many times.
No special pleading. Judas freely chose to betray Jesus. Jesus foreknew what he would freeluy choose.
Once Jesus foreknows Judas’s decision to betray Jesus, then Judas must betray Jesus or Jesus’s foreknowledge is fallible. Knowing you, I believe you would like to believe that Judas is free to choose otherwise and Jesus is bound by Judas’s free choice to betray or not betray Jesus and Jesus’s knowledge of Judas’s choices are fallible. That’s what happens when you press human logic on Jesus the Son of God. You have a Jesus who is more human, that is dependent on Judas’s free choice to know what He knows, than Jesus, God the Son, where Judas’s “free choice” is dependent on Jesus. That’s what happens, those are the conclusions you come to, when you begin with man’s freedom, in this case Judas’s freedom, rather God’s freedom, in this case Jesus’s freedom.
<<>>
This is a very common mental blockage that Calvinists have. And as much as you deny it, you are making God out to be INCAPABLE of foreknowing man’s free will choices. Jesus perfectly foreknew what Judas would freely choose. That doesn’t “bind” Jesus to anything. That doesn’t make God “dependent” on anything. That simply means God’s foreknowledge is so exhaustive that He knows every choice that Judas and every other human being will make. Your god just isn’t that clever.
In addition, your god has to CAUSE Judas to betray Him. As if Judas’s depravity is insufficient and he would not have betrayed Jesus without that additional intervention to “render it certain”. Your god isn’t free at all in Calvinism. Your god is not allowed to exercise His sovereignty by giving man a genuine choice between accepting and rejecting salvation.
So I will ask you this question. Yes or no. Is God capable of knowing free will choices?
I really don’t see how you can have on the one hand that Person_X lives in a world where he would not be able to do anything other than choose to walk to the left, and on the other hand simultaneously have that “But it is still the case that you did not determine Person_X’s choice”. Unless Person_X has some mystical ability to jump worlds, he still has only one option, which you have repeatedly told me means that he has no real choice, and furthermore, it is because I actualized the specific world that he is in, that directly causes him to have no real choice. I don’t see how this is not hard determinism: There is not a single real choice that Person_X could make, and therefore he has no free will at all.
What you have is THEORETICAL humans having theoretical libertarian human functionality. ACTUAL human beings do not have either theoretical or actual libertarian human functionality. What’s the point of talking about what MERELY THEORETICAL human beings can do? I don’t see how theoretical human beings are relevant to actual soteriology.
spurcalluth:
What’s the point of talking about what MERELY THEORETICAL human beings can do? I don’t see how theoretical human beings are relevant to actual soteriology.
roland:
I also fail to see the relevance of theoretical human beings when we have truths revealed from God of what humans are really like.
roland:
I also fail to see the relevance of theoretical human beings when we have truths revealed from God of what humans are really like
br.d
Why not TELL THE TRUTH and acknowledge – in Calvinism what humans are really like at any micros-second – is EXACTLY and ONLY what Calvin’s god PERMITS and MAKES them to irresistibly be.
Then you would be a TRUTH TELLING Calvinist :-]
The reason we are not here “telling the truth” is that it wasn’t the topic. Apparently you believe that if you don’t say every possible “fact” that could exist in some possible universe somewhere, regardless of how irrelevant it is to the topic at hand, then you are lying.
Exactly, a high standard pressed upon Calvinist but not applicable to non-calvinists. Of course brd. does not have tell all truth when he posts a comment. That’s only a standard for Calvinists. It is more of his petty and microscopic criticisms of something he finds unpalatable: God’s sovereignty as revealed in Scripture and man’s wicked depravity as revealed in Scripture. He likes to reverse them: according to br.d, man is sovereign and God is wickedly deprave!
MORE FUN WITH CALVINISM’S REJECTION OF LIBERTARIAN HUMAN FUNCTIONALITY
EVERY CALVINIST FULLY ASSUMES LIBERTARIAN FUNCTIONALITY FOR HIMSELF
1) Every Calvinist fully assumes he is granted more than one single option for any human impulse in his life.
Such a condition is ONLY available in a Libertarian world – because a predestined event or impulse can only resolve to one SINGLE (predetermined at the foundation of the world) option or impulse.
2) Every Calvinist who after committing a sin or evil – fully assumes he COULD HAVE DONE OTHERWISE.
Such a condition is ONLY available in a Libertarian world – because it is logically impossible to DO OTHERWISE than what was infallibly decreed. And in Calvinism every human impulse is infallibly decreed and comes to pass unchangeably and irresistibly.
3) Every Calvinist fully assumes he has the function of CHOICE which only logically exists where more than one option (i.e. an ALTERNATIVE from that which is infallibly decreed) is granted to the creature. Such a condition is ONLY available in a Libertarian world because there is no such thing as an ALTERNATIVE of that which has been infallibly decreed.
CONCLUSION:
Every Calvinist fully ASSUMES the attributes of LIBERTARIAN human functionality
They just can’t allow themselves to call those attributes LIBERTARIAN.
In other words – the doctrine does not permit them to call a spade a spade.
Romans 8:7 clearly says that the carnal mind is enmity against God. This is NEVER available under LFW.
This is why I became a Calvinist and why I am still a Calvinist. Scriptural data such as Romans 8:7 presents to us man as being AGAINST God. It is until God changes a sinners heart that a person even begins to deal with their sin, to have conviction of sin, seek a solution for their sin, and so on. Apart from God’s gracious work man in his fallen state hates God.
Expository preaching is a form of that scripture, too. But keep in mind that the chapter is talking to believers, and telling believers to LIVE in the spirit, and not the flesh, in that even believers can live carnally, and not spiritually. Therefore, Calvinists have a TOTALLY different take on the context aka EXEGESIS than what it really implies.
Ed Chapman
chamaned24:
Therefore, Calvinists have a TOTALLY different take on the context aka EXEGESIS than what it really implies.
roland
And what TOTALLY different take would that be? Which Calvinist would have that take on the text? I’m curious to know.
I like the sarcasm!! However, the calvinist take on that scripture is that the un-regenerate can be nothing but carnal minded, and that the regenerate are not carnal minded. Therefore, it’s impossible for the elect to be carnal minded. At least, that’s how the calvinist conveys the conversation. But… expository preaching is nothing but carnal interpretation, nothing spiritual. Unless it’s explicitly stated. Take jonah’s 3 days and 3 nights as a huge example. Expository, it’s all about jonah’s disobedience. That’s the main focus in every preaching I’ve ever heard. But spiritually, it’s not about jonah at all. It’s about the death and resurrection of Jesus. We never hear that at all in preaching. That’s the difference between carnal thinking and spiritual thinking. Things of the flesh (body, visible), vs the spirit (invisible) aka, things seen, vs. things unseen.
Calvin’s commentary on Matthew 12:40:
“A sign shall not be given to it. They had already been convicted by various miracles, and Christ does not abstain from exerting his power among them, for the purpose of rendering them inexcusable, but only means that one sign would stand for all, because they were unworthy of having their ungodly desire granted. “Let them rest satisfied,” says he, “with this sign, that as Jonah, brought up from the bottom of the sea, preached to the Ninevites, so they will hear the voice of a prophet risen from the dead.” The most of commentators, I am aware, display greater ingenuity in expounding this passage; but as the resemblance between Christ and Jonah does not hold at every point, we must inquire in what respect Christ compares himself to Jonah. For my own part, leaving the speculations of other men, I think that Christ intends to mark out that single point of resemblance which I have already hinted, that he will be their prophet after that he is risen from the dead. “You despise,” he says, “the Son of God, who has come down to you from heaven: but I am yet to die, and to rise from the grave, and to speak to you after my resurrection, as Jonah came from the bottom of the sea to Nineveh.” In this manner our Lord cuts off every pretense for their wicked demands, by threatening that he will be their Prophet after his resurrection, since they do not receive him while clothed with mortal flesh.”
Taken from Calvin’s commentary on https://biblehub.com/commentaries/calvin/matthew/12.htm
You wrote that Calvinists don’t apply spiritual lessons from text of Scripture due to their exegesis. I provided you Calvin’s commentary where he does do so. I don’t believe you’re familiar enough with Calvinists to make such statements.
How do you define a “spiritual” lesson Roland?
And what is the “spiritual” lesson in your example?
You sound pretty skeptical about what I stated earlier, which is why you quote Calvin, and it sounds like he doesn’t put much stock in it either. But here is the thing. Jonah was a prophet. Jonah is a part of the HEBREW CANON. Why? So God can tell the world what a bad man that jonah was for not wanting to go to Nineveh? Hmmmmm, not likely. Jesus called jonah a prophet. And then after Jesus rose from the dead, Jesus EXPOUNDED and told his disciples/apostles that everything written in the Law of Moses, and THE PROPHETS, and the Psalms, concerning him had to happen. Commentary of Ed Chapman: The purpose of THE PROPHETS is to prophesy Jesus. That includes Jonah. There is, to me, no other purpose. If you wish to get a morality story from it, by all means, do, but that’s the flesh, not the spirit. The sole purpose of jonah was to tell a story of Jesus, as are all the PROPHETS, Psalms, and The Law of Moses. Calvin doesn’t know that… or care, does he? It sounds like Calvin used jonah as an insignificant by chance example, rather than prophesy. But this is what Romans 9 is all about. Anyway, like I said in my last Flesh vs Spirit.
Oh, and I never said anything about learning “spiritual lessons”. I’m discussing spiritual matters, not lessons. Matters about Jesus fulfillment of prophesy, not lessons.
Luke 24:27
And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.
Note the word ALL, as in ALL THE PROPHETS. Jonah is one of the all.
Another reference…
Luke 24:44
And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.
Jesus called Jonah a prophet. So this is confirming that jonah prophesied about Jesus. Calvin makes it sound as if jonah was just an “Oh, by the way…”
Ed Chapman
Ok.
Roland,
I’d like for you to EXPOUND Johah Chapter 2, when you have time. You had said:
but as the resemblance between Christ and Jonah does not hold at every point, we must inquire in what respect Christ compares himself to Jonah. For my own part, leaving the speculations of other men, I think that Christ intends to mark out that single point of resemblance which I have already hinted, that he will be their prophet after that he is risen from the dead. “You despise,” he says, “the Son of God, who has come down to you from heaven: but I am yet to die, and to rise from the grave, and to speak to you after my resurrection, as Jonah came from the bottom of the sea to Nineveh.” In this manner our Lord cuts off every pretense for their wicked demands, by threatening that he will be their Prophet after his resurrection, since they do not receive him while clothed with mortal flesh.”
But I see Jonah Chapter 2 discussing THE WHOLE of every point.
There are spiritual words and phrases that you need to address, which shows the what Jesus experienced, while dead.
Then take it back to chapter 1, the last verse. It’s about Jesus, told in the story of Jonah.
Similar references are also in:
2 Samuel 22:4-51 with Psalms 18:3-50
I would strongly suggest reading both. They are the same, with the exception of just ONE verse. After that, then re-read Jonah chapter 2 again.
Ed Chapman
Your experience with expository preaching is not universal. I’ve personally heard expository preaching about Jonah that went into some detail about the parallel with Jesus’ death and resurrection.
Roland
Romans 8:7 presents to us man as being AGAINST God.
br.d
But for the Calvinist this statement is a lie by omission.
lie by omission occurs – when a statement strategically misleads people – by virtue of omitting critical facts.
The critical fact your statement omits is the fact that man is TOTALLY CONTROLLED by Calvin’s god – such that every impulse that comes to pass in his brain – is made to come to pass irresistibly.
In Calvinism – lies by omission are not considered a sin – as long as the Calvinist is lying for the sake of Calvinism – which he is told is lying for the sake of “god”.
God is TOTALLY IN CONTROL but does not totally control every impulse in human thinking. You continue to build up strawman Calvinism, following your cult leader Leighton Flowers, so that you can easily tear it down. You accuse Calvinists of deception but it is you who continues to deceive by your misrepresentations of Calvinism.
Roland
God is TOTALLY IN CONTROL but does not totally control every impulse in human thinking.
br.d
Oh Really???
In Calvinism – Calvin’s god foresees *ALL* movements of nature as a CONSEQUENCE of the decree
If he foresees every impulse that will come to pass in your brain – then he decreed every impulse that will come to pass in your brain.
Unless you want to argue that there are impulses in your brain that come to pass that he does not know about and thus did not decree
Let’s see you wiggle out of that one! :-]
God is TOTALLY in control, but does not totally control…
SPLAIN that one, Lucy!
What you are really saying is that God is NOT totally in control if there is SOMETHING that God does not control. There is no possilbe MATHEMATICAL equation that can compute your “logic”.
spurcalluth
Romans 8:7 clearly says that the carnal mind is enmity against God. This is NEVER available under LFW.
br.d
If you REALLY believed that
1) You would acknowledge that your perception of CHOICE (which can only exist in a Libertarian world) must therefore be an infallibly decreed FALSE PERCEPTION.
2) You would acknowledge that your brains ability to Determine TRUE from FALSE on any matter does not exist – because doing so would require a CONTRA-CAUSAL CHOICE – which by definition only exists as an ATTRIBUTE of LFW.
3) Then after every instance in which you committed a sin – you would acknowledge an infallible decree did not PERMIT you to DO OTHERWISE
And I could go – with more examples of human function that only exists where LFW exists.
But those 3 are sufficient to show that you REALLY don’t believe LFW does not exist.
You ASSUME LFW every time you perceive yourself as having the ability to discern TRUE from FALSE
Your situation is that your doctrine doesn’t permit you to call a spade a spade.
There is zero point in talking to any of you. I have wasted enough of my time and my energy on people who are as pig-headed as the feast in Asterix’s house. I think I should just go. Of course, I’ll still check in on the articles on this website, and I will still watch the Jerry Walls videos, but if I want to talk to a wall, I have some in my house that might be more interesting and more capable of actual response.
Don’t forget to shut the door on your way out!
Oops, I nearly forgot! Thanks for reminding me, Satan’s kiddo!
Well done, you just called Yahweh Satan! That’s on you.
Pig headed is the Calvinist’s colloquial term for rational thinking! :-]
And just think… as a calvinist, God caused you to waste your time. So shouldn’t you be praising God for this waste of time? After all, good comes out of time wasted.
Calvin’s god made the impulse to waste his time here – infallibly and irresistibly come to pass within his brain
And everyone knows that infallible decree would not permit his brain to DO OTHERWISE.
So obviously Calvin’s god had a reason for wasting his time.
And the typical reason John Calvin gives – is -quote “For his good pleasure”
In such case – it was Calvin’s god’s good pleasure to waste his time.
At least – that is how someone who **REALLY** believes the doctrine of decrees would see it! :-]
Roland: “You accuse Calvinists of deception but it is you who continues to deceive by your misrepresentations of Calvinism.”
Heather: And yet who ordained that? Who is glorified by it?
The silliness of Calvinist “misrepresentation” argument is that – those things which are “represented” which the Calvinist disagrees with – are the obvious IMPLICATIONS of the Calvinist’s belief system.
Its the IMPLICATIONS that the Calvinist disagrees with.
A Calvinist may be happy to acknowledge 2×3=6 as part of his belief system
But he then rejects the obvious IMPLICATION that 6/3=2
So he calls that IMPLICATION a “misrepresentation” :-]
brd:
Its the IMPLICATIONS that the Calvinist disagrees with
roland
Of course you AGREE with the implications of your libertarian freewill views, correct? You would agree then that if sinners make a libertarian freewill choice, that is a choice free from God’s determinations, predeterminations or the constrains of human nature, God could not have saved you?
You would agree that apart from your libertarian free choice you would have never come to Christ? You would have never believed? You would have never repented?
You would agree then that if sinners make a libertarian freewill choice, that is a choice free from God’s determinations, predeterminations or the constrains of human nature, God could not have saved you?
You would agree that apart from your libertarian free choice you would have never come to Christ? You would have never believed? You would have never repented?
Your first question is nonsensical. It is God who sovereignly chose to give man the choice between accepting and rejecting salvation. If God had wanted to make salvation irresistible, He could have done so. He did not.
Pastor Loz
If God had wanted to make salvation irresistible, He could have done so. He did not.
roland
Sorry my friend but God does give grace that is irresistible to HIs elect. God’s grace is efficacious, it does what God intended to do, and that was to have a people for Himself. The redemption of God’s elect was accomplished by Christ and is applied by the Holy Spirit through the preaching of the Gospel unto all the world.
God does save sinners. God doesn’t try to save sinners, He saves them. He doesn’t save them because of some foreknowledge He has of their future decisions but He saves them because they God’s and God gave them to Christ and Christ will not lose anything the Father has given Him. Read John 17, Christ did not pray for the world, He prayed for the Father’s gift to Him, His Church.
Shame for you that you didn’t read the whole of John 17, instead of just your cherry picked out of context verses. If you had, you would have realized that Jesus DID actually pray for the world, later in that same chapter. You are just reciting the calvinist script rather than studying for yourself.
John 17:9-10
9 “I pray for them. I DO NOT PRAY FOR THE WORLD but for those whom You have given Me, for they are Yours. 10 And all Mine are Yours, and Yours are Mine, and I am glorified in them.
20 “I do not pray for these alone, but also for those WHO WILL BELIEVE in Me through their word; 21 that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me.
Jesus did not pray for the world, He prayed for His disciples and those would will believe in Him, that is all other believers.
Just goes to show how a person can read a verse, and even copy and paste, yet be so blinkered by their presuppositions they don’t even see what it says:
20 “I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word; 21 that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, THAT THE WORLD MAY BELIEVE that You sent Me.
Goes to show you how someone presuppositions that the word “world” in Scripture means each and every person, when it doesn’t.
If Jesus prayed for each and every person in the world, you must believe that Jesus’s prayer was ineffective? Because people He prayed for are in hell as they refused to believe. He must have prayed for Judas because He knew Judas had libertarian freewill and He knew all the possible choices Judas was going to make. Jesus really rolled the dice on that one. He prayed for Judas but it was ineffective, the Father did not hear Jesus’s prayer.
Roland
If Jesus prayed for each and every person in the world, you must believe that Jesus’s prayer was ineffective?
br.d
That depends upon the presupposition you bring to the text which defines what “effective” means.
<<>>
Goes to show you are making unwarranted assumptions when you don’t know the facts. “World” in Scripture means different things depending on the context, and the context makes the intended meaning clear. In John’s epistles it has three different meanings and none of them mean “the world of the elect” as calvinists would have us believe.
<<>>
Goes to show you didn’t pay attention to what Jesus actually prayed. Hardly surprising as you didn’t even realize Jesus prayed for the world in this chapter until you were told. Jesus prayed that believers would be one so that the world MAY believe. Do you know what the word “may means”? It means that the world would have the OPPORTUNITY to believe, the POSSIBILITY of believing. See, what you did when you finally read that verse, was you read “that the world WILL believe”. It’s like John 6:44 where calvinists cannot tell the difference between CAN and WILL, between enabling and causation.
It is the same in John 20:31 “But these are written that you MAY believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.” Incidentally a verse that blows the calvinist myth of regeneration preceding faith out of the water.
<<>>
Goes to show you make assumptions about HOW Jesus would have prayed for Judas. See above. Praying for someone does not remove their freedom to choose, thus if they choose wrongly, it does not render the prayer ineffective. B
You guys fall in this trap every time when you discuss things from the gospels that are NOT MEANT for gentiles. Those Jesus was discussing were already followers of God via the law of Moses, and Jesus is transferring them from the law of Moses to the law of Christ. Jesus is the one who gave them spiritual sight to see, which is one reason it is said that Jesus came to give sight to the blind.
Gentiles are a whole other ballgame to play, which is why he didn’t pray for the world in John 17.
Ed Chapman
Roland, is the reformed view of regeneration that it is a saving grace? If so, doesn’t Paul teach clearly saving grace goes through faith (Eph 2:8-9)? If you believe it does, then regeneration must go through faith, which is confirmed in a number of clear verses.
Consider this… 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.
I had something similar Brian. There are so many Scriptures that invalidate the calvinist claim of regeneration before faith, including:
Acts 11:18 “God granted Gentiles REPENTANCE UNTO LIFE.” Not life unto repentance. You 1st have to come to Jesus + be united to Him by faith to be regenerated to life. no life before being united to Christ/Life by faith
John 5:40 “yet you refuse to COME TO ME TO HAVE LIFE.” 1. Come to Me (by faith) to. Regenerated Life. It does not say that they refused to come to Him because they did not have life.
1 John 5:11-12 God has given us eternal life, + this life is in his Son. He who has the Son has life; HE WHO DOES NOT HAVE THE SON OF GOD DOES NOT HAVE LIFE. You can only have Son by faith, + if you do not have Son by being united to Him by faith 1st, you do not have life (regeneration). YOU cannot have life before you have the Son.
John 20:31 But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that BY BELIEVING YOU MAY HAVE LIFE in his name.
John 3:36-4:1 Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, WHOEVER REJECTS THE SON WILL NOT SEE LIFE, FOR GOD’S WRATH REMAINS ON HIM.” 1. Those who do not believe will not see life and remain under wrath to. Those who believe have life (could not have been before belief because those in unbelief will not see life, see first point) 3. Eternal life begins at regeneration
Rom 8:10 if Christ is in you, YOUR SPIRIT IS ALIVE BECAUSE OF RIGHTEOUSNESS. Person’s spirit made alive (regeneration) BECAUSE OF righteousness + you are made righteous by faith. Order: 1. Faith to. Christ’s righteousness imputed 3. Spirit comes alive YOU do not have an alive spirit prior to justification by faith. If You did, You would be a born again spiritual child who is impure, condemned, + still under wrath until faith, but this is not possible. YOU must be made righteous in Christ first, then God makes you alive in Him.
John 5:24-25 WHOEVER HEARS MY WORD + BELIEVES him who sent me has eternal life + will not be condemned; HE HAS CROSSED OVER FROM DEATH TO LIFE…a time is coming and HAS NOW COME when the DEAD WILL HEAR the voice of the Son of God + THOSE WHO HEAR WILL LIVE. 1. Word to. Hear (receive the Word) 3. Live It does not say life/alive and then hear, but hear and then live.
Acts 15:9 He PURIFIED THEIR HEARTS BY FAITH. Does not say faith was result of pure hearts. Pure hearts are made by having faith first. Again the order is: 1.Faith to.Pure (new) hearts.
John 1:12-13 TO ALL WHO RECEIVED him, TO THOSE WHO BELIEVED in his name, HE GAVE the right to become CHILDREN of God- CHILDREN born not of natural descent or a husband’s will, but BORN OF GOD. Right to be born of God given to those who believe. V13 simply clarification of birth that takes place for those who believe in v12. The order presented is: 1. Belief to. Right to become children born of God
Galatians 3:26 You are all SONS OF GOD THROUGH FAITH in Christ Jesus, Through faith you are born again into the family. You become a spiritual son by faith. 1.Faith to.Regeneration into a spiritual son.
John 12:36 PUT YOUR TRUST IN THE LIGHT…SO THAT YOU MAY BECOME SONS OF LIGHT. When you put your trust in the Light, you then can become sons. 1.Trust to.Become regenerated spiritual sons
Eph 1:13 you also were INCLUDED IN CHRIST WHEN YOU HEARD THE WORD OF TRUTH, the gospel of your salvation. HAVING BELIEVED, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised HOLY SPIRIT 1. Hear the Word of truth to. Believe the Word of truth. 3. Included in Christ / Sealed by the Spirit
Gal 3:to DID YOU RECEIVE THE SPIRIT by observing the law, or BY BELIEVING WHAT YOU HEARD? Recipient hears Word to. Recipient believes Word 3. Spirit is received
Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Regenerated eternal life is only “in” Christ, not “outside of”, and “prior to” Christ.
1 Tim 1:16 I was shown mercy so that in me…Christ Jesus might display his unlimited patience as an example for THOSE WHO WOULD BELIEVE on him + RECEIVE ETERNAL LIFE. 1. Belief to. Life (regeneration) Eternal life begins with new birth
Col to:12 ” having been BURIED WITH HIM IN BAPTISM, in which you were also RAISED WITH HIM THROUGH YOUR FAITH in the working of God, who RAISED him FROM THE DEAD.” 1. Faith to be baptized and through faith to be raised. to. Raised to life with Christ
Jas 1:18 He chose to give us BIRTH THROUGH THE WORD OF TRUTH 1. Word of truth to. Belief in truth (assumed) 3. Birth (regeneration). In Calvinism Word always rejected by an unregenerate sinner, therefore, it could never be means of birth. Person would have to be made alive first to have the Word of Truth have any affect upon a person. And then, it would have said, He chose to give us faith in the Word through the new birth, but opposite is true.
Amen! Great list, Brother Loz! You can add John 20:31 “through believing you might have life”.
Brian, thanks for your comment and your help in helping me understand Sola Scriptura, which as a Reformed believer I hold to. Yes, the Reformed view is that regeneration is a saving grace from God.
“Regeneration is the beginning of all saving grace in us, and all saving grace in exercise on our part proceeds from the fountain of regeneration. We are not born again by faith or repentance or conversion; we repent and believe because we have been regenerated.” John Murray in his book Redemption Accomplished and Applied.
The question I will attempt to answer is: Does faith precede regeneration or does regeneration precede faith?
As a Reformed believer I would hold to the biblical, historical and traditional view that the Bible teaches that regeneration precedes faith. There is some disagreement in the Reformed camp about the nuances of whether regeneration precedes faith. Someone here may find Reformed theologians arguing for faith preceding regeneration.
First, I believe that regeneration, described as being “born from above,” is not of the human will but of God’s will. John 1:12-13. Someone may argue that there is a temporal connection between vv. 12 and 13, that one must receive Christ to be born again. I would agree with D.A. Carson in his commentary on the Gospel of John:
“In fact, these verses (vv. 12 and 13) refrain from spelling out the connection between faith and new birth. Those who receive the Word are identical to those who believe in His name, and they are identical with those who are born of God.”
Second, regeneration is a new birth from the Holy Spirit, John 3:3-8. Just as a new born is passive in his birth, they do not induce or cooperate in their procreation and birth, so is believers’ new birth. It is a sovereign work of God. Human nature is unable to produce the new birth by faith because the new birth must come from God, John 3:6. Regeneration is according to God’s own will:
John 3:8 the wind blows where it wishes…
James 1:18
18 Of His own will He brought us forth by the word of truth, that we might be a kind of firstfruits of His creatures.
Third, regeneration is an act of re-creation. Creation is God’s work alone and God’s re-creation is His work alone as well, 2 Corinthians 5:17; Ephesians 2:10.
Fourth, regeneration is God taking spiritually dead persons and making them spiritually alive, Ephesians 2:5.
Fifth, the new birth produces spiritual fruit in a believer’s life such as repentance, faith, love for God and neighbor, righteous deeds, and victory over the world.
1 John 2:29 everyone who practices righteousness is born of Him (God).
1 John 3:9 whoever has been born of God does not sin…
1 John 4:7 Beloved, let us love one another, for love is of God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God.
1 John 5:1 Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and everyone who loves Him who begot also loves him who is begotten of Him.
1 John 5:4 For whatever is born of God overcomes the world. And this is the victory that has overcome the world—our faith.
I would also point to the Old Testament statements of God circumcising the heart of Israel. For example, God commanded Israel in Deuteronomy 10:16 Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no longer stubborn. We know by reading the Old Testament never obeyed but remained stubborn. Therefore, circumcision of their heart required a work of God.
Deuteronomy 30:6
6 And the Lord your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your offspring, so that you will love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live.
In the OT, circumcision of the heart, a free act by God, results in loving God. We need a new heart in order to love God.
In the NT we have Paul writing to the Colossians 2:11 In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, (I believe this is analogous to Deuteronomy 30:6)
Then there are the many promises of God to give a new heart to His people in Jeremiah 24:7; 31:31-34; 32:39 and Ezekiel 11:14-20; 36:22-28. There are many examples of regeneration being a free act of God that does not require the participation or permission of men.
Thanks for reading, God bless.
Brian, regarding your analogy of the truck driving through the tunnel to deliver the goods. I would not disregard the driver of the truck. I would say that Scripture presents to us a picture of the truck driver as not wanting to drive through the tunnel and not wanting to deliver the goods. In the doctrine of regeneration, human nature needs to be taken into consideration. We are totally depraved. If we are not totally depraved, then what reason is there for us to have a need to be born from above or resurrected with Christ?
Christ said to Nicodemus, unless a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of heaven. We need a new nature because our old nature is completely corrupt in mind, heart, soul, and body. If our old nature, our flesh, can enter God’s kingdom by faith or believe to be born again, why did not Christ put it this way? Believe, be born again, and then see the kingdom of heaven.
Thanks for reading, God bless.
It’s very sad Roland that you wish to believe “that Scripture presents to us a picture of a truck driver as not wanting to drive through the tunnel and not wanting to deliver the goods”.
That only shows your loyalty to your theology and a ignorance of what Scripture clearly teaches often about God’s love and mercy for all.
God continually pleads with the unregenerate and ungodly because He is definitely “wanting to drive through the tunnel” of their trust in Him and to deliver His regeneration mercy.
Jesus was exhorting an unregenerate Nicodemus to believe. Wasn’t Jesus doing that? Wasn’t Jesus wanting that unregenerate man to come to trust in God’s mercy and be born again?
I hope you will read Scriptures looking for all the evidence of God’s love for them unregenerate. And recognize also that you completely ignored the clear Scriptures I gave you that were showing regeneration is through faith, but you focused instead on critiquing my illustration.
That infers that you have no solid reasoning against the teaching of those verses that I gave showing regeneration is through faith, not before faith. Right?
Brian, in your driving through the tunnel analogy, who is driving the truck?
I understood it as humans seeking faith through the tunnel to deliver the goods. Am I wrong?
Brian, I posted two responses to your post to me regarding regeneration. Did you read both responses?
Roland, See my second response also.
Brian
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.
Roland
True, there is a very close relationship between regeneration and faith. I don’t believe that faith comes before regeneration. Hebrews 11:6 And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him
In our old nature I do not believe we can do anything to please God, see Romans 8, so our old nature needs to regenerated. We need to be granted spiritual life, we need to be born again, regenerated, so that we may have faith or believe in Christ.
However, I do see by the verses you provided that an argument can be made that faith precedes regeneration. But if faith is something that pleases God, we can exercise faith in our old nature, then what need is there for a new nature (new birth, regeneration)? What stops the old nature from continuing to please God, which according to non-calvinists is done by faith, in sanctification, justification, adoption, glorification?
Can we proceed to these other aspects of the Christian life in our old nature if we can believe (have faith) in our old nature? I fail to see at least logically (I know I’m going to get burned on this one because I’m a fideist) how we can please God in belief without regeneration and that we could not please God in other ways in our old nature.
Thanks for reading, God bless.
Roland, didn’t see this reply until after I wrote my first reply. Thank you for conceding that you see how the verses I gave show regeneration is through faith.
Your questions in response to try to remain loyal to the false teaching of regeneration before faith have easy answers if you’re open to them.
Faith is not a sufficient cause of pleasing God, only the blood of Jesus and the regenerating work of the Spirit are sufficient to please/satisfy God. The truck and driver cause the satisfaction. But the faith is a necessary condition that God sovereignly wants met first. It doesn’t cause the new birth. The new birth goes through it.
Maybe this will help. Three gifts of faith from God. ability faith, the revelation faith, established faith
First the ability to “believe” is a gift of God at birth to all. Second, the information, at least sufficient light, or revelation to enable seeking His mercy, which He paid for in Christ, is given a few times in their life to each person as “the faith” to trust or at least to begin seeking for further understanding.
That enlightenment (that revelation “faith”) and opportunity to believe it (to exercise their ability faith in that “faith”) is given by God to each person. When they put their ability faith in the revelation faith/truth of the gospel, then, God brings a change in the ability “faith” by the new birth so that it will “continually believe” in the revelation “faith”. The ability “faith” transforms into established “faith”. This established “faith” is given to each who exercises their God-given ability to believe (ability faith) in the God-given information (revelation faith) when the opportunity is there, which is when they are born again by God.
But God doesn’t do the believing for us.
*******
Yep… believing the Scriptures according to normal rules of grammar and context does oppose Calvinism. The noun “faith” with the definite article “the” normally refers to enlightenment or what is being called “revelation faith”, which is what God must give and does give to everyone at least a few times in their life (Heb 12:2, John 1:9).
The verb “believe” is the ability-faith, and the parable of the sower (Matt 13) proves unregenerate people can and do exercise that faith in a positive way in God’s Word. The shallow and thorny soils exercised faith in the Word before regeneration.
The verb “believe” in Greek, in the present tense, denotes continuous action, and stands for the unending believing that starts when one is born into God’s family. They had expressed their ability-faith in Jesus, which is now changed to be everlasting or established faith (1John 5:1, Phil 1:29). Praise His Name!
Brian, thanks for the response. I’m wondering, since you believe all have the ability to believe, why do some believe and some do not believe?
Do you believe there is something distinctive which marks out believers from non-believers? If so, what would that be? If not, why is there not something distinctive between non-believers and believers?
I’m not trying to be argumentative, so hopefully my words are perceived as charitable, at least the questions I’m asking. I just want to understand more of where you’re coming from. I’m not looking for “ammunition” to attack you. I’d like to read your response, thanks.
Roland, thank you for the questions. But I think if you read again my discussion of the 3 gifts of faith, it answers those questions. People choose, must choose, to believe in something.
The ability to believe, given at birth, must be exercised. God provides the sufficient opportunity to exercise it in truth that He provides to lead them to repentance and salvation.
But they are also free to refuse to exercise it in those enlightenment opportunities. Those who do keep trusting the truth that they receive from God will ultimately get the opportunity to make a trust commitment in Jesus as Savior. Through that faith they will receive the new birth that also confirms in them that faith forever. Does that help any?
Brian
Does that help any?
roland
Yes, it does. I also went back and read your other response, that helped as well.
Allow me to explain my frame of thinking a little bit. I guess I was looking for a cause or an inclination as to why some exercise faith and others don’t. God has created us with physical needs such as breathing, eating, drinking, etc. When a person makes a decision to drink a glass of water, there is usually some cause or inclination to make a decision to drink water. It could be that we are thirsty, so we feel or see the need to drink water. It could be that we are hot and a nice cup of cold water will bring some relief. It could be that we are coughing and a drink or several drinks of water will relieve the cough. It could be that we are taking a medication and we decide to take our medicine with water. It could be that we are having a contest as to who can drink a cup of water the fastest.
I believe our spiritual needs are comparable to our decisions we make regarding the physical. But with one significant factor as revealed in Scripture. When it comes to our spiritual needs, God’s Word describes us as blind or deaf to our spiritual needs. So in order for us to see, we need to be able to see and hear. With that as my understanding, I believe God gives us the ability to see and hear. I believe you would agree. Once we are able to see and hear our spiritual needs and we are given the opportunity to believe, some believe and some don’t. Some choose to take a drink and some choose not to.
John 5:40
But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life.
Why are some sinners “willing to come” and others are not willing to come? Is there a cause of their willing to come? Is there an inclination of their willing to come?
I agree that in order for a sinner to have life, they must be willing to come. As a Reformed believer I would say that the cause of our willing to come to Christ is God’s regenerative work in His elect.
Matthew 16:17 Jesus answered and said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.
Why was Peter able to confess that Jesus is the Christ? The text says because God revealed it to Peter, It had nothing to do with Peter’s flesh.
Matthew 11:28-29 are very famous verses that are often used in inviting sinners to come to Christ. Great truth, there is rest in Christ’s work for the sinner! But these verses are often read out of context. For in
Matthew 11:25 At that time Jesus answered and said, “I thank You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and prudent and have revealed them to babes. 26 Even so, Father, for so it seemed good in Your sight. 27 All things have been delivered to Me by My Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father. Nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and the one to whom the Son wills to reveal Him.
The truth is God hides things from the wise and prudent. He hides the truth of Jesus as Christ. He reveals it to whom He pleases and reveals these things because “it seemed good in Your sight.” If it is good in God’s sight to hide truths, then it should be good in my sight as well for God to hide things.
Thanks for reading, sorry for the long post. Again, not looking to be argumentative, and you feel no need to respond, I’m okay with that, I won’t take offense. If you don’t want to answer or belie you have already answered, great.
<<>>
Calvinists are not consistent on this point. Most Calvinists argue that unregenerate people are totally spiritually deaf and blind spiritual corpses, utterly incapable of responding positively to the Gospel. In your statement above you appear to be disagreeing with this view and taking the common non-calvinist view, which is that God enables all to believe, and thus it becomes a question of willingness or unwillingness, as shown by John 5:40.
<<>>
So now you are saying that they CANNOT be willing, they will never be willing, unless regenerated. So that becomes a distinction without a difference, since putting your two statements together you are saying:
They are ABLE to come, but they are NOT WILLING to come, and they CANNOT BE WILLING to come. If they CANNOT BE WILLING to come, that is no different to them being UNABLE to come.
No, I am not saying that God enables all men to come but that they are not willing. I hold to the traditional Reformed view that men are not able because they are not willing. Unregenerate sinners have not ability to come because they are not willing to come. Coming to Christ, believing in Christ, are issues of the will. These are issues of desires and affections.
I don’t understand how ability is relevant to come to Christ. I understand physical abilities such as being able to dunk basketball. I’ve never understood the idea of spiritual abilities.
What do you mean by “ability”? Do sinners have spiritual abilities? Is there such a thing as spiritual ability like there are physical abilities? Would you explain, please, or expand on this? What would be some examples of spiritual abilities if there are any?
Thanks.
Roland
No, I am not saying that God enables all men to come but that they are NOT WILLING.
br.d
In Calvinism this is correct!
Because in Calvinism -“Whatsoever Comes To Pass” is the WORKS of a divine infallible decree
Which of course – would have to include “Whatsoever” impulse comes to pass within the human brain.
In this case the impulses Calvin’s god AUTHORS and decrees – are NOT WILLING impulses
Those NOT WILLING impulses come to pass infallibly as do all impulses in Calvinism
And an infallible impulse is IRRESISTIBLE to the creature.
<<>>
This is classic Calvinistic conflation / equivocation of terms. Either you are unable to come, or you are unwilling to come. “Unable to be willing” is a calvinist invention.
<<>>
Ability is extremely relevant to come to Christ. That is why in John 6:44 Jesus said, “No man CAN come to me unless…”. The word can is obviously an expression of ability. Spiritual abilities would include the ability to believe in Christ, the ability to repent, the ability to minister healing, the ability to cast out demons, the ability to speak in tongues, the ability to interpret tongues, the ability to discern between different spirits, the ability to prophesy. Paul said I CAN do all things through Christ, Phil 4:13. That is spiritual ability. It is the ability of the human spirit to function as God designed it to do.
Roland
Unregenerate sinners have no ability to come because they are not willing to come
br.d
Roland – this is another lie by omission!
In Calvinism there is only one NECESSARY CONDITION for whatsoever comes to pass – and it is NOT man’s will.
In Calvinist ethics – lying by omission is not considered a sin if it is done for the sake of Calvinism – (which the Calvinist is taught is for the sake of god)
Let the reader be aware that lying by omission is a common Calvinist practice.
If one does not want to be deceived by Calvinist statements – one needs to be alert and aware of this practice
Calvinist language is NOT a TRUTH-TELLING language – it is a COSMETIC language.
Deuteronomy 29:29 “The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but those things which are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law.
brd’s conclusion: God is lying by omission, God has secret things that belong to Him, therefore He is lying by omission.
Calvinists conclusion: God is sovereign and works all things after the counsel of His own will. If God so chooses to withhold things from humans, it does not necessarily follow that God is lying.
Again, brd subjecting Scripture to logic. This just shows that brd believes logic to be superior to Scripture.
Roland
brd’s conclusion: God is lying by omission, God has secret things that belong to Him, therefore He is lying by omission.
br.d
Now you are outright lying!!!
How sad!!!!!
I wonder which one of your Calvinist pastors taught you to do that?
Roland
Calvinists conclusion: God is sovereign and WORKS ALL THINGS after the counsel of His own will.
br.d
INTERPRETATION
Calvin’s god AUTHORS every impulse that will come to pass within human brains – and makes them come to pass infallibly and thus irresistibly. And for special occasions he “hardens” (which is simply another word for AUTHOR/DETERMINES) the impulses that he AUTHORS/DETERMINES.
Roland
If God so chooses to withhold things from humans, it does not necessarily follow that God is lying.
br.d
You won’t find me stating the god of scripture lies by omission.
Lying by omission is a Calvinist practice.
The Calvinist must lie to himself in order to make his doctrine palatable to himself.
Any time he tells those lies to others – he is thus lying by omission.
This reminds me of a Calvinist tactic I have come across more than a few times:
1. Invent a “secret decretive will” of God that directly contradicts His explicit will.
2. Put the “secret decretive will” into the handy Deuteronomy 29:29 bag
<<>>
If you are using this as the basis upon which God chooses people for salvation, then you have blown a hole in the idea of unconditional election, since it becomes based on the condition of not being wise and prudent.
Roland, I’m wondering if you have never heard answers to your question, which is a common one used by those who want to remain loyal to the reformed theology teaching of divine irresistible drawing of some and divine rejection of all others who were born with inability that God chooses never to mercifully overcome.
Or perhaps all the answers you’ve heard are not irresistibly satisfying to make you change your mind, since you know you’re not free to change your own mind. 😉
Here’s my regular reply to that question. You will see its reasonableness, and you will freely decide to believe it or reject believing it. But your decision will be a matter of faith and personal responsibility. And then there is still all the biblical evidence I shared, and still stands, about faith before regeneration. 🤓
If freewill is true, why do some choose the grace offered and others reject it?
Man freely chooses or rejects because he is made sufficiently free by God to weigh the choices given him, and then his free will decides to trust the valuation he freely made for a certain choice. He often has sufficient understanding of God’s will for some of those choices, but he does not have all information. Thus it is always a decision of faith, even when it’s a rejection of the truth given in an offer of grace or divine warning.
Did Adam freely choose to change his will’s previous decision of obedience to a decision of disobedience? Did he freely choose to listen to his wife’s information and freely weigh it more important than continuing to heed God’s previous warning, or were these new influences compelling and causative for his will to change and for him to choose disobedience?
God made man’s will free so that a true love relationship could exist. Even with the inherited propensity towards sin, from Adam, man’s will is strong enough to respond to any gracious offers from God. There is no eternal, immutable, predestined, meticulous providence of every decision of the human will. That definition of divine providence is a fantasy and unbiblical. Of course, freewill is not stronger than anything that does get immutably predestined by God. And God is still freely making such determinations. But all decisions of personal sin and each personal faith acceptance of grace are freely made and were not eternally, immutably pre-determined by Him.
Why do some reject? It is because they freely choose not to trust in the truth of the sufficient grace when it’s offered, but freely choose instead to trust in a lie or in another truth as if that lie or other truth were of greater value.
Roland
why do some believe and some do not believe?
br.d
If we are going to be logically consistent with Calvinism………
Then the reason is – Divinely AUTHORED irresistible impulses which come to pass within the human brain.
That’s why one Calvinist is designated to perform sins and evils [ A through K ]
While another Calvinist is designated to perform sins and evils [ L through Z ]
Each Calvinist will infallibly perform all of the sins and evils Calvin’s god AUTHORS and DECREES him to perform
It is impossible for the creature to RESIST anything that is infallible.
Thus “whatsoever” comes to pass within the human brain is made “irresistible”.
I get that you personally may not being asking this question in an argumentative fashion. Usually when calvinists ask this question, it IS argumentative and comes in a from such as “Why did you believe and someone else didn’t? Were you a better / smarter person than them?” – leading into us taking credit in some way for our salvation.
I usually turn the question round on calvinists and ask, “Why as a born again believer are you more obedient to God on some days than others? are you a better, smarter person on those days?” Never had an answer yet.
I like it!
Thanks Pastor Loz! :-]
Pastor Loz
I usually turn the question round on calvinists and ask, “Why as a born again believer are you more obedient to God on some days than others? are you a better, smarter person on those days?” Never had an answer yet.
roland
I will provide a response but it is probably not an answer or the answer you are seeking. I would begin by writing that there is a change of nature in the person believing in Christ for salvation and the person believing in Christ for sanctification. I believe we need regeneration for both. An unregenerate person cares for neither salvation nor sanctification. At least how the Bible describes sanctification.
Those are my beginning premises. In order for a sinner to come to Christ, I believe that the Bible teaches we need to be born again before we can see the kingdom of God. If faith is something that is in the kingdom of God or of the kingdom of God, especially saving faith, then in order for a sinner to have saving faith, they must be born again. This is a claim rejected by Brian and yourself. Brian’s argument taken from Scripture is that sinners come to Christ to receive life. I believe you agree with Brian.
But Christ clearly stated in John 10:26
26 but you do not believe because you are not among my sheep.
Belief, according to Christ, comes from a sinner being among Christ’s sheep. If a sinner is not among Christ’s sheep, that sinner will never believe. This is the point of much of Jesus’s discourse on Him being the Good Shepherd.
Once a sinner is born again, God gives us a new heart, new mind, new spirit, and along with that come new affections for God such as love and for God’s people. We have a new nature or in Christ we are a new creation. Why am I more obedient on some days more than others? There can be many reasons for this. Some examples include specific temptations I struggle with that are presented to me throughout my day and maybe I give into those temptations. It could be an event that occurs in my life such as dealing with death of a loved one or sickness, either myself or a loved one. It could be I didn’t pray and read God’s Word before I left for work and I was not spiritually fit to face my day.
Am I smarter on some days than others? Yes, as a sanctified sinner, there are days that I am wiser than I usually am. There are days that I am more foolish than I usually I am. A sanctified sinner is a growing sinner who is being conformed to the image of Christ. We are growing in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior. Yes, I am more foolish on some days, more wise on others. Does it mean I am better? Maybe, if it is God’s will for me to be better on some days and I would also say that I am better on some days I attribute to God’s grace.
2 Peter 3:18
18 But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.
roland
Sorry my friend but God does give grace that is irresistible to HIs elect.
br.d
DUH! In Calvinism – every impulse that will come to pass within in the human brain is made IRRESISTIBLE to the human brain.
It is physically impossible for a human brain to RESIST an impulse that comes to pass infallibly.
And there is no such thing as an impulse in the human brain that Calvin’ s god does not make come to pass infallibly.
All human impulses are AUTHORED at the foundation of the world before humans exist.
And the vast majority of human impulses that are AUTHORED are sinful evil impulses.
For his good pleasure of course! :-]
When the Calvinist says Calvin’s god “restrained” Josephs brothers from killing Joseph
The way that works is……
Calvin’s god “restrained” himself from AUTHORING impulses to kill Joseph – within the brains of Josephs brothers.
In Calvinism NOTHING happens that he did not knowingly and willingly decree
Therefore the way to “restrain” Josephs brothers from killing Joseph is simply to “restrain” himself from decreeing Joseph’s brothers kill Joseph.
It wasn’t actually Joseph’s brothers that he “restrained” because he would be “restraining” his own decree.
What he actually “restrained” was himself from AUTHORING and decreeing impulses to kill Joseph – come to pass within Joseph’s brothers brains.
Joseph’s brothers actions are simply limited to impulses Calvin’s god AUTHORS into their brains.
Calvinists are so blessed to have a god who can “restrain” himself! 😀
God ordained it just as He sent a lying spirit
1 Kings 22:21-23
21 Then a spirit came forward and stood before the Lord, and said, ‘I will persuade him.’ 22 The Lord said to him, ‘In what way?’ So he said, ‘I will go out and be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.’ And the Lord said, ‘You shall persuade him, and also prevail. Go out and do so.’ 23 Therefore look! The Lord has put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these prophets of yours, and the Lord has declared disaster against you.”
2 Thessalonians 2:11 And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, 12 that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
God sends a lying spirit in His judgment and He is glorified in His judgment. God is not the one lying but He is sending, He is active and involved in the affairs of men.
Roland: “… I’m wondering, since you believe all have the ability to believe, why do some believe and some do not believe?”
Heather: I know you aren’t asking me this, but Scripture answers this question very nicely:
John 5:40, Jesus rebukes the Jews: “yet you refuse to come to me to have life.”
Romans 2:5: “But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath against yourself…”
Zechariah 7:11-13, about people resisting God: “But they refused to pay attention: stubbornly they turned their backs and stopped up their ears. They made their hearts as hard as flint and would not listen to the law or to the words that the Lord Almighty had sent by his Spirit through the earlier prophets. So the Lord Almighty was very angry. ‘When I called, they did not listen; so when they called, I would not listen,’ says the Lord Almighty.”
Romans 1:18-20: “The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 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 men are without excuse.”
Matthew 23:37: “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, but you were not willing.”
The people do not believe because they do not want to believe, because they reject God and choose to believe something else. And not in the Calvinist sense that “God predestines them to want to reject truth and then gives them the sin-nature that makes them want to reject truth, with no chance or ability to accept truth.” But in the very real “both options are open to them – believing or not believing – and they decide what they want to believe” sense. For Calvinism to work, they have to insert things like “yet God causes you to refuse to come to me to have life, even though life was never really available to you in the first place” and “But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart – that God forced you to have …” and ” men are without excuse, even though God caused them to reject Him and made it impossible for them to believe” and “how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing because I created you to be not willing, and yet for some reason I still grieve over it and pretend like I am trying to change your minds.”
The problem with Calvinists is that their unbiblical definitions of “total depravity” and “dead in sin” and “God’s sovereignty” and of what faith is, etc., cause them to start from the basis that people have to be regenerated first and that faith has to be injected into them by God first before they can believe. (And as long as they start with and cling to these wrong definitions, they will always misinterpret Scripture.) Therefore, in Calvinism, the only reason some believe and some don’t is that God caused it to happen, not that people really made a choice. And since Calvinists think this upholds/honors God’s sovereignty (their view of it), they use this “why do some believe and some don’t” question to set up the false dichotomy of “either God saves us or we save ourselves,” trying to manipulate people into Calvinism by shaming them for thinking there must be something “better, smarter, etc.” (as Pastor Loz pointed out) about themselves that they believed but their neighbor didn’t. And all of this happens because the Calvinist just can’t accept the idea that God really did give people the right to choose, to make up their minds.
The incredible grip that Calvinism has on good, well-meaning Christians is so amazing that it can only be demonic.
Roland: “God ordained it just as He sent a lying spirit … God sends a lying spirit in His judgment and He is glorified in His judgment. God is not the one lying but He is sending, He is active and involved in the affairs of men.”
Heather: I agree God is active in the affairs of men. But where in the verses you listed does it say God caused/forced them to believe the lie? That they were prevented, by God, from resisting the lie? What God did was give the people the opportunity to do what they wanted to do in their hearts. They wanted to believe in lies, to reject God. And so He gives them the chance to make that decision (knowing that they would choose it). He sent a lie to them and allowed them to choose to believe it on their own, but He did not cause them to believe it or to want to choose it, and He did not prevent them from rejecting the lie. This is how God can be active in these kinds of things without being responsible for the sin.
[And this makes me wonder if Calvinism might just be a lie sent by God to sift those who believe God spoke clearly and plainly, that He said what He meant and meant what He said so that everyone could see/understand the truth … from those who want to believe that God speaks in multiple, contradicting layers, that He says one thing but really means another, and that it takes some sort of special knowledge, given to only a few specially-chosen people, to figure it out.
God presents us with both – Scripture as it was plainly written and Calvinism’s “Scripture with multiple, contradictory layers and hidden meanings” – and He lets us choose which one to believe. And since Calvinists choose to believe the lie and to entrench themselves in the lie even more through all their “Calvinist indoctrination” books and studies, God hands them over to their own, self-chosen hardness against the truth, to the point that nothing can convince them to see/accept the truth and that they can no longer see the plain, clear meaning of Scripture anymore.
It’s sad. So many good, well-meaning Christians have been trapped in this lie! If Satan can’t destroy the church from the outside, he does it from the inside.]
Roland: “No, I am not saying that God enables all men to come but that they are not willing. I hold to the traditional Reformed view that men are not able because they are not willing.”
Heather: And let’s not forget that the Reformed view is that God MAKES them unwilling to come – causes them to be unwilling, prevents them from being willing, because He predestined them for hell – which is far different than them choosing to be unwilling to come.
Roland: “Do sinners have spiritual abilities? Is there such a thing as spiritual ability like there are physical abilities?”
Heather: it seems like a problem here is that you assume that the ability to think, reason, decide, choose, etc. – in relation to anything spiritual – must be something that can only happen if someone has been spiritually-equipped (injected by God with some sort of “spiritual ability”) to do these things. Instead of it being what it is, that the ability to think, reason, decide, choose, etc., is something God gave all people when He created them in His image, but He left it up to them to decide how to use their minds.
Dr. Flowers
-quote
I have been asked the question – is Calvinism a form of Gnosticism?
The only way it is consistent with Gnosticism, is that both Calvinism and Gnosticism tend to be more based on deterministic philosophy. And that is not just an opinion of mine, is just the fact of the mater. Manichaeism was more deterministic philosophically. Gnosticism is more deterministic philosophically. More deterministic than the early church writings.
Augustine is the first, even by Reformed scholars estimations, such as Herman Bavinck, and Loraine Boettner, and several others that we’ve read dozens of times. Augustine is the first in history to introduce the concepts and idea for example, that no one can respond positively to the Gospel appeal unless they’ve been regenerated first. This idea that God has to “Elect” you before you were ever born, in order for you to believe the Gospel.
These unique Calvinistic claims are not introduced into the church until the beginning of the 5th century with Augustine. And that is what makes Calvinism “more” Gnostic. But is Calvinism consistent with Gnosticism in all respects? By no means!
Yes, you can say there are Gnostic elements with regard to the philosophy of determinism, which are similar to what we see in the claims of Augustine. But obviously, true Manichaeism is very different than Calvinism.
IF DETERMINISM IS TRUE
If Determinism is TRUE – then everything that comes to pass is solely and exclusively determined by antecedent factors outside of our control.
If Determinism is TRUE – then your brains affirmation of it – is solely and exclusively determined by antecedent factors outside of your control.
If Determinism is TRUE – then every process that comes to pass within your brain – is solely and exclusively determined by antecedent factors outside of your control.
In such case – rational or sound thinking is NOT the DETERMINER of any affirmation that comes to pass within your brain.
All perceptions and all affirmations that come to pass within your brain are solely and exclusively determined by antecedent factors outside of your control.
Therefore your brain does not have the functional ability to rationally or soundly affirm anything because all such things are solely and exclusively determined by antecedent factors outside of your control.
CONVERSELY:
If the Calvinist claims that his brain does have the functional ability to rationally or soundly affirm his belief system – and his claim is TRUE – then it logically follows – Determinism is FALSE.
More philosophical sophistry and vain imaginations. It is laughable that “pastor” Loz accuses me of being intellectual and naming names, when it is people on his side that appeal to logic and philosophy. The deception that goes on when bias leads to blindness. I quote Scripture to prove my beliefs, you point to the logical fallacies and irrational conclusions committed by me, and “pastor” Loz accuses me of intellectualism! Too funny!
Roland
More philosophical sophistry and vain imaginations.
br.d
Now you are calling your own doctrine philosophical sophistry and vain imaginations
Good one! :-]
It became clear to me long ago – that Calvinists do not find the logical implications of their doctrine palatable.
And your response is a classic manifestation of that.
Thank you! :-]
Br.d
DECEMBER 17, 2021 AT 1:32 AM
If Determinism is TRUE – then everything that comes to pass is solely and exclusively determined by antecedent factors outside of our control.
Roland
DECEMBER 17, 2021 AT 11:31 PM
MORE PHILOSOPHICAL SOPHISTRY AND VAIN IMAGINATIONS.
br.d
Throwing out big words is easy!
But lets see you PROVE IT!
Where is your proof – that an infallible decree at the foundation of the world before you exist – which RENDERS-CERTAIN what you will do at any moment in time – is *NOT* an antecedent factor that is outside of your control.
Then we’ll see where the sophistry *REALLY* is! :-]
Roland: “I reject LFW.”
Heather: Did you decide/choose to reject it?
Roland: “I reject LFW.”
Heather: Did you decide/choose to reject it?
br.d
Bulls-Eye Heather!!!!!
I don’t know whether to laugh or cry – every time a Calvinist shoots himself in the foot while claiming to reject the existence of the very thing he AUTOMATICALLY ASSUMES exists for himself! ;-D
Of course I did. I made a conscious decision to examine the claims of LFW with Scripture. I came to a conclusion that LFW did not align with the teaching of Scripture, and I rejected it. I am guessing the idea behind this question is that since God determined all things, or as Ephesians 1:11 puts it: In Him also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of Him who works all things after the counsel of His will.
that I am some sort of robot or puppet. That I don’t have the capacity or ability to make choices, decisions, to reason, etc. I chose to do so and not in a libertarian freewill sense of freedom. But in an understanding that is in agreement with Scripture that teaches us our freedom is influenced by our circumstances, our natures, our desires, our inclinations, our fears, God’s intervention in our lives, etc. Human will is not absolutely free or free from any influence.
So you could have chosen NOT to commit to sin the last sin God unchangeably ordained for you to commit?
No, I could NOT have chosen to commit sin that God had ordained. Who can resist God’s will? If God willed for me to commit the sins that I have committed, can I resist God’s will? Why did God raise pharaoh up according to Paul in Romans 9? To save pharaoh? No but to use pharaoh as an instrument to display God’s power! You sound like you are saying that pharaoh could have resisted God’s eternal purpose. resisted God’s will, resisted God’s action when He hardened pharaohs heart, and God would have had to say, “oops, pharaoh is resisting my will. I must turn to plan B.” I am the clay, God is the potter, and who am I to talk back to God. I am nobody to talk back to God and I cannot resist His will. Maybe you can, I don’t know?
Romans 9:19 You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?” 20 But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?
If as you say, you could NOT have chosen not to commit the last sin that God unchangeably ordained for you to commit, then:
1. Stop pretending you have any measure of free will at all, and that your choices are simply subject to “influences”, when in fact they are completely and unavoidably predetermined and you ARE a robot / sock puppet / computer running a program
2. God lied to you when He said that He would not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. This you cannot believe anything God has said to you with confidence.
3. God actually preferred you to commit all the sins you have committed and will ever commit, than for you to resist temptation and walk in purity.
4. Every warning against sin God has given you is absolutely meaningless.
If you deny any of 1-4 then all you are doing is providing further proof of your inconsistency.
<<>>
Bible:
Hosea 7:13 Woe to them, because they have strayed from me! Destruction to them, because they have rebelled against me! I long to redeem them but they speak about me falsely.
Isaiah 65:2 All day long I have held out my hands to an obstinate people, who walk in ways not good
Matthew 23:37 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.
John 5:40 yet you refuse to come to me to have life.
Luke 7:30 But the Pharisees and the experts in the law rejected God’s purpose for themselves
Acts 7:51 51 “You stiff-necked people! Your hearts and ears are still uncircumcised. You are just like your ancestors: You always resist the Holy Spirit!
The irony is that the objection you cited from Romans 9 was an objection based on the false premise of determinism, trying to use it as an excuse.
Pastor Loz
The irony is that the objection you cited from Romans 9 was an objection based on the false premise of determinism, trying to use it as an excuse.
roland
Wrong again! Paul is citing those verses from the Old Testament to provide an answer to three objections. First, that election is according to works but it is not. It is according to God’s purpose, Romans 9:11. Before Esau or Jacob were born God already elected to fulfill His promise of election to Jacob.
Then in verse 14, we read the second objection that Paul is anticipating. Because God has chosen Jacob over Esau before they were born, is there unrighteousness with God? Paul’s answer is to cite God’s freedom to be merciful to whom He will be merciful. Paul using the Old Testament example of pharaoh.
Then in verse 19, how can God blame people or find fault with them if God being merciful or God electing people does not depend on man but God? Paul’s answer is found in verses 20-23.
Paul was not objecting to determinism, Paul was a determinist, he fully expressed the doctrine that salvation is of the Lord.
That would only “work” for you if you ignore all the the verses I posted which show that people can and do resist God’s will. Which of course you did ignore, because that’s what you always do.
Do people resist God’s will? Yes. Is it God’s will that we not commit adultery? Yes it is God’s will but we commit adultery. I do believe humans resist God’s will.
The question is to what extent. Can humans prevail over God’s will? Do humans prevail to such an extent that God loses? Did Jacob’s brother overcome God’s will for God to bring good out of their evil? No, God’s will will be done. If it is not going to be done, man can ultimately resist it, then we need to grab our erasers and start erasing some Bible verses.
The verses you quoted show that men do resist God’s will but not ultimately.
How strange then that none of those verses actually say that. You simply read that into them.
Roland,
As with all of your references to PREDESTINATION and CHOSEN, you are using those words INCORRECTLY.
Christians are predestined, not the individual.
It’s no different than if you were on the PRICE IS RIGHT. The WINNER is predestined to receive.
Or the letter we used to get in the mail…YOU ARE A WINNER (on the outside of the envelope)…(But on the inside)…if you have the correct number.
I have found that Calvinists have NO EDUCATION in sentence structuring to PROPERLY COMPREHEND what is being said.
Ed Chapman
Heather
Do you agree with Calvinists that Jesus really only died for the elect? If so, how does that NOT make a liar out of God when the Bible says:
“For God so loved the world that He gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” (John 3:16)
“He is the atoning sacrifice for all sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.” (1 John 2:2)
“And he died for all …” (2 Corinthians 5:15)
“… [Jesus] suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.” (Hebrews 2:9)
“The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, ‘Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world!’” (John 1:29)
roland
Here’s a Reformed response to verses that speak of the world and all. Some of these verses you cited.
First, I would be in agreement with this statement from a Calvinistic baptist that lived a couple hundred years ago. He wrote this:
“Let us do with this or any other philosophy what we will, but let us not hesitate to accept all that the Scriptures teach on this matter. When we read John 10:14-16; 11:26-29; Acts 13:48; Romans 8:28-29; Ephesians 5:25-32, let us not abate one jot of their clear teaching of Christ’s death for the elect and their certain salvation. And when we read John 1:29; 3:16; 1 Timothy 4:10; Hebrews 2:9; 1 John 2:2; Ezekiel 33:11; Matthew 28:19; 1 Timothy 2:4, let us beware lest our theory, or philosophy, of the atonement constrain us to question God’s sincerity, and disobey His commands. There are many true things in and out of the Bible beyond our satisfactory explanation. Let faith apprehended even where the finite mind cannot comprehend.”
I am not going to make the claim that I have all the answers. I answer in humility, recognizing that “there are many true things in and out of the Bible beyond our satisfactory explanation.” I would never intend to question God’s sincerity in His verses that speak of the world. I operate from this premise and hopefully, faithfully. That said, here’s my response to verse speaking of Christ’s death and the world.
First, it is often argued that Christ died for the world, atoned for the world, is the sacrifice for the world, etc. That is true and how do we understand this. I do know this just by experience and history. Christ did not die for everyone in the world to save them because not every one is saved and many have not heard the Gospel. I reject universalism. That is the doctrine that these verses prove universal salvation. Furthermore, Scripture testifies that there are and will be sinners in hell. Not all are saved.
Second, I believe Christ’s death accomplished its end or goal.
1 Timothy 1:15
15 This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief.
He came to save sinners, He did save sinners, and He will continue to save sinners until He returns. Jesus did not fail in this.
Matthew 20:28 He gave His life as a ransom for many. Luke 19:10 Jesus came to save that which was lost.
Third, the epistles and Christ himself, speak of salvation for “us.” The “us” in Paul’s epistles and other epistles refers to the Church and not the world.
Galatians 3:13
13 Christ has redeemed us (the believers in Galatia and Christians everywhere) from the curse of the law, having become a curse for US (for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”),
Christ did not become a curse for the world nor did He redeem the world from the curse. If He did do so, then just like the Galatians, they would have be redeemed because Christ became a curse for the. But the “us” is the Church, the elect of God, not the world, especially in Galatia where the Judaizers were teaching a false gospel.
Allow me to address 1 John 2:2, I would include verse 1 as well as it helps with the context. “The whole world” does not always mean the whole world in Scripture. Rev. 3:10 Because you have kept My command to persevere, I also will keep you from the hour of trial which shall come upon the whole world, to test those who dwell on the earth
There is a trial coming upon the whole world but Christ will keep some from it. Is it coming upon the whole world? Yes. Completely? No because some will be kept by Christ from the trial. Some are excluded from this trial upon the whole world.
1 John 5:19
19 We know that we are of God, and the whole world lies under the sway of the wicked one.
Again, does the whole world lie under the wicked one? Again, yes, except the ones who are of God. The whole world does not always mean the whole at least there are two examples from other John’s literature. It is clear that the whole world does not refer to each and every person. If that were true, then the whole world under the sway of the wicked one would mean that there would be no one of God.
I would say in 1 John 2:2 that the whole world doesn’t include each and every individual, especially in Johannine text. I believe it means the whole world in the sense of all nations, from every tribute, tongue, etc.
Revelation 5:9
9 And they sang a new song, saying:
“You are worthy to take the scroll,
And to open its seals;
For You were slain,
And have redeemed us to God by Your blood
Out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation,
John 11:51-52
51 Now this he did not say on his own authority; but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the nation, 52 and not for that nation only, but also that He would gather together in one the children of God who were scattered abroad.
There’s much more to say regarding this but I need to find a publisher but they won’t publish me as I’m a horrible writer, thanks for reading, God bless!
Oops, for some reason, Calvi-god made me hit the wrong reply button. This should be farther down. Or maybe it shouldn’t be, since this was ordained from the beginning.
According to God’s Word there are no oops in God’s decree, plan, purpose, will, etc.
Proverbs 16:33
33 The lot is cast into the lap,
But its every decision is from the Lord.
It is unfortunate that non-calvinists cannot even admit that God is providential in His dealings with creation. You seem to be saying that there are things outside of God’s control. Scripture clearly speaks against this idea.
Matthew 10:29
Are not two sparrows sold for a copper coin? And not one of them falls to the ground apart from your Father’s will.
Your comments seem to imply that sparrows do fall to the ground apart from God’s will.
More Scriptural ignorance. The Greek in Matthew 10 does not contain the word will. The actual sentence is “apart from your Father” and in context is talking about God’s care for creation.
Can I get a copy of a Bible translation by Pastor Loz, please? The New King James version I quote is wrong EVERY TIME I quote it! It is available on kindle as I prefer electronic copies to hard copies? Thanks, just attach the link in a response so I can obtain an electronic copy.
Why would I need my own translation of the Bible when we have the original Greek laid out word for word:
And [yet] not one ἓν (en) 1520: one
of them will fall πεσεῖται (peseitai) 4098: to fall
to the ground γῆν (gēn) 1093: the earth, land
apart ἄνευ (aneu) 427: without
from your Father. πατρὸς (patros) 3962: a father
And when all of the following render it thus:
KJ21 “Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? And one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father.
ASV Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? and not one of them shall fall on the ground without your Father:
BRG Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father.
CEB ren’t two sparrows sold for a small coin? But not one of them will fall to the ground without your Father knowing about it already.
CEV Aren’t two sparrows sold for only a penny? But your Father knows when any one of them falls to the ground.
DARBY Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not fall to the ground without your Father;
DLNT Are not two sparrows sold for an assarion? And one of them will not fall on the ground apart from your Father.
DRA Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and not one of them shall fall on the ground without your Father.
ERV When birds are sold, two small birds cost only a penny. But not even one of those little birds can die without your Father knowing it.
ESV Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? And not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father.
ESVUK Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? And not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father.
GNV Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing, and one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father?
ICB When birds are sold, two small birds cost only a penny. But not even one of the little birds can die without your Father’s knowing it.
PHILLIPS “Two sparrows sell for a farthing, don’t they? Yet not a single sparrow falls to the ground without your Father’s knowledge. The very hairs of your head are all numbered. Never be afraid, then—you are far more valuable than sparrows.
JUB Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? And one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father.
KJV Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father.
AKJV Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father.
TLB Not one sparrow (What do they cost? Two for a penny?) can fall to the ground without your Father knowing it.
MEV Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? And not one of them will fall to the ground without your Father.
MOUNCE Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from · your Father.
NABRE Are not two sparrows sold for a small coin? Yet not one of them falls to the ground without your Father’s knowledge.
NASB Are two sparrows not sold for an assarion? And yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father.
NASB1995 Are not two sparrows sold for a cent? And yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father.
NCB “Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them can fall to the ground without your Father’s knowledge.
NCV Two sparrows cost only a penny, but not even one of them can die without your Father’s knowing it.
NIRV Aren’t two sparrows sold for only a penny? But not one of them falls to the ground outside your Father’s care.
NIV Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground outside your Father’s care.
NIVUK Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground outside your Father’s care.
NLV Are not two small birds sold for a very small piece of money? And yet not one of the birds falls to the earth without your Father knowing it.
NLT What is the price of two sparrows—one copper coin? But not a single sparrow can fall to the ground without your Father knowing it.
NMB Are not two sparrows sold for a copper coin? And yet none of them lights on the ground without your Father.
NRSV Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father.
NRSVA Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground unperceived by your Father.
NRSVACE Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground unperceived by your Father.
NRSVCE Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father.
NTE How much would you get for a couple of sparrows? A single copper coin if you’re lucky? And not one of them falls to the ground without your father knowing about it.
OJB Are not two sparrows sold for the least valuable copper coin? And yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from Avichem!
TPT You can buy two sparrows for only a copper coin, yet not even one sparrow falls from its nest without the knowledge of your Father. Aren’t you worth much more to God than many sparrows?
RGT “Are not two sparrows sold for a pittance, and yet not one of them shall fall to the ground apart from your Father?
VOICE Look, if you sold a few sparrows, how much money would you get? A copper coin apiece, perhaps? And yet your Father in heaven knows when those small sparrows fall to the ground.
WE Are not two sparrows worth only a small amount of money? Yet not one of them falls to the ground without your Father knowing about it.
WYC Whether two sparrows be not sold for an halfpenny? and one of them shall not fall on the earth without your Father.
YLT `Are not two sparrows sold for an assar? and one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father;
Roland: “No, I could NOT have chosen to commit sin that God had ordained. Who can resist God’s will?”
Heather: So … and I hate to be graphic here, but it drives my point home [Trigger warning for people with trauma in their past, so please don’t read more if you don’t want to] …
Let’s say that next week, you – Roland – see a little girl that catches your fancy. And you follow her as she’s walking home and snatch her off the street and take her back behind a shed and do all sorts of vile things to her, and then you leave her for dead in a heap on the side of the road. Are you seriously going to stand before God and man and claim that those sins were unavoidable? That you just had to do them, that you had no choice to not do them? If your god “ordained” [in the Calvinist sense] your past sins, then he “ordained” your future ones too. So let’s not just excuse your past sins but ones you will commit in the future too. And so if a little girl catches your fancy … or a married woman or another man or a pile of drugs or whatever … why should you try to resist temptation? Why not do whatever you feel like, because whatever happens is clearly “His will,” right? If all your sins are “ordained” (i.e. preplanned, caused by God), how do you know which temptation to resist and which to give in to? And why should you feel guilty about any sin you commit then?
It’s easy to talk about sin in a vague sense, but let’s get real about it. Do you agree with the weasely-Calvinist James White that God “ordains” [in the Calvinist sense, which includes preplanning and causing] child rape? That God had to cause it so that it has purpose, so that it’s not just a meaningless evil? Would you agree with weasel-White that it’s so much better to have meaningful child rape caused by God than to have “meaningless” rape that God simply allowed because He lets men make real choices, even bad ones? You’d rather have that kind of God, that kind of world? (No wonder Calvinism creates atheists!)
How would you comfort those who have been violated by someone? “Oh, don’t worry. Take comfort in knowing that God caused it for His glory, for a purpose.” That’s how my Calvinist pastor said it to the congregation in a sermon: “God ordained all the tragedies that happened in your life, even childhood abuse, for His glory and for your good and because He knew what needed to happen to keep you humble.” I wanted to leap from my seat and punch him in the throat, as ordained by Calvi-god of course. I still get angry about it, and yet I was never abused. But my heart broke for those who were and who had to listen to that satanic garbage which completely destroyed God’s character and probably many people’s faith.
I think a big problem with Calvinists is that they are so busy trying to uphold God’s sovereignty (their unbiblical version of it) that they fail to really see people anymore (and fail to see truth). This is how they can casually say something like “Oh, I don’t think about those predestined to hell. I just think about how gracious God is to save anyone at all.”
And now multiple the above example by billions – billions of people all doing whatever sins they want because they can’t help it, because Calvi-god “ordained” it. And that’s a god you think is worthy of praise and glory and devotion? A god who causes sins he commands us not to do, for his glory, but who punishes us for the sins he makes us do? I really don’t think you’ve thought about what you are claiming as much as you should.
Also, Calvinists misunderstand what “God’s will” means. Calvinists use it to say that God preplanned something and that it has to happen, that He causes it to happen. But I’ve looked into the word “will” in various verses that talk about God’s will for His people, and it’s about His “preferred will.” It’s about what He wants to have happen, His preferences about what we should do. And if He wants us to do His “preferred will,” it means things can happen that He doesn’t prefer. Because He allows us to choose to either do His Will or not. To obey Him or disobey Him. His will is not about a preplanned thing that He makes happen. It’s about what He prefers us to do.
When Calvinists have wrong definitions of the most basic, foundational, biblical things – such as sovereignty, faith, election, “God’s will,” “ordains,” etc. – and when they insist on clinging to those wrong definitions in the face of the monumental damage it does to God’s character, Word, and truth, then I really don’t think there’s any hope for them.
If you were standing next to the ark with Noah and his family, as the rain began to fall, as it began to fill up the earth, you would have watched men, women, children, babies, try to escape the waters but they couldn’t You would have watched thousands upon thousands of people, including infants, drown to death. Their lungs would have filled to the point that they could not breath.
Who sent or caused the rain to fall? Genesis 6:17 And behold, I Myself am bringing floodwaters on the earth, to destroy from under heaven all flesh in which is the breath of life; everything that is on the earth shall die. 18 But I will establish My covenant with you; and you shall go into the ark—you, your sons, your wife, and your sons’ wives with you.
God caused the death of those on earth at the time of Noah. From your reaction in your previous post you seem like you would have been angry with God for judging with the flood. Would you have jumped over the edge to save infants in the flood? Noah did not and God did not send anybody to rescue the babies. God is holy and His judgments are holy. I as much as it does not appeal to me that God has ordained evil such as rape of children, is the truth. Evil is not outside of God’s control.
Consider the night in Egypt when all the firstborn without the blood of the lamb were slain. Who sent the angel? God did. Would you attribute murder to God because He sent the angel to kill all the firstborn without blood on the door posts?
Amos 3:6
6 If a trumpet is blown in a city, will not the people be afraid?
If there is calamity in a city, will not the Lord have done it?
Does God bring calamity? Yes He does. Do I enjoy or like the fact that God brings calamity? No I don’t. This is the unpalatable part of Scripture and God that non-calvinists don’t like. As a Reformed Christian I embrace these truths by faith. I don’t understand, I believe it.
If my memory serves me right, from studies from a Jewish standpoint, there was indeed someone that was angry at God for the flood, and so, he decided to build the TOWER OF BABEL. His name…NIMROD.
And what did that get him?
Be careful when you say that God caused the death of_________________. Why do I say that? Because EXISTENSE continues after the death of the body, and THIS LIFE is temporary ANYWAY. Therefore, God did not cause the death of anyone. Existense continues.
And where did those people go when they died in the flood? Well, Peter states that Jesus preached to them after he died on the cross.
But again, where is the SPIRITUAL story of Noah’s Ark that you will never hear in church?
Consider all the people that will die in the END TIMES, according to the book of Revelation.
God said that he would never flood the earth again, but the next judgment will be far worse than a flood.
And consider this:
2 Peter 2:5
And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;
Consider that in the end times RAPTURE. We won’t be here for it. That is the spiritual story that gets missed. The flood was to tell a spiritual story of END TIMES.
All those people who drowned…ROMANS 5:23. Moses wasn’t around yet to write any commandments
1 Peter 3:18-21
18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:
19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;
20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.
21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:
That reference pertains to the SPIRITUAL side of things, in that Jesus died for THEIR SINS, as well. And the flood, was a form of BAPTISM, and again, Moses wasn’t around to write any commandments, therefore, Romans 5:23 applies. And because God USED THEM as an EXAMPLE of the FINAL judgment, not as THE JUDGMENT, then they are saved in heaven right now, just like the Pharaoh, in which God states that he gives MERCY to.
Seek the SPIRITUAL side of the story, instead of the carnal side, and then you will understand that it’s NOT ABOUT YOU YOU YOU, it’s about God telling a story about HIMSELF, not about Noah, or those who drowned.
Ed Chapman
Roland:
“No, I could NOT have chosen to commit sin that God had ordained. Who can resist God’s will?”
br.d
Notice how Roland includes the word “chosen” in that statement
A necessary condition for the function of “Choice” is more than one option available.
In Calvinism – Calvin’s god at the foundation of the world – prior to the decree – had at least 2 options concerning Roland’s sin.
Option-1: Roland will perform sin [X] at TIME-T
Option-2: Roland will NOT perform sin [X] at TIME-T
And out of those 2 options – available to Calvin’s god – prior to the decree – Calvin’s god made a CHOICE
And he chose Option-1: Roland will perform sin [X] at TIME-T
When Calvin’s god selected Option-1 he REJECTED Option-2
Option-2 WILL NOT come to pass – and therefore has no possibility of coming to pass
Option-2 – with no possibility of coming to pass within creation – is thus not available to Roland who is a part of creation.
Therefore – Roland is granted only ONE SINGLE OPTION
And since a Necessary condition for CHOICE is more than one option – there is NO CHOICE for Roland to make.
1) Roland WILL perform sin-[X] at TIME-T
2) Roland is given NO CHOICE in the matter of what is infallibly decreed
CONCLUSION:
The CHOICE was made at the foundation of the world
That CHOICE fixed at the foundation of the world
There is NO CHOICE left over for Roland to make
Here’s an example for you.
You are standing at the end of your driveway, one of your children is playing with a ball. The ball escapes from their possession and begins to roll towards the street. A car is coming down the street and your child is running towards the street. You judge that if your child continues on the same path in pursuit of the ball, the car will run your child over.
Do you intervene without your child’s permission? Do you run to rescue your child from the danger of the car? I know I would.
Or would you just watch and plead, warn, and hope that your child will hear your voice and stop? Will you respect their libertarian freewill to continue running until the car hits them or will you intervene? I think any sane parent will chase after their child and intervene. They would save their child from the danger, I know I would.
Yet, libertarian freewill proponents will say that God will not save sinners from impending judgment because He wants a genuine choice. He wants to respect our freewill. If God was to grab us from the impending danger of hell, then He is forcing us to make a choice.
Would you consider it “forcing” if you were to rescue your child from the impending danger of the car in the example I gave above?
Roland: “I do believe humans resist God’s will.”
All that Calvinists mean when they say this is that God wills that we resist His will, that He decrees that we resist His decrees. It’s Alice-in-Wonderland-type nonsense where He commands something but causes us to do the opposite. Disobeying Him on one level is obeying Him on another. And all this really does is turn God into a liar for saying that He doesn’t want us to do something, when His hidden decree is that we do it anyway. How can we trust that God means any command He gives us then, if He might secretly desire that we disobey? If both the obedience and disobedience are equally “ordained” by God and equally glorifying to Him, why bother caring which one we choose, as if it could make a difference anyway?
Heather:
Disobeying Him on one level is obeying Him on another. And all this really does is turn God into a liar for saying that He doesn’t want us to do something, when His hidden decree is that we do it anyway. How can we trust that God means any command He gives us then, if He might secretly desire that we disobey?
roland
If you would read your Bible, without your unbiblical presuppositions, would you see that there are historical events recorded for us to know how God works His will for His purpose. You ask about God’s commands, about His hidden decree, and you accuse Calvinists of turning God into a liar. Have you considered the exodus account and God’s dealings with Egypt and pharaoh?
Did God tell Moses to command pharaoh to let His people go? Exodus 5:1-2, 6:13; 7:2
Did pharaoh obey the Lord’s command? If the Lord knew that pharaoh would not obey HIs command, why did God give such a command? Did God give the command to pharaoh in vain?
Exodus 7
So the Lord said to Moses: “See, I have made you as God to Pharaoh, and Aaron your brother shall be your prophet. 2 You shall speak all that I command you. And Aaron your brother shall tell Pharaoh to send the children of Israel out of his land. 3 And I will harden Pharaoh’s heart, and multiply My signs and My wonders in the land of Egypt. 4 But Pharaoh will not heed you, so that I may lay My hand on Egypt and bring My armies and My people, the children of Israel, out of the land of Egypt by great judgments. 5 And the Egyptians shall know that I am the Lord, when I stretch out My hand on Egypt and bring out the children of Israel from among them.”
Why does God give pharaoh a command to let His people go but after giving the command, hardens pharaoh’s heart? It’s like God is working again Himself. He gives pharaoh a command yet God hardens pharaoh’s heart so that pharaoh does not let Israel go! That’s like me telling my son to mow lawn and then locking him in a room so he can’t mow the lawn. That is what God is doing. He is commanding pharaoh to do something that God “secretly is doing” so that pharaoh will not heed God’s command.
According to what you believe, God is a liar! You wrote above: “How can we trust that God means any command He gives us then, if He might secretly desire that we disobey?”
In your own words, how can Moses trusts God’s command to pharaoh if God “secretly” desires that pharaoh disobey God’s command?
I know someone on this site will respond with a syllogism that “MY INTERPRETATION” of God’s actions and HIs dealings with pharaoh are LOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE because ROLAND IS INTERPRETING God’s actions not in accordance with logic because God does not contradict Himself and on and on and on…All a person has to do is READ THE TEXT and see what God commands, what He secretly does by hardening pharaoh’s heart to achieve His purpose! God gave pharaoh a command which God CAUSED, by hardening pharaoh’s heart, for pharaoh to IMPOSSIBLY OBEY!
Roland
Have you considered the exodus account and God’s dealings with Egypt and pharaoh?
br.d
Without the philosophical PRESUPPOSITION which the Calvinist READS INTO the text – in which “hardening his heart” equates to determined every impulse that will come to pass in pharaoh’s brain – making every impulse come to pass irresistibly.
Since the Non-Calvinist doesn’t PRESUPPOSE Exhaustive Divine Determinism – they don’t have to create a god who has two opposing wills.
brd:
Since the Non-Calvinist doesn’t PRESUPPOSE Exhaustive Divine Determinism – they don’t have to create a god who has two opposing wills.
roland
Did God have two opposing wills when He commanded pharaoh to let His people go YET God hardened pharaohs heart so that he would not obey?
Roland,
You speak of the Pharaoh here…
Well, again, Romans 9 indicates its PURPOSE, and that PURPOSE is to show God’s POWER, and it’s NOT as a means to indicate who is gonna be saved, and who isn’t.
And it is the JEWS that God USES as a means to show his POWER. The Pharaoh wasn’t the only one involved, as you note. And that should be a hint, to what I have always been saying.
JEWS JEWS JEWS. Not YOU YOU YOU.
Ed Chapman
Roland,
But there is a spiritual side of the story of the Pharaoh and the Jews that is what is being missed, in God’s SECRET MYSTERY. What is it?
Egypt is spiritually considered SIN. When we desire to leave SIN (Egypt), the devil doesn’t want to let us go (LET MY PEOPLE GO).
The Jews WANDERED in the desert for 40 years. That is SPIRITUALLY CONSIDERED our Christian walk, which can be difficult at times, because sometimes we want to return to SIN (Egypt).
When we die, that’s is spiritually considered as CROSSING THE JORDON RIVER, and then we enter into CANAAN/Israel/PROMISED LAND, aka Eternal Life.
That’s what the STORY of the Pharaoh is all about. But who gets this teaching in church?
That’s God’s SECRET MYSTERY, in which he USES people to tell a story about himself and his power, and for Calvinists and others to think that it’s about WHO gets saved, and who doesn’t, and that God controls everything that a person does, uh, NO NO NO. Jews Jews Jews, not YOU YOU YOU.
Ed Chapman
Ed, thanks for responding to my posts. I usually do read them but I don’t always respond. I am often perplexed at the point you are making in your posts. I don’t understand why it seems that you read something spiritual into every text of Scripture. Your comments make me think that God has failed in getting truth to us humans as you seem to read something mysterious and spiritual in the text of Scripture. As I’ve said before, this was the allegorical method of interpretation employed by the early church fathers. I think it is why they came to such strange doctrines that we reject today. Not that they were wrong about everything but they did come to some strange beliefs.
Again, thanks for your comments, I appreciate you taking the time to read what i write. If I don’t respond it is because I have failed to see the relevance of your comment or I just don’t have the time to carry on four different conversations. One with you, one with brd, one with Heather, and one with Pastor Loz. Then there is Brian as well. So possible five conversations! May the Lord be gracious to me and grant me wisdom!
Thank you Roland. Sometimes I invite myself to a conversation, but yes, I always seek the spiritual story, because I think that’s what God intended for us to look for, as a TREASURE hidden, and that’s why the Bible is UNLIKE any other religious book that you will ever read.
Jesus tells people this all the time, too. All of the HAVE YOU NOT READ, or telling Nicodemus that he’s a spiritual leader and he doesn’t know what he’s talking about, and that the EDUCATED Pharisees don’t understand scripture, and that Paul thought of his own education as DUNG (KJV), etc.
Why do you think that they didn’t recognize their own Messiah when he came? Because they were not meant to see him…YET.
Ed Chapman
Roland, I do agree that God brings calamity and judgment. I do not agree that God “ordains” people’s sins and that they had no chance to choose otherwise and that He punishes them for what He caused them to do. It’s one thing to cause calamity; it’s another to cause sin. Noah was a “preacher of righteousness.” I believe he preached to try to change people’s hearts. But they chose to be wicked. And so in the end, God allowed them to face the consequences of their choice – after decades of warnings. This is far different from Calvinism which would say that God caused them to be wicked, gave them no ability to choose to repent, and then punished them for being wicked. Far different!
The non-calvinists make God’s love for the world preeminent.
Let me ask you this question:
God sent the rain on the earth and therefore caused people to drown.
Heather, as a parent, if you love your child, would you even ALLOW them to drown let alone fill up a container with water so that they couldn’t escape resulting in their death?
Explain to me why it is any different from God filling the earth and causing death by drowning if God loves the world? Or He did not love the world at that time? Did God only love the world after Christ said it in John 3:16? What kind of loving God drowns infants and kills the firstborn?
I get, He gave them a chance and He didn’t.
But wouldn’t a loving God still save people? If you tried to save your child but couldn’t, would our legal system excuse you because you tried to save your child? Why is it that God seems to be morally and responsibly excused in Scripture from events such as the flood?
Roland
The non-calvinists make God’s love for the world preeminent.
br.d
Which is another way of saying – the Calvinist makes the divine WILL preeminent.
Thus the attribute of Calvin’s god’s WILL is preeminent over all of his other attributes.
The problem the Calvinist is then faced with – is the consequent lowering of the human will
The process esentially takes FUNCTIONALITY away from the human will – in order to give that FUNCTIONALITY to the divine will.
Therefore in Calvinism – the human will FUNCTIONS like a muscle ACTIVATED and thus MOVED ABOUT by the divine will.
In Calvinism then – man does not have a will of his own.
Whatever Calvin’s god WILLS man to will – is what man will will
Therefore man never is granted any say in the matter of what his will – will be
In Calvinism – nothing about man’s will is UP TO man.
And this makes perfect sense – because every impulse that comes to pass within man’s brain is also AUTHORED by the divine WILL.
But that doesn’t reduce human FUNCTIONALITY to that of a robot – wink wink 😉
That’s because God’s will is preeminent.
Do you believe that God’s will is not or has not ever been preeminent? If there is another will that is preeminent, I’d like to know what it is?
Roland
That’s because God’s will is preeminent.
br.d
That is a Calvinist presupposition yes!
But the fun part is watching the Calvinist squirm when faced with the consequence of his presupposition. :-]
Roland
Do you believe that God’s will is not or has not ever been preeminent?
br.d
Why would you obfuscate the fact that you make the divine will preeminent over all other divine attributes in your question?
Roland
If there is another will that is preeminent, I’d like to know what it is?
br.d
Same obfuscation as above
Why do you need to obfuscate Roland?
Are you missing the point by lack of comprehension or are you evading it on purpose?
Yes, calvinists falsely separate God’s sovereignty and will from His love, then set them against each other. As if God’s will doesn’t operate consistently with His love. And God IS love.
In the Exodus account, was pharaoh ever really going to repent?
Could pharaoh have resisted God’s hardening of pharaoh’s heart?
When God tells Moses in Exodus 3:19-20 that pharaoh will let Israel go after He strikes them with His mighty hand, is that based on God’s foreknowledge or is it based on God’s power to do as He pleases?
A Calvinist is going to agree with both the following statements:
1) “NOTHING happens that is not knowingly and willingly decreed”
2) “NOTHING happens that is not knowingly and willingly ordained”
Since Calvin’s god “ordains/decrees” whatsoever comes to pass
And since sins and evils are a part of whatsoever comes to pass
The Calvinist simply looks intellectually dishonest trying to use sophistry to tap-dance his way out from under the obvious.
Sophistry? I presented two truths from God’s Word and I am using sophistry?
1) God commanded pharaoh to let His people go. This is God’s prescriptive will for pharaoh.
2) God hardened pharaoh’s heart so that pharaoh would not obey God’s command. This is God’s decretive will for pharaoh
Roland’s conclusion: God is sovereign and He works all things after the counsel of His own will.
brd’s conclusion: Roland is using sophistry to tap dance around the obvious conclusion. God has ordained evil since it is part of whatsoever comes to pass.
What obvious conclusion are you referring to? The obvious conclusion revealed in Scripture that God worked in pharaoh’s heart so that pharaoh would not or could not obey God’s command?
Roland
Sophistry? I presented two truths from God’s Word and I am using sophistry?
br.d
Roland – sins and evils are either part of “Whatsoever comes to pass” or they are NOT.
The Calvinist sophistry comes into play – when the Calvinist tries to make something APPEAR to be FALSE – which is IN FACT TRUE.
Who is the person – that scripture tells us – tries to make things APPEAR like they aren’t?
Check out 2 Corinthians 11:14
Romans 5:23 regarding the Pharaoh repenting. Repenting from WHAT exactly? Moses had not penned ONE commandment yet. So what exactly was the Pharaoh to repent from?
Ed Chapman
God gave Moses a command to give to pharaoh. Pharaoh through Moses was commanded by God to let Israel go. Pharaoh refused to obey and he never repented of his disobedience.
I don’t care. That’s not what Romans 5:23 states.
Ed Chapman
That’s because there is no Romans 5:23. Romans 5 does not have 23 verses. Except of course in the Ed Chapman Heretical Version. Where can I buy a ECHV?
Scratch that. I mean Romans 5:13
13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
Law is a set of requirements that an authority requires you to do. Are you saying the command God gave to pharaoh was not a command (a contradiction) or that God is not an authority (blasphemy)? Are you insane (affirming clear contradictions) or vile (a blasphemer)?
spur
Are you saying the command God gave to pharaoh was not a command
br.d
In Calvinism – the command would be a FALSE REPRESENTATION of his SECRET will.
In such case – Calvin’s god’s SECRET will – which meticulously determined every impulse that came to pass within Pharaoh’s brain – and made those impulses come to pass irresistibly – was in that process – thwarting his own ENUNCIATED will.
Pharaoh’s role in that process is to function as a kind of sentient dummy – which Calvin’s god moves about in the process of thwarting his own will.
We can assume Calvin’s god gets a kick out of moving people around as sentient dummies :-]
Dude, the old Testament begins in exodus 20, beginning with the ten commandments… not before. According to Romans 5:13, before that, sin was in the world, but sin is NOT IMPUTED where there is no law. Not imputed. People sinned, but sin unknown is not imputed. See also Romans 4:15. This is why children cannot go to hell, because they have NO KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL. NO KNOWLEDGE.
I see, rip out Genesis and Exodus 1-19, because Ed Chapman says it doesn’t exist. God made a mistake to include it in our Bibles, but thankfully Ed is here to correct God’s mistakes. Thanks for the clarification.
You don’t know very much.
In addition, is sleeping with your sister a sin? Even if it’s your half sister? If so, Abraham is guilty of sin, not only that, but is CURSED because of it, and is cut off from his people, according to the law of Moses. But God gave brother and sister an inbred Issac instead.
I love your sense of human chap! 😀
Be sure to tip your waitresses, I’ll be here all week!! Lol.
Also, see Romans 7:7-9.
At what age are Jewish children introduced to the law of Moses?
You are expertly avoiding the fact that God gave Pharaoh a direct command. Have fun, I’m out.
And that “command” was a FALSE REPRESENTATION of his SECRET will.
So what we have is a human who is NOT PERMITTED to be/do the very thing he was commanded to be/do.
Hence – Calvin’s god’s SECRET will was thwarting his ENUNCIATED will.
For all intents and purposes – Calvin’s god is simply arm wresting himself – with Pharaoh as an object held by both hands.
The divine command tells Pharaoh to move – while the divine hand doesn’t permit any such movement.
Where can we find that commandment in the old test? Keep in mind, the old test is not in exodus 1-19. It’s not in genesis, either.
And I would remind you that the Pharaoh was going to let the people go several times, but in order for God to show his POWER, God had to harden his heart in order for the pharaoh NOT to let the people go.
Romans 9 states:
Romans 9:17
For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.
So, as you say, God commanded THRU MOSES for the pharaoh to let the people go. BUT WHAT DOES THE FOLLOWING SAY?
Exodus 4:21
And the Lord said unto Moses, When thou goest to return into Egypt, see that thou do all those wonders before Pharaoh, which I have put in thine hand: but I will harden his heart, that he shall not let the people go.
Do you see the word NOT in that verse? It’s the fifth from the last word in the verse. God Hardened his heart so as to NOT let the people go.
Ed Chapman
Roland
Pharaoh refused to obey and he never repented of his disobedience.
br.d
Here is another lie by omission for a Calvinist.
A lie of omission is an intentional failure to tell the truth in a situation requiring disclosure.
What you strategically omitted in this situation – is that Calvin’s god determines every impulse that will come to pass within Pharaoh’s brain. Making it the case that Calvin’s god was in control of Pharaoh’s brain and body – and not Pharaoh.
You claim that Libertarian human functionality and autonomy are not biblical – while making statements designed to INFER the opposite.
That is the language of sophistry.
You make too much of Calvinistic determinism and too little of God’s revelation. My argument still stands regardless of how you refuse to address it.
1) God gave a command to pharaoh to let HIs people go.
2) God hardened pharaohs heart so that he could not or would not let Israel go.
brd’s conclusion: Roland is using sophistry, denying that God is controlling every impulse in pharaoh’s brain, and Roland is making something appear false when in fact it is true.
Roland
You make too much of Calvinistic determinism and too little of God’s revelation
br.d
Here we have the subtle inferences within the phrase “god’s revelation”
The SUBTLE inference in your statement is that the Calvinist is endowed with a SPECIAL REVELATION which allows him to treat his doctrine (which he claims is from scripture) *AS-IF* it is FALSE – any time he wants to.
When you use the phrase “god’s revelation” – what you really mean is “Calvinist revelation”
Roland
You make too much of Calvinistic determinism and too little of God’s revelation.
br.d
Here is another example of Calvinism’s language of sophistry.
Here the phrase “god’s revelation” is CLOAKED LANGUAGE for “Calvinist revelation”
The Calvinist is endowed with SPECIAL REVELATION which allows him to treat his doctrine (which he claims is from scripture) *AS-IF* it is FALSE – any time he wants to.
And everyone knows the scripture teaches people to speak in Cloaked language ;-D
Roland
1) God gave a command to pharaoh to let HIs people go.
2) God hardened pharaohs heart so that he could not or would not let Israel go.
brd’s conclusion: Roland is using sophistry, denying that God is controlling every impulse in pharaoh’s brain, and Roland is making something appear false when in fact it is true.
br.d
Correct!
And the way you accomplish that is by lying by omission.
A lie of omission is an intentional failure to tell the truth in a situation requiring disclosure.
BTW:
Your original statement was:
“Pharaoh refused to obey and he never repented of his disobedience.”
That is the specific statement that I called sophistry and lie by omission
The language of this statement presents the APPEARANCE of human libertarian autonomy by attributing Pharaoh’s actions to Pharaoh.
How is it humanly possible for a human brain to disobey an impulse that comes to pass infallibly within the brain?
Again – the fact that Calvinists have to HIDE things behind delusive language is the tell-tale sign.
And the fact that the Calvinist doesn’t consider the use of deceptive language a sin – is another tell-tale sign.
Roland: “The non-calvinists make God’s love for the world preeminent.”
The problem is that you are pitting your wrong definition of God’s will against your wrong view of how He has to show His love, creating a false dichotomy that can’t be biblically addressed because it isn’t biblical.
Roland: “According to God’s Word there are no oops in God’s decree, plan, purpose, will, etc.”
Correct! The “oops” is in how Calvinists define those things and twist verses to fit.
Roland:
“According to God’s Word there are no oops in God’s decree, plan, purpose, will, etc.”
br.d
According to Calvinism’s INTERPRETATION
According to Calvinism NOTHING happens that Calvin’s god does not knowingly and willingly decree.
Therefore the only way it could happen that Josephs brothers kill Joseph – is if that were knowingly and willingly decreed.
Thus the only way Calvin’s god’s can “prevent” Josephs brothers from killing Joseph – is to “Prevent” himself from knowingly and willingly decreeing it.
QUESTION:
Why does the Calvinist try to make it APPEAR *AS-IF* Calvin’s god is actually “preventing” Joseph’s brothers from doing something?
Why does the Calvinist need to create a FALSE APPEARANCE of man having a degree of autonomy he doesn’t really have?
2 Corinthians 11:14
And no wonder – for even [fill in the blank here] disguises himself with a FALSE APPEARANCE
Roland:
“According to God’s Word there are no oops in God’s decree, plan, purpose, will, etc.”
br.d
Roland – you should not presume to be the DIVINE INTERPRETER of God’s word for all mankind.
You represent Calvinism’s INTERPRETATION of the text and nothing more.
So you can say “According to Calvinism’s INTERPRETATION ……etc…etc”
To presume to speak with any more authority than that is to position yourself as speaking Ex-Cathedra.
And we know what spirit that is of.
Roland, You do realize you said both of these in the same comment section, don’t you:
Roland: “No, I could NOT have chosen to commit sin that God had ordained. Who can resist God’s will? If God willed for me to commit the sins that I have committed, can I resist God’s will? …I cannot resist His will.”
Also Roland: “Do people resist God’s will? Yes. Is it God’s will that we not commit adultery? Yes it is God’s will but we commit adultery. I do believe humans resist God’s will.”
And Calvinists wonder why we don’t trust what they say!
I guess as long as they have secret meanings for everything, hidden layers, and “two different types of … (such as two different types of God’s Will, a revealed one and a hidden one that contradicts the revealed one),” then they don’t think they are being deceptive and contradictory.
Wonderful point Heather!!!
A belief system that does not WANT to be coherently understood by its own adherents – is guaranteed to be a belief system that is misunderstood by outsiders.
Calvinism is a belief system that does not WANT to be rightly understood by its own adherents.
In fact think the reason many non-calvinists understand Calvinism better than Calvinists is because we are not culticly indoctrinated into it, we are not emotionally invested in it, and in other cases some were deep into it and came out of it. Of course for the final category, it will be said they were “never really Calvinists”. I know they say that about Leighton.
Yes! Good point!
We have a “socialization process” described by Dr. Robert J Lifton – which he called “Milieu control” which involves the control of information – and especially the control of communication within a social group. And this results in cognitive changes within individuals in the group. This is where we get our term “group-think”.
The group forms its own unique “Closed System of Logic”.
It is not the “Logic” that people outside of the group understand as “Logic”
It is its own form of “Logic” which – allows the believer to embrace contraction.
The group’s “Logic” includes a kind of THOUGHT-BLOCKING practice – designed to minimize cognitive dissonance
If the group considers itself “Bible Based” – then group members will claim their “Closed System of Logic” is “Bible Based”.
And that’s where we get accusation that OUTSIDERS are subjecting scripture to “Logic”
Group members cannot acknowledge they have their own “Closed System of Logic” which they in fact subject scripture to.
So when Roland is accusing others of subjecting scripture to “logic” – he is simply ignoring the fact that Calvinism does that very thing – by subjecting scripture to its own “Closed System of Logic”.
Exactly. When Calvinists say, “You are just subjecting Scripture to logic”, what they really mean (although they may not realize it, or would not admit it), is “You are subjecting Scripture to the WRONG logic, because you are not subjecting it to OUR CALVINIST logic”.
It’s similar to when they say “I am just reading the plain meaning of the text” and try to deny the possibility that they are INTERPRETING the text. Apparently only non-calvinists, being mere humans, interpret the text (wrongly of course). We never just read the plain meaning of all those texts, like the ones that say God loves all, Christ died for all, God desires the salvation of all and draws all so that all are left without excuse. The Calvinists never insert ANY additional words or non-plain meanings into those texts.
Or when they say “Non-calvinists impose their presuppositions on the text, Calvinists do not”, when in reality they object to the fact that we are not imposing CALVINIST pre-suppositions on the text.
The failure to recognise any of these things is indeed one indication of cultic indoctrination.
Calvinist “logic” has a number of features and a common one is the creation of false dichotomies / false alternatives / false extremes. We have seen repeated examples of these in this thread alone. Common examples include:
1. God EITHER meticulously predetermines everything that happens, OR He is just a spectator, a passive observer.
2. God EITHER meticulously predetermines everything that happens, OR He is not omniscient
3. God EITHER meticulously predetermines every choice man makes, OR man is sovereign / man’s will is more powerful than God’s.
4. God EITHER meticulously predetermines everything that happens, OR God is not in control.
5. God EITHER meticulously predetermines everything that happens, OR everything is just random.
It doesn’t matter how many times or how thoroughly these false dichotomies are refuted, with explanations as to why they are false, the Calvinist clings to them in order to keep building their straw men. Because when it suits the Calvinist, things are black and white. When it suits them, things are “nuanced”. When it suits them, things are logical. When it suits them, things are “beyond logic”. But at all times they have to “control the game” and change the rules whenever the game is not going their way. Do you remember playing with kids like that at school?
The use of Calvinist “logic” relies heavily upon the use of Calvinist LANGUAGE, as has been pointed out many times by Heather and Br D. Somebody said in another group that “those who control the language control the debate”, and that is clearly what Calvinists continually seek to do. Calvinist language also has a number of different aspects to it, including:
1. The redefinition of words, even to mean the polar opposite of their normal dictionary definition. This includes words such as love, grace, freely, choose, sovereign, justice, will.
2. The use of equivocation and deliberately vague and ambiguous terms.
3. The fluid use of terms so that their intended meaning use at any given point changes, even within the same sentence, but without notifying the one reading that the meaning has changed. This is why we talk about the continually moving goalposts of Calvinism, like trying to nail jelly to the wall.
And Calvinists are actually surprised / offended when we are not taken in by these tactics but see through them and challenge them. That’s when we get the “who are you oh man, to question God (question CALVINISM, its “logic”, language and presuppositions)?” If non-calvinists do not accept all of the above uniquely Calvinist logic and language and repeated punts to “mystery”, somehow it’s because we are less spiritual, less pious, less intellectual, too logical, too rational, less worshipful, more man-centred. This is always how cults operate to try and shame those who challenge them, reject them, question them, or leave the fold.
Wonderfully stated Pastor Loz!!!!
A key word in your post that stood out to me is the word “Indoctrination”
When we sum up all of the characteristics that you outlined – “Indoctrination” appears to be “tie that binds” all of those characteristics together.
Notice how Roland is careful to not say:
“I do believe it is LOGICALLY POSSIBLE for humans to resist god’s will”
So here we have a belief – the Calvinist at least at some level recognizes is NOT LOGICALLY POSSIBLE
This is why Dr. Tim Stratton jokes when he says “A Calvinist is a bag of beliefs”.
A bag of self-contradicting beliefs :-]
I think you know that Calvinists make a distinction between God’s will. The Bible presents God’s will as manifold. There are at least two categories of God’s will. There is His decree and there is His prescriptive will. I am not allowed to make distinctions on this website as I then get accused of pitting God’s will against HIs own will. I would answer with these distinction but they get rejected. If you want to know more about God’s will and how Scripture reveals it as varied and manifold, I suggests you read John Owen’s writings on God’s will and Francis Turretin’s writings as well.
I think it is funny that Calvinists get excoriated for saying that God’s will is varied. But it is okay for a non-calvinists like Brian Wagner to say that there are three different types of faith in the Bible. It is called a double standard. Brian can have all the categories he wants as long as he is kicking the ball in the same direction as the non-calvinists. But if a calvinist tries to use categories of God’s will it is immediately rejected.
We totally understand the difference between Calvinisms: ENUNCIATED will vs the SECRET will
1) The SECRET will is Determinative. It is what determines that which will come to pass – and disallows all alternatives.
2) The ENUNCIATED will is NON-Determinative
3) In most cases – the ENUNCIATED will is the opposite of the SECRET will
4) And when the ENUNCIATED will is the opposite of the SECRET will – it serves as a FALSE REPRESENTATION of the SECRET will.
The problem with your statement – is that it is NON-NORMATIVE language.
1) Since the SECRET will is what AUTHORS and makes every impulse that will come to pass within the Calvinist’s brain come to pass infallibly. And since there is no thing as a fallible creature resisting that which is infallible – there is no such thing as resisting or disobeying the SECRET will.
2) Since the ENUNCIATED will is NON-Determinative – and often functions as a FALSE REPRESENTATION of the SECRET will – then what you would be resisting is a FALSE REPRESENTATION.
So how does one resist a FALSE REPRESENTATION?
And about Calvinist categories.
There is actually nothing wrong with categories.
Categories are heavily used in all educational arenas because they serve to help people understand educational content.
The problem the Non-Calvinist is going to typically have with Calvinist categories – is due to the Calvinist use for categories – which is most often simply a strategy to “have it both ways”.
So following Roland’s Calvinist train, it was God’s explicit will that he would not be tempted beyond what he could bear to commit His last sin, but it was also God’s secret decretive will that he SHOULD be tempted beyond what he could bear and commit that sin. The problem with that is that we are dealing with a PROMISE that God made. So we have God’s secret decretive will completely contradicting and overruling that promise. Unfortunately Roland’s two willed God remains a liar, as well as being conflicted.
1) God commanded pharaoh to let His people go. This is God’s prescriptive will for pharaoh.
2) God hardened pharaoh’s heart so that pharaoh would not obey God’s command. This is God’s decretive will for pharaoh
Roland’s conclusion: God is sovereign and He works all things after the counsel of His own will.
Pastor Loz’s conclusion: God is a liar because God commanded pharaoh to let His people go and pharaoh could not obey God. God gave pharaoh a false representation.
And the purpose? Romans 9…to show God’s POWER in the end. You keep forgetting that part of the story. And since God USES the Pharaoh in that manner, God gives him MERCY as Romans 9 indicates. He hardens his heart and gives mercy to that. Just not in THIS LIFE.
Just because I don’t mention something does not mean that I forgot it. True, that is one of the main points of the Exodus account: it is a demonstration of God’s power. A hearty amen to that! Allow me to add something briefly to God’s power and the Exodus.
In another post someone accused Calvinists of having a weak God. They had written something along the lines of God being a weak God in Calvinism because God does not allow sinners to choose Christ freely. He “forces” them to believe. Something along that line. Let us consider Exodus as a demonstration of God’s power.
Two simple truths from God’s Word:
1) God commanded pharaoh to let His people go.
2) God also hardened pharaohs heart so that he would not let Israel go.
3) Why? God tells us: Exodus 6:1Then the Lord said to Moses, “Now you shall see what I will do to Pharaoh. For with a strong hand he will let them go, and with a strong hand he will drive them out of his land.”
Where is God’s power demonstrated? In what God will do to pharaoh. What did God do to pharaoh? God hardened pharaoh’s heart. That is a demonstration of God’s power. It is His power to overcome man’s heart, any heart God pleases to overcome. As the Proverb says.
21:1The king’s heart is in the hand of the Lord,
Like the rivers of water;
He turns it wherever He wishes.
So it was with pharaoh. Pharoah’s heart was in God’s hand and God turned it wherever He wished to. The Exodus is a demonstration of power over man.
You had me at hello until you said this:
” They had written something along the lines of God being a weak God in Calvinism because God does not allow sinners to choose Christ freely. He “forces” them to believe. Something along that line. Let us consider Exodus as a demonstration of God’s power.”
Yes, your version of God FORCES someone to believe, and that is the premise behind your doctrine of SAVING FAITH. The story of Genesis is NOT ABOUT YOU YOU YOU. It’s about WANTING TO LEAVE EGYPT (SIN), and the Devil doesn’t want to let you go, because sin has a HOLD on EVERYONE, and so this is not about God’s POWER OVER MAN, it’s about God’s power over the DEVIL.
Let me repeat that..it’s about God’s power over the devil, and the Pharaoh was used in the manner to REPRESENT the SPIRITUAL STORY of the Devil, not MAN.
It’s a crying shame that you give no credence to the devil, that HE desires your soul and is willing to FIGHT for it. But so is God willing to fight for EVERYONE’S soul.
But you want to make this all out to be MAN AGAINST GOD, but it’s NOT. It’s the Devil against God. And both are fighting for YOUR SOUL.
Ed Chapman
Roland
Just because I don’t mention something does not mean that I forgot it.
br.d
Just because you fail to disclose a critical fact – without which people are strategically mislead
The fact that the Calvinist finds himself trying to justify the practice of lying by omission serves as a true indicator that something is wrong with his belief system. Because he internally knows he has to hide it from himself and from others.
You didn’t learn the art of duplicitous language from scripture.
You were taught it by a Calvinist pastor.
God never said to Pharaoh, “I will never let you be tempted beyond what you can bear”. God knew that Pharaoh would never repent. Pharaoh hardened his own heart first. God did not turn Pharaoh’s heart from soft to hard, from sinless to sinful, from repentant to unrepentant. He did not turn his will. He strengthened him in his own pre-chosen resolve.
But God said to Roland, “I will never let you be tempted beyond what you can bear”. God made that promise to Roland, but secretly BROKE that promise by unchangeably ordaining that Roland WOULD be tempted beyond what he could bear, to commit every sin that God secretly pre-determined for Roland to commit, because He PREFERRED that Roland commit those sins, rather than resist temptation. So Roland is left with a version of God he cannot trust. Since God lied to Roland on this matter, God could be lying to him concerning any or all other things, including Roland’s salvation. Roland’s version of God could be subjecting him to “evanescent grace”. He will never know if he is a wheat or a tare until judgement day. It’s sad.
Brdmod: “A belief system that does not WANT to be coherently understood by its own adherents – is guaranteed to be a belief system that is misunderstood by outsiders. Calvinism is a belief system that does not WANT to be rightly understood by its own adherents.”
Great point! And so true! As if it’s ambiguous and fluid on purpose, so it can shift however and whenever they need it to. Then they can’t get pinned down at any one point.
And Pastor Loz and Brdmod, you’ve got great responses to the Calvinists here. It’s too bad they are so hardened that they cannot see the truth and wisdom in what you say.
Merry Christmas, everyone! Stay healthy and safe.
Thank you Heather – for all of your excellent posts!
And a warm Merry Christmas to you also!
Blessings!
br.d :-]
Brdmod: “A belief system that does not WANT to be coherently understood by its own adherents – is guaranteed to be a belief system that is misunderstood by outsiders.”
roland
By this standard, then if a non-christian cannot understand Christianity, then it must mean that Christianity is not coherent?
Roland
By this standard, then if a non-christian cannot understand Christianity, then it must mean that Christianity is not coherent?
br.d
That thinking falls into the fallacy of non-sequitur
The fact that a given belief system doesn’t want to be rightly understood or acknowledged by its adherents – doesn’t say anything about Christianity .
The fact that the strategic use of delusive language – lies by omission – and double-speak – are perennially characteristic of Calvinist language, and that Calvinists not only don’t consider those things as sins – but practice them as part of their personal efficacy – serves as a red-flag indicator that Calvinist’s themselves are at least subconsciously aware that there are things about the belief system which they have to hide from themselves.
If Calvinists didn’t have a subconscious awareness of a “dark face” they need to hide behind a mask of cosmetic language – they would feel totally free and without reservation to tell the truth – the whole truth – and nothing but the truth about about their belief system.
The fact that they don’t serves as a tell-tale sign.
The Holy Spirit doesn’t teach people to become adept at delusive language.
That is something men teach to men.
It is a manifestation of the bondage of corruption.
I realize that this is very late and past due, but I was on holiday, so it’ll just have to be late now: I really hope all of you had a merry Christmas and that you all will have a blessed new year.
Thank you very much Spur!
And I hope the very same for you!!
The dialogs that happen here are guaranteed to raise discomfort – because they invite us to engage with information and/or facts which might be repellent and/or outside of our comfort zones.
So it is my hope – that at least some of the tid-bits Calvinists come in contact with here may be planted as seeds within the Calvinist’s heart and mind – which divine sunshine and divine watering can eventually nurture.
My New Years blessings to you!
br.d
Great post, Pastor Loz (the “you are subjecting Scripture to logic” one… and all of them really)! 🙂
Thanks Heather, I am learning from you 😉
Spurcalleth: “I realize that this is very late and past due, but I was on holiday, so it’ll just have to be late now: I really hope all of you had a merry Christmas and that you all will have a blessed new year.”
Thank you, Spurcalleth. And right back at you! Have a safe, healthy, and blessed 2022! 🙂
Roland
Roland
Yes, in one SENSE God did ordain that I would commit the last sin I committed.
br.d
Thus in Calvinism we have TWO SENSES of divine sovereignty
1) A SENSE in which Calvin’s god’s decree is infallible and RENDERS-CERTAIN
2) A SENSE in which Calvin’s god’s decree is NOT infallible and DOES NOT RENDER-CERTAIN
1) A SENSE in which everything without exception is infallibly decreed at the foundation of the world
2) A SENSE in which everything without exception is NOT infallibly decreed at the foundation of the world
1) A SENSE in which Calvin’s god’s divine sovereignty is not compromised
2) A SENSE in which Calvin’s gods divine sovereignty is compromised
1) A SENSE in which CONTRA-CAUSAL choice is NOT granted the creature
2) A SENSE in which CONTRA-CAUSAL choice IS granted the creature
1) A SENSE in which it is not possible for the creature to DO OTHERWISE than what is infallibly decreed
2) A SENSE in which it IS possible for the creature to DO OTHERWISE than what is infallibly decreed
Is anyone starting to notice – how many things in Calvinism – appear in the form of GOOD-EVIL pairs! :-]
Hence Calvinism is system of DUALISM
And DUALISM is a characteristic of Gnosticism.
Roland
God is TOTALLY IN CONTROL but does not totally control every impulse in human thinking.
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)
Calvinist Dr. 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)
Oh but I shouldn’t be showing where you contradict other Calvinists Roland – because to subject you to logic – is to subject scripture to logic…..right??????? 😀
Hence the question Roland keeps running from – which of the 9 or so variants of calvinism is the “real” calvinism? It is true that in groups where there is a wide variety of calvinists, whenever we cut one of the 9 heads off, the other 8 heads cry out, “but that’s not calvinism!”. You would have thought that since Spurgeon stated calvinism was simply a “nick name for the gospel”, there would only be one version of the “gospel”.
Paul Helm also wrote this:
“On this view, then, God works THROUGH secondary causes. They have no power independently of his working. YET THEY ARE TRULY CAUSAL. God, considered as the primary cause, is not located within the created universe, but transcends it..”
Providence of God page 87.
Nice cherry picking to make it sound as if Paul Helm’s belief is that God directly controls everything without secondary causes. Our use of secondary causes is something that non-calvinists deny us. “YOU CAN’T DO THAT” is the non-calvinists scream. “There can’t be secondary causes, if God is the first cause, then he is the only cause…”
Helm continues on page 22:
“He has not, as far as we know, delegated that control to anyone else.”
But under LFW God has delegated control to man. Man is in control of his will. So verses such as 2 Samuel 24:1 God could not have incited David to anger because David has LFW. Here’s LFW definition.
Libertarian free will means that our choices are free from the determination or constraints of human nature and free from any predetermination by God. All “free will theists” hold that libertarian freedom is essential for moral responsibility, for if our choice is determined or caused by anything, including our own desires, they reason, it cannot properly be called a free choice. Libertarian freedom is, therefore, the freedom to act contrary to one’s nature, predisposition and greatest desires. Responsibility, in this view, always means that one could have done otherwise.
<<>> Thus Helm speaks out of both sides of his mouth, just like WCF. Calvinists always want it both ways. They always want to have their cake and eat it.
Good comment!
Its critical to remember – in Calvinism – EVERY movement of a molecule – is decreed to come to pass INFALLIBLY.
Nature does not have the attribute of infallibility.
Nature does not have the power to make a molecule move infallibly.
The only being in the universe that has that power is an infallible being.
Therefore Calvin’s god *MAKES* the movement of every molecule come to pass infallibly.
Which means
1) He has a DIRECT INVOLVEMENT in the movement of every molecule.
2) That molecule is NOT GRANTED PERMISSION to make any other movement.
3) The movement he decrees a molecule make – is the ONLY movement available to that molecule.
And that is the mode of control Calvin’s god would have had over Adam eating the fruit.
And that is the mode of control Calvin’s god has in the sinful/evil impulses that come to pass within a Calvinist’s brain and body.
Roland
But under LFW God has delegated control to man.
br.d
And you say that while you unwittingly ASSUME LFW – every time you
1) Perceive yourself as the DETERMINER of a choice.
2) Have the perception that an option other than one single RENDERED-CERTAIN option is ever made available to you.
3) Have the perception after you sin – that you were granted the option of DOING OTHERWISE
Congratulations Roland!
You are like the man – who while driving a car – claims cars are NOT biblical and don’t exist! ;-D
You know – the funny thing about Calvinist DOUBLE-MINDEDNESS – is that we can put TRUTHS about their doctrine and how they deny their own doctrine – in their faces over and over.
And the Calvinist mind simply has the ability to THOUGHT-BLOCK any TRUTH that produces cognitive dissonance.
Trying to have LOGICAL dialog with a Calvinist – so often makes me feel like I’m chasing a greased pig.
Under LFW God has sovereignly chosen to allow men to make genuine choices within the sphere of freedom that He has given them. God can do that. Calvinists may try to say He can’t, but He can. Most important of all the choices God has allowed man to make is between accepting or rejecting the gift of salvation. In allowing man to make that choice, God has given the responsibility for that choice to man, and justly holds man accountable for the choice that he makes. That is indeed what makes man a morally responsible agent nd demonstrates that God is indeed without injustice. Man’s choices are INFLUENCED, not predetermined. That includes incitement. Since God draws all men and enables all men to believe and repent (John 1:9, John 5:40, John 6:44, John 12:32, John 20:31, Romans 1), He has therefore enabled them to do so in spite of their sinful nature.
In Calvinist mythology, man is “free” to choose in accordance with his nature. A nature that was unchangeably predetermined externally. Thus he is not free at all, but he has an illusion of freedom.
Pastor Loz
Under LFW God has sovereignly chosen to allow men to make genuine choices within the sphere of freedom that He has given them. God can do that.
roland
Search has hard as you want in the Scriptures but nowhere does God say that He has granted man LFW. Nowhere. I believe God can do that but since Scripture is my sole and infallible rule for faith and life, and God HAS NOT revealed this in Scripture, I reject LFW.
roland
Search has hard as you want in the Scriptures but nowhere does God say that He has granted man LFW.
br.d
Search as hard as you want in scripture – but nowhere does god say he FIRST-CONCEIVES and then RENDERS-CERTAIN and thus makes IRRESISTIBLE – every sinful impulse that will come to pass in your brain.
I guess you must have been busy with your sharpie then, erasing all the passages where God issues choices, warnings, laments and rebukes.
roland
Search has hard as you want in the Scriptures but nowhere does God say that He has granted man LFW.
br.d
And yet – while you claim this – you unwittingly ASSUME LFW is granted to you yourself
Does the bible teach you to be DOUBLE-MINDED?
Hello mosckerr – and welcome
Thank you mosckerr – for taking the time and interest in visiting SOT101
Mosckerr,
Can we simplify this long winded comment, please?
Are you waiting for a messiah, or not?
Did the law of Moses exist prior to isaac or not?
What is this messiah all about? Will this messiah save the Jews? Save from what?
Why did God give brother/sister an inbred, when according to your law, is something that is cursed, something that would cause anyone else under Jewish law to be cut off.
Why did Abraham get righteousness, but in deuteronomy, your righteousness is based on obedience to the law of Moses?
Your argument rails against Christianity, however, normal Christians take it back to Abraham, prior to the law of Moses… and since there is a messiah, which I’m sure you will acknowledge, what is he gonna save you from? What’s the point of this messiah for you?
If we learn anything, we learn that abraham was before the law, and he got righteousness without it.
But those under the law have to earn it by being obedient to the law.
So, say what you will against us, but you’ll find many of us on your side, in that some of us are zionists.
We see the evidence in your book that Jesus is that messiah… not just Isaiah.
Since abraham didn’t have the law of Moses, neither do we.
We know the law of Moses isn’t about faith, like Abraham, but works, earning a wage.
Our New Test that you reject is based on that alone.
Ed Chapman
By the way, the doctrine of original sin did not begin with the apostle Paul. I don’t believe in original sin at all. That was a catholic thing, not a Paul thing.
Ed Chapman
.br.d
English historian, Theodore Maynard, in The story of American Catholicism
-quote
“It has often be charged… that Catholicism has been overlaid with many pagan incrustations.
Catholicism is ready to accept that charge – and to make it her boast.
The great god Pan is not really dead, he is baptized.”
A former roommate of mine was raised catholic. He’s an atheist. George Carlin, another example. Calvinism is getting to be in that same category these days as well. Both are great at producing atheists.
Yes!
N.T. Wright calls John Calvin a Catholic with a small “c”.
The practice of speaking “Ex-Cathedra” is a derivative of Catholicism which Calvin never let go of – and his followers today inherit it.
So there are elements unique to Catholicism that can be observed within Calvinism
Even thought acknowledging that would be the last thing we would anticipate they will do! :-]
The covenant of Moses begins in exodus 20… not with abraham. You constantly mention courts of law… fine… that’s not my issue.
My issue is before exodus 20, vs. after exodus 20.
Abraham. Freedom. Moses, bondage to law.
Before Adam ate of a tree…freedom. after he got educated… things changed.
That’s my point. Before obedience, before courts of law… there was freedom. Care free, no conscience of wrong. Free spirited. Innocence. Not guilty. No court needed.
Do you see my point?
No, I don’t see your point at all. I’m concentrated on one word. RIGHTEOUSNESS. There was no law of Moses before that. You mention commandment given to Adam, and to Abraham. Big deal. That’s not the law of Moses. You have an issue with the word covenant. Brit. Whatever. In Deuteronomy, it clearly states that IT SHALL BE OUR RIGHTEOSNESS IF…
Abraham just believed God and he got righteousness.
Big difference. So no, I don’t get your side at all.
Mosckerr
Adam would descend unto exile
br.d
Mosckerr – what does “descend unto exile” mean?
Thanks in advance
Sorry – I’m not getting what you are saying there – can you re-state that in layman’s English for me?
Thanks
Thanks
I asked you what does “descend unto exile” mean?
You mentioned something about “the land of Israel”, “holy lands”, “sacrifices” “rule the oath sworn lands with righteous justice”
But I have no way of putting any of those disparate things together in order to form a coherent picture.
Could you explain what “descend unto exile” means in layman’s English?
Thanks in advance
Thanks
I think I would have to ask a thousand questions before I’m done here
So I”ll just forgo
But thank you for taking the time to dialog
Well, you didn’t exactly answer my previous questions, too be honest. So, no. You mention courts, commandments, have reference to oral tradition, but didn’t address sin, as it pertains to the law of Moses. Abraham didn’t have it. There was no law telling him not to sleep with his sister. But it is in Leviticus as well as Deuteronomy.
According to those two books, it’s not only a sin, but it is said a curse, and that one would be cut off from his people.
And you have already concluded that all commandments are relevant.
In regards to Adam, why did God not want Adam to eat of that tree?
Just because he said so?
Those questions are rhetorical. The reason… so that Adam would not know what good and evil even is. Because of he didn’t know, he’s innocent. Satan wanted him to get educated, to stop being so ignorant.
Every time I’m accused of being ignorant…badge of honor.
Ed Chapman
Ya, I’m sorry, as well. We are having a great conversation, and I’m doing this on the fly, cuz I’m on my phone, in my car, awaiting for an hour drive for work, but it’s been put on hold. Internet on my phone sucks, so refresh is slow. Ugh.
I usually shy away from debate with Jews, because one I spoke with accused Christians of genocide… and I understand. I get it.
I’ve debate the gentile version of Returning to our Jewish Roots people, and they hate the apostle Paul.
I respect Jews so much. My best friend is a Christian, raised in Judaism… yes, a Jew.
If you’d like, brdmod can give you my email address.
Ed Chapman
mosckerr
publicly taught that brit melah does not exist any more as a Torah commandment.
br.d
What is the ” brit melah”?
And can you provide a verse in the N.T. where it is stated that the “brit melah” does not exist any more in the Torah commandment?
Thanks in advance
Ok – so “brit melah” means circumcision.
I got it!
So where do you see it written in the N.T. that circumcision does not exist any longer in the Torah?
mosckerr
keeping the commandments of God is what matters” (I Corinthians 7:19).
There Paul declares that brit melah – not a Torah commandment.
br.d
This interpretation is based on a presupposition that when Paul says: “keeping the commandments of God” he is is referring to “Torah”.
Can you provide a statement in the NT where Paul EXPLICITLY identifies the “Torah” as what he means by “The commandments of God” ?
When you say Torah, that includes Genesis. When I say Law of Moses, I’m beginning with the two tablets of stones that Moses brought down from Sinai.
Just for clarification.
So, explain Abraham sleeping with sister, that is against the law of Moses in Deuteronomy…yet GENESIS 25:6, is it, that he obeyed…
You’re not communicating, you are spewing; and what you are spewing is hatred against anyone not born a Jew. You should be ashamed of yourself, but you have so convinced yourself that your wickedness is service to God (“the Gods”???? you seem to be a polytheist) that your conscience is seared. May God have mercy on your soul.
I’ve said what I wanted to say. You can evaluate for yourself whether what I said of you is true or not. There’s an end to it, at least for me. I won’t be trying to prove anything.
*** PLEASE BE ADVISED ***
Please be advised – spurcalluth does not speak for or represent – SOT101.
He is speaking his own personal opinion.
So please do not assume that to be the opinion or position of SOT101
SOT101 does not go around pointing fingers of accusation at people – calling them wicked or claiming their conscience is seared.
Thanks
br.d
br.d
SOT101 does not go around pointing fingers of accusation at people – calling them wicked or claiming their conscience is seared.
roland
Wow! Really? That’s news to me. As a Calvinist on this website, I know it is NOT MY KITCHEN, I sure feel that most on here believe Calvinism is wicked and Calvinists are wicked. I’ve been told that Calvinists are in a cult. Are cults not wicked?
Roland – the simple answer is – no one who represents SOT101 will ever call you wicked etc.
Brian for example – is about as meek as one can be
He will tell you when you are blowing smoke or blowing hot air or shooting yourself in the foot with DOUBLE-SPEAK.
But that is about as aggressive as he gets..
I on the other hand tend to not give someone room for shell games, DOUBLE-TALK, etc
But that is not the same thing as going around calling people wicked or accusing them of having a conscience sealed with a hot iron
Those types of accusations are however not a surprise when they come from a Calvinist
As was the case in this instance – is the case typically.
brd
But that is not the same thing as going around calling people wicked or accusing them of having a conscience sealed with a hot iron
roland
True it is not the same thing but when another person attacks your personal beliefs it is offensive. So, when Pastor Loz accuses Calvinists of being cult-like I am offended. When Pastor Loz says Calvinism is a doctrine of demons I am offended. I was offended by the some of the things mosckrr or whatever his name is wrote.
It is good to be challenged and offended, I don’t mind that, I can take it. What I was simply pointing out is the expression that SOT101 is innocent of behavior similar to mosckrr, when SOT101 is not.
roland
True it is not the same thing but when another person attacks your personal beliefs it is offensive.
br.d
The problem with that position – is that it is totally subjective.
A young girl has a boyfriend who is violently beating her – and her parents feel like than cannot simply stand by and watch the consequence of each beating. So they try to reason with her concerning his condition
She is offended
In her mind they are ATTACKING her.
She has a powerful investment in her relationship with the boy who is beating her.
She is in no way prepared to accept anything her concerned parents say.
The Calvinist has a divine external mind – who meticulously determines every impulse that will come to pass within their brains and bodies.
He makes those impulses come to pass infallibly.
It is a total impossibility for a human to resist an impulse that will come to pass infallibly
For the NON-Calvinist – that model of interaction between the Calvinist and his god – is a model of abuse.
But the Calvinist – like our young girl – is emotionally and psychologically invested – and that investment has them ensnared.
So when a concerned NON-Calvinist tries to reason with the Calvinist – the Calvinist claims Calvinism is being STRAW MANNED
The bottom line is – Calvinism is a world in which human brains and bodies are meticulously determined by an external mind.
And the Calvinist simply cannot allow himself to acknowledge it – any more than our young girl can acknowledge her boyfriends condition..
Your analogy is not particular to Calvinism. It can apply to any group even a particular Christian denomination.
brd
The bottom line is – Calvinism is a world in which human brains and bodies are meticulously determined by an external mind.
And the Calvinist simply cannot allow himself to acknowledge it – any more than our young girl can acknowledge her boyfriends condition..
roland
More straw man Calvinism. You refuse to allow us, as many do, to say that God manifests His divine sovereignty in many ways. You, like most non-calvinists, press everything down into a simple robot (external mind control as you put it) or a puppet analogy of Calvinists understanding of God’s interactions with His creatures. The Bible does not teach us that we are robots nor puppets and it teaches us that God is sovereign and He exercises His sovereignty in creation and His creatures as He pleases.
Roland
Your analogy is not particular to Calvinism. It can apply to any group even a particular Christian denomination.
br.d
Correct!
And it is consistently observed as a phenomenon with Calvinists
brd
The bottom line is – Calvinism is a world in which human brains and bodies are meticulously determined by an external mind.
And the Calvinist simply cannot allow himself to acknowledge it – any more than our young girl can acknowledge her boyfriends condition..
roland
More straw man Calvinism.
br.d
The fact that you cannot acknowledge what your doctrine stipulates is the RED-FLAG here! :-]
Roland
The Bible does not teach us that we are robots nor puppets….
br.d
Correct!
And the Calvinist INTERPRETATION of scripture – stipulates – quote “WHATSOEVER COMES TO PASS” is determined at the foundation of the world – and made to come to pass infallibly.
“WHATSOEVER COMES TO PASS” logically must include every impulse that comes to pass within the Calvinist brain and body.
That is not a straw-man
It is SIMPLE LOGIC.
Roland
God is sovereign and He exercises His sovereignty in creation and His creatures as He pleases.
br.d
And the MODEL in which the Calvinist interprets that – stipulates that 100% of every impulse that comes to pass within the human brain and body – is meticulously determined by an external mind.
The fact that the Calvinist is forced to DENY his own doctrine – is the RED-FLAG.
You have admitted that there s absolutely no way you could have resisted the temptation to commit the last sin that God irresistibly, unchangeably ordained for you to commit (despite God’s promise that He will never let you be tempted beyond what you can bear). That makes you a robot, programmed to commit that sin. You can deny it in fifteen different ways but you cannot escape it.
Roland
You, like most non-calvinists, press everything down into a simple robot (external mind control as you put it) or a puppet analogy of Calvinists understanding of God’s interactions with His creatures.
br.d
1) WHATSOEVER impulses come to pass within the micro-processor of a robot are DETERMINED by a mind external to the robot.
2) The doctrine of decrees stipulates WHATSOEVER impulses come to pass within the brain of a Calvinist are DETERMINED by a mind external to the Calvinist.
Where is the straw-man in that???
If you can hide behind circumlocutions, then so can I. I never said to anyone that their conscience was seared with a hot iron.
AH!
I had to go back and check!
You omitted the “hot iron” part!
Forgive me for adding it.
That changes everything doesn’t it! 😀
It makes about as much of a difference as the difference between “Calvinists are incapable of being honest” and “Calvinists are incapable of being honest because they’re evil”. If you’re willing to see the difference in the one scenario, I don’t see why should refuse the see the difference in the other.
Calvinists are capable of being honest, but it appears they frequently choose not to be.
Fascinating. I wonder where I got the impression that you anti-Calvinists believe that Calvinists are incapable of being honest? Oh, your comments. That’s where!
Feel free to quote me where I have stated that Calvinists are incapable of being honest. If they were incapable, then that would give them an excuse, just as Calvinism gives those who reject God a perfect excuse for doing so, contrary to what the Bible states.
Is that the inquisitor’s gleam-in-the-eye that I see as you quote Romans 1: “they have no excuse”?
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 his god or his 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.
Lets examine that
In one case we have “seared”
In other case we have “seared with a hot iron”
The implement with which the searing occurred is omitted in one case
But the “searing” is still the case
So the difference is like the difference between
You burned yourself – vs you burned yourself with a hot iron
How anyone can leap-frog to a wild conclusion about that difference inferring someone being incapable of being honest from that is anyone’s guess.
mosckerr,
It’s a shame that you don’t know who your friends are.
Ed Chapman
mosckerr,
You sound lonely. Maybe you can spew this stuff with your family in Texas instead of here with us. We know you used to speak English.
Maybe you can brush up on that English a bit, and tell your brothers, who married non-Jews, your woes. You came here to pick a fight.
No one is biting here. Reconcile with your family. I’m sure they miss you.
Ed Chapman
Then you can speak English. We are not your enemies here, so why do you wish to pick a fight? If someone offended you personally, please take it up with that person. But as it stands, those to whom you have a problem with… they are all dead and buried. Take your grievances somewhere else about Christianity. You shouldn’t care what anyone but you believes. So worry about yourself, and depart in peace.
The problem is… you are in our kitchen. An uninvited guest.
You came here griping about Christians, meaning that we are your enemy. You came looking for your enemy here. And since you find Christianity so detestable, you chose to spew your anger at us because of what some dead people did over a thousand years ago that we have no control over. That’s surely no way to make friends. If your friends have your back, then tell them your problems. See a psychiatrist.
Pretty amazing, since God promised you that he would multiply you more than the sand of the sea, or the stars of the sky, huh?
mosckerr
A Jew griping about the systematic murder of 75% of European Jewry from Xtian Europe. Why that’s just not fair
br.d
I don’t hold you accountable or blame you for the sins you father committed.
Again – you invited yourself into someone else’s kitchen for a reason.
And its starting to look like – you did that because you want to blame them for the sins of someone else – when you wouldn’t want to be blamed for the sins you did not personally commit.
I believe you have more intellectual integrity than that.
Sorry mosckerr
This is not the place for that.
If you persist on being disrespectful – all of your posts will simply be automatically deleted – and then all of your efforts will have been in vain anyway.
So please be a respectful citizen – and do what you know is the right thing to do.
BTW:
I appreciated your friend Tex’s advise to you when he told you not to take yourself too seriously. :-]
Be at peace moskerr!
And as you leave our kitchen – please extend peace to others.
That is the respectful thing to do – and you will be respected for doing it.
mosckerr
Ah you view your self as my enemy?
br.d
Cmon mosckerr – I think you have more intellectual integrity than that.
To auto-magically attribute to others – what is the case with yourself – is not logical.
Mosckerr
Prophets command mussar.
br.d
That is a red-herring.
Again mosckerr – it is hoped you have more intellectual integrity than that.
You can easily go in peace.
There doesn’t need to be an increase in controversy here.
You’ve invited yourself into someone else’s kitchen.
We all believe you can comport yourself properly.
Leaving in peace – and wishing everyone peace – would be the appropriate thing to do
Unless – you secretly have an urgency to punish people??
mosckerr
Simply bring T’NaCH sources and reveal how to properly learn them, like as does the Talmud and Midrashim.
br.d
And I’m sure there will be someone who is happy to invite you into their kitchen for that. :-]
But inviting yourself into someone else’s kitchen in order to criticize them is not the appropriate thing to do.
And if you persist – we will simply auto-delete all of your posts.
I believe you know how to be respectful and – anticipate your leaving in peace
Your posts are now being auto-deleted.
Mosckerr
If ya can’t stand the heat, then git out of the kitchen.
br.d
The problem with his mosckerr – is this is not your kitchen.
We wouldn’t think of inviting ourselves into your kitchen in order to make criticisms.
To do so would be to show how disrespectful we are of anyone other than ourselves
Hi mosckerr. I personally think you are wasting your time posting such lengthy hard to follow reasonings. I hope you are not getting much satisfaction by thoughts that you really are helping people this way. For I think you are just filling yourself with thoughts of self importance.
I have seen this kind of behavior fairly regularly, and have too often found doing some of it myself. A good sign is when no-one really attempts to interact with specifics from what you’ve written.
And I do hope you will stop rejecting Jesus as the true Messiah of Israel, the Son of God, and the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world!
br.
Hi mosckerr
What does “The mussar of Adam” mean?
And what does “the bnai brit people” mean?
Thanks in advance
mosckerr
All Torah and NaCH prophets command mussar.
br.d
yes but what does “mussar” mean?
Please try to use layman’s English for me – your language style is a little too cryptic for me
mosckerr
Bnai brit – people who mutually swear the oath alliance.
br.d
Ok – whatever that means?????
I’m sorry – I”ll have to let this conversation go.
I’m spending too much time try to decipher the language.
Thanks anyway! :-]
br.d,
FYI, Brit is just another word for Covenant.
I learned this while studying the Herbert W Armstrong clan, an offshoot of the 7th Day Adventists.
They equate that word, Brit, as British, aka the covenant people, hence America is the lost tribes of Israel…according to their doctrine. There are other like offshoots that buy into that stuff, too.
However, when he states brit, that he accused Paul of throwing out… he’s referring the old brit, aka testament, aka covenant, aka contract.
Ed
AH!
Thanks for filling in the blanks.
Have you ever seen that episode on Star Trek Next Generation where they come into contact with a society called the “Tamarians”
The “Tamarians” speak in a cryptic language.
The first words of the captain of the Tamarian ship addressed to the Enterprise were
-quote
Rai and Jiri at Lungha.
Rai of Lowani
Lowani under two moons.
Jiri of Ubaya.
Ubaya of crossed roads at Lungha.
Lungha. her sky grey.
Captain Picard spends most of his time – trying to decipher the Tarnairan language
Ha! No, I’m way too Captain Kirk, William Shatner…Denny Crane (Boston Legal).
But I get. Anytime you speak with an orthodox Jew, especially from Israel, expect the Hebrew mix with English.
We need more Hebrew scholars. Greek scholars are a dime a dozen, with inflation factored in.
One major mistake that Christians assume is that all Christians have to do is give ’em the gospel… it’s not that simple. The SBC had a pretty bad history with Jews a number of years ago. They pretended an apology, I mean apologized, but that history wasn’t easily forgotten. Catholics also have issues with Jews, just as he mentioned here today in speaking of Justice.
Ed
Yes, in your world, as I already mentioned, righteousness is about justice. But not worth Abraham. All he did was believe God’s promise. That’s it. Your justice is being obedient to the law of Moses. To you, that’s righteousness… and your deuteronomy reference so states. AND IT SHALL BE OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS IF…
mosckerr
The p’suk\verse does not say he believed … but rather he trusted. A big distinction.
br.d
Can you clarify the distinction you see between “believe” and “trust”?
Thanks in advance
mosckerr
Trust exist as a verb. Upon this יסוד stands shalom. Peace by contrast exists as a noun.
br.d
Actually – “belief” is an abstract-noun – which is not the same thing as a regular noun
The word “courage” for example – is an abstract-noun.
To “trust” and to “believe” are both things a person actively does.
Thus Abraham actively “trusted” – and Abraham actively “believed” would seem to have interrelated characteristics.
For Abraham to actively “believe” would logically necessitate something to “believe” in – which would logically necessitate “trust”.
So I’m not yet seeing a distinction that is relevant.
Can you explain what distinction you see as relevant?
Thanks in advance
mosckerr
Belief does not apply when a heavy stone falls upon a persons foot. That person swears !@#$ he does not say “I believe a stone just fell upon my foot. LOL
br.d
I have a suspicion – he doesn’t say “I trust a stone just fell on my foot” either! :-]
As I said earlier – I thank you for the brief dialog – but I’ll have to forgo anything further.
The language barrier is too significant for me.
But thanks!
Father Augustine…yep… he’s not my father. He twisted what Paul was discussing. Paul was saying that we all die a natural death because of Adam. That’s it. If Adam had eaten of the tree of life, things would be different. But ole father julytine decided to twist Paul’s words, and make a doctrine out of it.
Roland
God is TOTALLY IN CONTROL but does not totally control every impulse in human thinking.
br.d
Jesus
– quote
“But let your communications be YEA YEA or NAY NAY for anything else comes of evil”
Thus we have another example of how the Calvinist for the sake of a master – is unwittingly lured into disobeying Jesus.
Calvinist language is a YEA/NAY language.
RECOGNIZING WHAT MUST BE INCLUDED IN EVERY INFALLIBLE DECREE
1) The infallible decree establishes what WILL come to pass at any point in time
2) All CONDITIONS that are NECESSARY for that infallible decree to come to pass – MUST be INCLUDED within that decree
For example:
Lets say it is infallibly decreed that I will drive a blue Ford Bronco tomorrow at 5PM
In such case – a blue Ford Bronco must exist for me to drive tomorrow at 5PM
Therefore a NECESSARY CONDITION for that decree to come to pass – is the existence and availability of a blue Ford Bronco.
So by this – we can see that (2) is correct.
3) The divine decree also automatically INCLUDES all things that WILL NOT happen
Lets say again – it is infallibly decreed that I will drive a blue Ford Bronco tomorrow at 5PM
That decree EXCLUDES me doing anything OTHER than driving a blue Ford Bronco tomorrow at 5PM
So the decree must also INCLUDE that which WILL NOT come to pass with me tomorrow at 5PM
SO THERE ARE 3 THINGS WHICH MUST BE INCLUDED WITH EVERY INFALLIBLE DECREE.
1) That which WILL come to pass – is established by the infallible decree
2) All conditions necessary for that which WILL come to pass – are also established by the infallible decree
3) That which WILL NOT come to pass – is also established by the infallible decree
And so when God infallibility decreed the last sin that Roland committed, Roland HAD TO commit that sin. All the conditions necessary for Roland to commit that sin had to be in place, including a level of temptation that was beyond what Roland could bear, and thus it was IMPOSSIBLE for Roland NOT to commit that sin
And all of this DESPITE every instruction God gave to Roland IN HIS WORD not to sin, every warning about the consequences of sin, and God’s clear promise to Roland NOT to allow Roland to be tempted beyond what he could bear
If I was Roland, or any other Calvinist, I would be wondering what else my version of God might have lied to me about. But it would be OK, I could take comfort from the fact that the WCF tells me that despite all of the above, God did not violate my will, and is not the author or cause of my sin.
Bulls-Eye!
Its hilarious isn’t it! 😀
Hilarious but tragic
Anyone who can still take calvinism seriously on any level – theologically, philosophically, logically or morally, after watching even the first video in this series must be on the theological equivalent of a Fentanyl – Crystal Meth – LSD – Crack Cocaine – Spice – Mamba = Ecstacy cocktail.
Roland:
“I reject LFW.”
br.d
NOT!!!!
It that were *REALLY TRUE* then you would reject the notion that your brain is granted the LIBERTY of “Determining” True from False.
Here is a definition of a LIBERTARIAN CHOICE provided by CARM
-quote
By definition, the ability or power to choose or to REFRAIN from choosing is what is called LIBERTARIAN freedom.
-quote
Given choices A and B, one can literally choose to DO EITHER one
-quote
No circumstances exist that are sufficient to DETERMINE one’s choice
-quote
A person’s choice is UP TO him, and if he does one of them, he could have DONE OTHERWISE,
In other words – there are no ANTECEDENT FACTORS OUTSIDE OF YOUR BRAINS CONTROL which DETERMINE what your brain will do.
So the fact is – every time you reject the proposition that your brain is controlled by ANTECEDENT FACTORS OUTSIDE OF YOUR BRAINS CONTROL which DETERMINE what your brain will do – you are ASSUMING a LIBERTARIAN function is granted to your brain.
So claiming the very function you ASSUME is not biblical and does not exist – is like the man who while driving a car – claims cars are un-biblical and don’t exist.
Calvinism is DOUBLE-MINDED 😀
ROLAND
DECEMBER 21, 2021 AT 6:59 AM
And how does it feel knowing that God has revealed in His Word truth that is contrary to your personal beliefs?
br.d
With Calvinism – that is a given for all humans – including Calvinists.
Unless you want to argue that your personal beliefs have reached perfection.
In Calvinism – a person’s personal belief – is NOT determined by the person – but rather by Calvin’s god.
1) The Calvinist cannot boast that his personal belief has reached perfection
2) Therefore he must have beliefs that do not line up with the “word of truth”
3) His personal belief is NOT determined by himself – but rather determined by Calvin’s god
So Roland
How does it feel knowing that Calvin’s god has decreed to you to infallibly have FALSE perceptions of scripture which you are not permitted to discern as FALSE?
Merry Christmas!
The Vocal Majority Chorus “Oh Holy Night” – YouTube
Wonderful!
Thank you Philip!
And Merry Christmas to you also! :-]
MORE FUN WITH CALVINISM’S GOD OF TWO OPPOSING WILLS
Roland: Search has hard as you want in the Scriptures but nowhere does God say that He has granted man LFW. Nowhere. I believe God can do that but since Scripture is my sole and infallible rule for faith and life, and God HAS NOT revealed this in Scripture
That’s a simple textbook case of argumentum ex silentio. The faux claim is fallacious. I’ll go on to show how absurd such assertion this is for the Calvinist to make (e.g., “HAS NOT revealed this in Scripture”).
I suppose Roland holds to, for instance, creatio ex nihilo. Suppose your friendly neighborhood Mormon shows up, who holds to creatio ex materia, and, like Roland asserts, “Search has hard as you want in the Scriptures but nowhere does God say that he has [created ex nihilo]. Nowhere. I believe God can do that but since Scripture is my sole and infallible rule for faith and life, and God HAS NOT revealed this in Scripture.”
Nothing in the Hebrew verb בָּרָ֣א, as the lexical evidence shows, presupposes creatio ex nihilo. And so the Mormon would be correct! However, creatio ex nihilo, as it has been classically understood has been arrived at through other considerations, but let’s not pretend that scripture “HAS” revealed clearly said truth. Believers are content to affirm that fact of creatio ex nihilo, even though “God HAS NOT revealed” how this was divinely achieved. If I’m right about this, here is an instance where Roland affirms a doctrine without it being explicitly “revealed…in scripture.” If so, why can’t non-Calvinists likewise rationally affirm that God has indeed carved out a space in reality with agents with causal powers of the libertarian sourcehood variety?
Did Roland learn, for instance, other divine instantiated truths like 2 + 2 = 4 through the inscripturated “sole and infallible rule for faith and life…”? Clearly, Roland is either unfamiliar with the true Reformed understanding of “sole”, or he’s firing off whatever random target he can hit in defense of his position.
What about Paul at Areopagus at the Agrippeion. It’s indisputable that Paul thought Tanak was his “sole and infallible rule for faith and life” (1 Tim 3:16-17). Yet, he forms his apologetic quoting from pagan Greek writers. Paul quotes from a hymn to Zeus by Epimenides of Crete, and, the second quote is from the poem Phainomena by the stoic Aratus. It seems Paul has a different nuance of “sole” than Roland.
I can just turn it around and simply suggest – neither is there a scintilla of scriptural evidence of anything like UDD or EDD. And whatever passages can be alleged in its favor, formidable counter-exegesis can be offered without succumbing, as Calvinist always do, to ad hoc categories that are glaringly imposed on the text.
Roland: Libertarian free will means that our choices are free from the determination or constraints of human nature and free from any predetermination by God…Libertarian freedom is, therefore, the freedom to act contrary to one’s nature, predisposition and greatest desires. Responsibility, in this view, always means that one could have done otherwise.
Such a definition would support the notion that an elephant, for instance, could not be libertarianly free unless it could fly. This is the sort of nonsense that makes Calvinists like Roland a Calvinist. He picks up his views, not from responsibly reading metaphysicians on agency, but like a dog picks up fleas.
While it’s apparent why he cites no leading philosopher that subscribes to LFW in such form, it was David Hume in his Inquiries Concerning Human Understanding who first proposed this objection. But suffices to say that proponents of LFW are not committed to a type of freedom where there is no nature that ontological undergirds, shapes, and forms human willing. We only need to be committed to the claim that the choice is influenced by the desires and impulses of a nature, but the instantiation of it is determined by agent causation. And so in this way, libertarians can sidestep Hume’s critique.
Roland: Responsibility, in this view, always means that one could have done otherwise.
This too is defective. He is not aware of the variety of sourcehood views of agency, and so PAP is not necessary. The hubris by which these assertions are made is more scandalous than how wrong he paints opposing views.
Roland : 1) God commanded pharaoh to let His people go. This is God’s prescriptive will for pharaoh. 2) God hardened pharaoh’s heart so that pharaoh would not obey God’s command. This is God’s decretive will for pharaoh
There’s also a simple reason why Roland cannot produce a single text of scripture demonstrating that scripture itself posits these loaded distinctions. Second, neither can Roland provide any textual demonstration where scriptures issues an objective criterion in which instances to label one event “perceptive” and another “decretive”. As far as I can see, the Calvinist, fallibly and autonomously, assigns the labels as his prejudices seem fit. So the labeling here lacks any warrant in scripture, and it seems wholly ad hoc – only serving to putting a ribbon on a mystery that still cries for a cogent explanation.
The standard Reformed strategy is an argumentative bust.
Totally wonderful post A.B!
And the hilarious part for me – is – how a Calvinist will claim LFW doesn’t exist – while ASSUMING it does exist for himself – every time he perceives himself as having the ability to determine TRUE from FALSE on any matter.
The Calvinist is like the man who while driving his care – claims cars do not exist.
Totally hilarious! 😀
br.d , It’s Jeff again, I found this comment online
“”You are correct that Calvinism is a “system.” What you failed to mention is that it is an extra-biblical system replete with historical and cultural influences stemming back to antiquated authoritarianIsm of the post-inquisition /reformation era, and classical Greco Roman paganism. All extra biblical and terribly destructive psychologically damaging assumptions.a
Jesus poses the question, Matthew 7:11
New King James Version
11 “If you then, (A)being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask Him!“
If Jesus makes this inference to God, who we know is by definition love, and whose love is infinitely greater than our finite ability to love even our own children, then it is an irrefutable fallacy of logic to portray Him by the Greco-Roman concepts of “fate” and “destiny,” scowling down with crossed arms waiting for someone to destroy and send to eternal suffering and torment in Gehenna. Would any one of us in our finite state ever even consider doing so to our own children? Then how is such a portrayal of God consistent with Jesus his reasoning above.
Only extra-biblical assertions and man made jargon can support such authoritarian portrayal of God. It’s not in the Bible.
Read the article again, and read with the Greek lexicon (https://biblehub.com/lexicon) as a Berean, and you will realize that Calvinism is a false man made extra-biblical system of thought reflecting the neurosis of a primitive civilization and historically verifiable pagan influences (et. al. Constantine, Augustine, etc.), of an era hundreds of years expired.
Realize, we are losing a generation rapidly, America is following the footsteps of Europe, and the decline of western Christianity can be directly rooted to this failure of protestants to let go of legalistic antiquated dogma’s, and realize that God is much bigger than the box that egotistical and narcissistic men have tried to force Him into, in order to further their influence, power, and status over Christians who have been rendered hopelessly passive in the pews. Until there is dramatic and profound change, and the Christian church is liberated from legalistic, unyielding dogmatic, extra biblical systematic man made theology such as these, we will continue to see The Church decline, and our children and grandchildren will reap the consequences of it.”
What do you think ? Would you say that Calvinism is a more controversial , very controversial theology as compared to Arminianism , etc, Does Calvinism generally produce bad fruits ? We both seem to think the Calvinist way of Interpretating the Bible is Flawed, but Calvinists would say the same thing about Arminians, What about the Laws of Physics , do they seem to support
Exhaustive Divine Determinism ?
Hello Jefffw
You ask some good questions!
Are you familiar with what “Syncretism” means?
A typical definition is – “The fusion of differing systems of belief,”
Now here is an online article on NeoPlatonism – from Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
-quote
It is an undeniable fact, although nowadays rarely acknowledged, that the general outlook and the principal doctrines of the Neoplatonists proved exceedingly influential throughout the entire history of western philosophy. Through Augustine (354–430) in the West and………
Augustine corresponded by letter to a close friend Nebridius, who praises how Augustine’s letters: “speak of Christ, Plato and Plotinus”.
Plotinus was a Greek pagan teacher – who essentially took various doctrines of Plato – and re-shaped them into religious form
Hence it was called “NeoPlatonism” (i.e. the NEW Platonism)
Augustine is noted as one of the premier influences in the synchronization of NeoPlatonism into Christian doctrine.
It is critical to realize that during Augustine’s days as a Catholic Bishop – the Roman church was busy incorporating many elements of paganism into itself. So Syncretism is a predominant characteristic of Catholicism.
And the time-period in which the Roman Catholic church was most heavily involved in synchronizing iteslf with many pagan elements – was during its EMBRYONIC phase. And that is the time-period in which Augustine lives and thrives as a person of authority within the Roman Catholic church.
English historian, Theodore Maynard, in The story of American Catholicism writes: “It has often be charged… that Catholicism has been overlaid with many pagan incrustations. Catholicism is ready to accept that charge – and to make it her boast. The great god Pan is not really dead, he is baptized.”
So what Augustine does – following the mode of Syncretism at that time – is to mix into Catholic doctrine – elements which can be found in both NeoPlatonism as well as Christian Gnosticism.
One of the elements found within both NeoPlatonism and Christian Gnosticism is DUALISM.
And if you know what to look for in Calvinism – you will learn how to recognize how many things appear in “Good-Evil” form within Calvinism
I believe those DUALISTIC elements within Calvinism – are derivatives of NeoPlatonism and Gnosticism.
But the element within Calvinism which is totally unique to Calvinism alone is Exhaustive Divine Determinism.
The ancient Greek Stoics were essentially Theological Determinists.
They believed in multiple gods – not just one single god.
As Determinists – they believed that certain god’s determined certain fates to come to pass.
Now if you take that form of Theological Determinism – and you synchronize it into Christianity – what you get is a MONO-Theistic religious in which the nature and character of various Greek god’s of FATE – now morph into one single God.
There is a characteristic human response the Determinism as a belief system.
The Greek Stoics exhibited this response just as much as Calvinists exhibit it today.
It is humanly impossible to CONSISTENTLY hold to Exhaustive Determinism.
Atheists who are Determinists – understand this.
Here is a quote from Internationally recognized Atheist Determinist Sean Carry
-quote
“We tend to “SAY” things like – I enjoy coffee – and I choose to drink coffee this morning – but I could have DONE OTHERWISE.
But if you believe in Determinism – then can you really DO OTHERWISE?
No! The truth is – the constituents of nature are what DETERMINE what I will do – and I CANNOT DO OTHERWISE.
But that is not a practical way to speak and that is not a practical way to live.”
So you see – the belief in Determinism – whether it is Natural Determinism held by Atheists – or Theological Determinism held by Calvinists – the bottom line is – it is a belief system which is so totally unpalatable that no human can hold it with LOGICAL consistency
So the Calvinist’s conundrum is that he has an urgency to advertise the doctrine so as to maximize its acceptance
But he himself cannot REALLY embrace that doctrine – because he finds it to be a suit that is too uncomfortable to wear
The consequence is a form of DOUBLE-THINK
And since human language – is the outward expression of human thinking – then Calvinist language is going to be a DOUBLE-SPEAK language.
The Arminian form of Christian belief may have problems – as every Christian belief system does.
But they are not saddled with a belief system that is psychologically impossible for them to live.
John Calvin understood this conundrum and he instructed the Calvinist as follows:
-quote
“All future things being uncertain to us, we hold them in suspense, AS THOUGH they might happen either one way or another.” ( Institutes Vol. i. p.193)
Here Calvin knows that what he is asserting is a DENIAL of the foundational core of his doctrine – because it is LOGICALLY impossible for a predestined event to turn out “one way or another”
But in order for the Calvinist have a sense of NORMALCY in life – he must treat the most sacred element of his doctrine *AS-IF* it 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 Calvin knows he is in full denial of the foundational core of his doctrine – because that doctrine specifically stipulates that EVERYTHING is determined in every part.
So you see Jeff – Exhaustive Divine Determinism – is a belief system that is too radical for any Calvinist humanly CONSISTENTLY hold to.
And when you learn to recognize that about Calvinism – you will eventually learn to identify every instance in which Calvinist statements are DOUBLE-SPEAK statements – designed to both assert EDD and deny it at the same time.
br.d , But do you ever worry or wonder, What If ? What If Calvinism is True, and taught in the Bible ? Do you personally worry about your own Salvation, and ask yourself “What If” you weren’t chosen by God to be Saved and in Heaven ? How can we logically prove Calvinism to be True or False ? Some have said perhaps a Mixture of Calvinism or Arminianism is True, that “Both somehow” that it doesn’t have to be a dichotomy, either or type of thing, it can be Both ? I hate to sound redundant, but it’s so confusing the search for Biblical Truth, for Correct Doctrine & Interpretation – Jeff
Jeffw
br.d , But do you ever worry or wonder, What If ? What If Calvinism is True, and taught in the Bible ?
br.d
If that were the case – we would have to conclude that the Bible teaches believers to hold divine TRUTH taught by scripture *AS-IF* it is FALSE.
Where does scripture instruct the believer to treat scripture *AS-IF* it is FALSE?
Jeffw
Do you personally worry about your own Salvation, and ask yourself “What If” you weren’t chosen by God to be Saved and in Heaven ?
br.d
Before one could consider that a viable concept – one would have to PRESUPPOSE Calvinist doctrine.
If you are contemplating that – then that tells me you are PRESUPPOSING Calvinist doctrine – when you should be questioning it.
1 Thessalonians 5:21
Prove all things; hold fast that which is good
We take the CLAIMS of any theology and require it pass a test
1) What IMAGE does it create of the God of scripture?
2) What IMAGE does it create of the Authors of scripture?
3) Does it turn scripture into an irrational pretzel?
4) Does it force the believer to doubt God’s intentions?
5) Does it force the believer to be DOUBLE-MINDED concerning his belief system?
6) Does it teach the believer to use deceptive language – in order to OBFUSCATE aspects of his doctrine that he doesn’t find palatable, and knows others will not find palatable?
7) Does it teach the believer that using deceptive language to promote and defend his doctrine is not only NOT a sin – but is part of his personal efficacy?
Calvinism fails all 7 of those tests.
Jeffw
How can we logically prove Calvinism to be True or False ?
br.d
Very simply by treating LOGIC the same way we treat a balancing scale.
The scripture tells us – a FALSE-BALANCE is an abomination to the Lord
And FALSE LOGIC is the equivalent of a FALSE BALANCE.
Calvinism is saturated with self-contradictions.
Therefore its logic is the equivalent of a FALSE BALANCE.
Jeffw
Some have said perhaps a Mixture of Calvinism or Arminianism is True, that “Both somehow” that it doesn’t have to be a dichotomy, either or type of thing, it can be Both ?
br.d
The foundational core of Calvinism is EXHAUSTIVE DIVINE DETERMINISM.
Exhaustive Divine Determinism – is the LOGICAL ANTITHESIS of Arminianism
Where we have antithesis – it follows – where one is TRUE the other must be FALSE.
That is the law of contradiction within LOGIC
Jeffw
I hate to sound redundant, but it’s so confusing the search for Biblical Truth, for Correct Doctrine & Interpretation – Jeff
br.d
There are 2 reason why you are still considering Calvinism a viable belief system
1) The Calvinist literature and influences you are coming in contact with – are OBFUSCATING things about the doctrine they don’t want you to see. This is the Rule and not the exception when it comes to Calvinist literature and influence.
2) You don’t yet recognize that Calvinism out of all Christian theologies – has a very powerful urgency to MARKET itself.
The Calvinist literature and influences you are coming in contact with are MARKETING influences.
Marketing language is not TRUTH-TELLING language
Marketing language is designed to paint a picture of the product that will induce you to buy it.
Calvinist language is not a TRUTH-TELLING language – it is a COSMETIC language
Cosmetics are designed to HIDE that which is undesirable – and produce a FALSE APPEARANCE that will be acceptable to you.
Your problem right now Jeff is that you have not disciplined yourself to think critically about Calvinism.
You are too willing to believe every word.
What does the scripture tell you about those who believe every word they are told?
Go back and review the answers I have given you – and allow your mind to really *THINK* them through.
I can put your mind and all your hypotheticals to rest. Calvinism is not true. You might as well ask, “What if God actually turns out to be satan”. Trying to mix calvinism with biblical theology is like Chrislam.
I second that Brian. No way I would bother reading that sermon, especially with the deliberately obscure hybrid language.
Jeff: “But do you ever worry or wonder, What If ? What If Calvinism is True, and taught in the Bible ? Do you personally worry about your own Salvation, and ask yourself “What If” you weren’t chosen by God to be Saved and in Heaven ?”
Hello Jeff. I did wonder if Calvinism could possibly be true after our church got a dogmatic Calvinist preacher, which is why I dug as deeply as I did into the Bible, to see if Calvinism reflects God’s Word accurately. (It does not! And we ended up leaving our church of almost 20 years. I think clicking on my name will bring you to my blog, my research into this.) It’s not wrong to wonder, to question. What is wrong is letting someone convince you to accept their version of the gospel when it conflicts with the plain, clear understanding of Scripture, which is what Calvinism does. It adds multiple layers and secret meanings and double-definitions to God’s Word, which conflicts with the plain meaning of Scripture.
And here’s a question: If Calvinism is true, what benefit is there to worrying about if we are elect or not? Can our worry do anything to change what Calvi-god predestined and causes? In fact, if Calvinism is true, there’s no sense in worrying about ANYTHING – what you think, what you do, your past sins, your future sins, anyone’s salvation, or anything. Because it’s all been predestined by Calvi-god, caused by Calvi-god (for his glory), and there’s nothing anyone can do about it.
Jeff: “How can we logically prove Calvinism to be True or False ?”
You’ll see Calvinists here (and other places) say that you can’t use logic to determine if Calvinism is true or not, that that’s putting human logic over “Scripture.” This is a manipulative attempt to get people to stop questioning Calvinism, to stop them from examining the problems/errors/contradictions in Calvinism and the ways it conflicts with the Bible. They want you to blindly accept what you’re told, and if you continue to ask the real, serious questions, they will almost always resort to things like “Who are you, O man, to question God? Is He sovereign or are you?” But that is not an answer. It’s a cult-like attempt to shut up the opposition, to shame them into falling into line.
I would say that we can know Calvinism (and any other heresy) is false if it conflicts with what God plainly, clearly said. The Bible says God loves the world and wants all people to be saved, that He wants no one to perish, which would mean, logically, that God would not then cause most people to go to hell because that would make Him a liar, untrustworthy. It says Jesus took away the sins of the world and that whoever believes in Him will be saved, which means since all men’s sins are paid for, then anyone can believe in Him if they choose to. This is not hard to understand, is it?
But Calvinism believes there’s hidden layers in what God says, that He says one thing but means another, and that if you want to know what God REALLY meant, you need to let their Calvinist theologians take you through months of study using their books. (A major red flag!) They say He really means He loves all different kinds of people of the world (not all individual people), that, sure, He “wants” all people to be saved but still causes most to go to hell because it brings Him glory, that Jesus really only died for the elect because He wouldn’t die for those predestined to reject Him (which presupposes Calvinism is true), and that only the elect can and will believe in Him.
The funny thing is, almost none of what Calvinism teaches is clearly taught in the Bible in any verse. Is there a verse that clearly says Jesus died only for the elect, or that most people have no ability to believe in Jesus, or that God gets glory for sending people to hell, or that God gets glory for predestining /causing our sins, or that God causes people to be wicked (it says He uses their wickedness, but not that He causes it), or that “dead in sin” means we are unable to make decisions about God and so God has to cause the elect to seek Him but no one else can seek Him? No. Calvinists have to twist verses, take them out of context, add hidden meanings, and piece together pieces of carefully-chosen ones to make it seem like Calvinism is in the Bible. They won’t accept the clear, plain, repeated teachings of the Bible, but they replace it with their unclear, “hidden” version which isn’t clearly stated in any verse. (And then they pat themselves on the back for being so “humble” to accept such hard-to-accept, terrible teachings, such as that Jesus only died for the elect and that Calvinism’s god predestines people to hell and causes child rape for his glory. Can you not see how demonic that is?)
Jeffw: “Some have said perhaps a Mixture of Calvinism or Arminianism is True,”
I haven’t looked into this myself, but (just FYI), Kevin Thompson at Beyond the Fundamentals says that Calvinism and Arminianism are essentially cut from the same cloth, historically. Basically, that Arminianism is Calvinism in different clothing. I don’t know what to think about this, but I am not sure that the opposite of Calvinism is Arminianism. I would say the opposite of Calvinism is the Bible, God’s Word. Skip the -isms, and just read God’s Word as it was written. And that’s where you’ll find the truth.
God bless you on your search for clarity and truth about all this. 🙂
Hello Heather, I was interested in your blog. I tried clicking on your name. Is there a link that you could provide? I would appreciate it. Thanks,
Hi Roland, I hope you are doing well and had a great Christmas and New Year. I guess it maybe only links to my blog when I click my name on my computer. It’s at anticalvinistrant.blogspot.com. (Be careful, because I am seeing fake addresses where they leave out one letter in the title. I’m not sure what clicking on those will lead to.)
And I will give you all a heads up, I have several posts where I repost and critique/examine various comments from the Soteriology 101 comment sections (I link back to Soteriology 101 each time I do to give credit where credit is due). And so some of you are featured in them. I have found these “real-life” comments, the back and forth between us Calvinists and non/anti-Calvinists to be so educational. Almost better than reading a book written by just one side or the other. Plus, I had lots of my own comments that I spent so much time writing, and so I wanted to get more “use” out of them, to make it more worth my time.
God bless!
Calvinism as a doctrine is indeed evil – a doctrine of demons. Calvinism as a movement displays multiple cult-like behaviours. Calvinists as people are flawed human beings just like everyone els. What I have found, and you are confirming, is that most Calvinists identify so strongly with Calvinism, they do not distinguish between attacks on their doctrine and challenges to their tactics on the one hand, and attacks on them as people on the other.
Pastor Loz.
Calvinism as a movement displays multiple cult-like behaviours.
roland
Typical straw man argument here. Accusing without proof. I will say there are some Calvinists churches that are cult-like but Calvinism as a movement has not been and is not cult-like.
Roland
I will say there are some Calvinists churches that are cult-like but Calvinism as a movement has not been and is not cult-like.
br.d
You would benefit by looking up the definition of “Milieu control”
It is a known phenomenon in the world of social science
You are making a false generalization that all Calvinist practice milieu control. You might have evidence that some do but not all. And when you present Calvinists, especially all Calvinists as you seem to imply, you build up your idea of Calvinism and thus, it becomes easier to prove Calvinism wrong when you misrepresent Calvinism.
Roland
You are making a false generalization that all Calvinist practice milieu control.
br.d
Calvinism’s socialization processes—milieu control—a closed system of logic:
The society of Calvinists dramatically differs from mainstream protestant Christianity and Catholicism, in the emphasis it puts on adherence to doctrine.
The doctrine becomes a cherished identity marker, and a trophy, which separates the Calvinist from all other Christian groups.
The doctrine sets them apart as superior. The doctrine is therefore sacred.
Calvinist pastors can be observed brooding over their congregation’s assimilation of the doctrine. It is quite common for Calvinist leaders to counsel congregations against exposing themselves to alternative forms of biblical scholarship, no matter how highly that scholarship is recognized internationally.
The Calvinist authority structure seeks to exert a much higher degree of control over information. Thus Calvinism sociologically, has for many years, been a closed system, with its own unique values and its own unique language, applying what social psychologists call, milieu control.
The control processes at work within the Calvinist authoritarian social structure, controls feedback from group members and refuses to be modified, which results in a closed system of logic.
It is consistently observed that Calvinists manifest a pronounced degree of partisanship—an almost obsessive allegiance to the doctrine and to idolized persons, prompting the concern that the respecting of persons within the system is so pervasive, that it may represent a form of seductive entrenchment to which Christian youth are significantly vulnerable.
Over time, the mental conditioning that results, goes far beyond simple belief in—or love for Christ, as Christ is not the central focus of the doctrine.
As the individual interacts with others whose minds have become similarly RE-FORMED, the mental conditioning dramatically reinforces itself, and becomes a unique reality which frames all comprehension of things pertaining to God and church. When the non-Calvinist speaks, about God or biblical things, the Calvinist may quite literally hear confusion, or heresies, because his mind is so locked into the milieu, and it frames his cognitive perceptions so pervasively; he eventually cannot comprehend any thinking that doesn’t affirm it.
Free-thinking and personal beliefs are monitored and permitted as long as they do not contradict central dogma.
God-Ungodliness oxymorons are so subliminally assimilated in his concepts of God, that when he speaks, he speaks English, and one thinks they know what he is saying, without recognizing when they don’t, or understanding how pervasively his frame of reference stems from a good-evil dualistic worldview which the system conditions him to obfuscate, and which eventually becomes his normalcy through the process of internalized acceptance.
These socialization processes are the first step in our ability to understand Calvinistic thinking, behavior, and language.
I could easily insert Christian and Christianity into your posts. Your post was one big strawman. A misrepresentation without evidence. It is opinion and nothing more. Atheists make the same accusations against Christians that non-Calvinists do against Calvinism. Your post is empty of any value. I could easily respond beginning with …
Christianity’s socialization processes—milieu control—a closed system of logic:
And what do you mean by “closed system of logic”? Are not all systems of logic closed? Are you saying that in systems of logic we cannot come to conclusions? That is we cannot conclude or close arguments. If that is what you mean, then every form of Christianity is a closed system of logic. I’m fairly sure that your church, if you attend church, has a closed system of logic. I would be surprised if I could walk into your church and talk about doctrines your church has closed their mind on or have concluded.
Roland
I could easily insert Christian and Christianity into your posts.
br.d
That would be your strawman 😀
Non-Calvinist ministries do not counsel members to reject internationally recognized Bible scholars!
Therefore – Non-Calvinist churches do not exhibit a “Closed system of Logic”
Roland
And what do you mean by “closed system of logic”?
br.d
You are an excellent example!
Any time Calvinist doctrine is examined under the microscope of STANDARDIZED logic – you insist they are “Subjecting Scripture” to logic.
That can only be the case – where Calvinist doctrine and scripture are one and the same thing.
Thus we have – a manifestation of a “closed system of logic”
In other words – Calvinistic thinking is “Closed” to in this regard.
Your mind is unable to acknowledge any thinking which does not affirm Calvinist thinking patterns.
Two things:
1.) Bart Ehrman is an internationally recognized Bible scholar. Do non-Calvinistic ministries fully accept the conclusions of Professor Ehrman?
2.) As someone who studies logic semi-professionally, I am very curious what your conception of STANDARDIZED logic (your term) is. Do you mean Aristotelian logic? That is hardly the standard these days. Maybe first-order logic? Second-order logic? Modal logic? Temporal logic? Para-consistent logic? Logic with or without set theory? If you include set theory, do you mean ZFC, ZF, Z, NBG, MK, ZFC+CH, ZFC+(V=L)? Or do you mean some kind of non-formalized logic? Intuitionistic logic of the Heyting kind? Or Frege’s logical system? I find it rather naïve to think that the term “STANDARDIZED logic” has a definite meaning. Of course, you can disagree with me that it is naïve. I am really interested in what you consider to be STANDARDIZED logic and how you can berate someone else for not knowing exactly what you mean.
spur
1.) Bart Ehrman is an internationally recognized Bible scholar. Do non-Calvinistic ministries fully accept the conclusions of Professor Ehrman?
br.d
Who said anything about accepting conclusions???
Spur – you need to learn how to THINK before you post! :-]
And yes Bart Ehrman has a reputation internationally!
What a hoot you are!! 😀
spur
2.) As someone who studies logic semi-professionally, I am very curious what your conception of STANDARDIZED logic (your term) is.
br.d
I was very careful to explain what I meant by STANDARDS having to do with logic – using weights and measures as an example.
When you go into a grocery store and bring $30 of goods on the check-out counter – and you give them 3 $10 dollar bills – you don’t expect them to tell you – you still owe them money – because a $10 bill in their store is only worth $5 dollars.
If a store owner did that to you – what he is doing is refusing to conform to a STANDARD of weights and measures.
Those STANDARDS are established initially be participating parties who commit themselves to conform to the STANDARD.
A money changer in the Temple – puts a label on his weight which says 10 ounces – but the weight actually weights less than 10 ounces.
His unsuspecting customer who exchanges Corinthian coins with him – for Temple coins – gets cheated in the process.
His customer assumes he is committed to and conforms to the STANDARD of weights
But the money change does not conform to the STANDARD.
And the reason he doesn’t is because he gains an advantage from taking advantage of his unsuspecting customer.
By not conforming to the STANDARD he creates a FALSE BALANCE
Jesus is watching him and knows – and is about to come over there and show him what God thinks of a FALSE BALANCE.
A balancing scale is a tool
And logic is a tool
Within the use of logic – there have been STANDARDS established.
The law of non-contradiction for example
And informal fallacies like Post hoc ergo propter hoc – are recognized by all participating parties who are committed to being honest.
But there are of course people who don’t like the conclusion of a given logical syllogism.
And so they – like the money changer who uses FALSE weights – refuse to honor STANDARDS which all honest participants honor.
Like the money changer – they do that in order to gain an advantage over others.
Your example of a logical problem (the fact that 3 notes worth 10 dollars gives a sum total of 30 dollars) does not lie in the domain of logic at all. It lies in the domain of arithmetic. Your example of the “law of non-contradiction” does a bit better, but not as a universally accepted law of logic (I did mention para-consistent and intuitionistic logics as counter-examples). So thanks for the (fuzzy) clarification, but I don’t think you are any closer to defining truly STANDARDIZED logic. 🙂
spur
Your example of a logical problem (the fact that 3 notes worth 10 dollars gives a sum total of 30 dollars) does not lie in the domain of logic at all.
br.d
WHAT???
Here is a proposition:
3 X 10 = 30
Is that proposition TRUE or FALSE?
Math is very LOGICAL :-]
Spur – you tell people that you work in the domain of “semi-professional” logic
But some of the mistakes you make in thinking – are mistakes that a high-school debate team would laugh at.
spur
.Your example of the “law of non-contradiction” does a bit better, but not as a universally accepted law of logic (I did mention para-consistent and intuitionistic logics as counter-examples).
br.d
Somehow I don’t think finding ways to evade the law of non-contradiction – is considered a STANDARD :-]
But we should be able to understand why a person would want to do so.
That person can then have a god who is both HOLY and UNHOLY at the same time and in the same sense
And that would perfectly fine for them – because they can then refuse to honor the law of non-contradiction
Especially if that provides them a perceived advantage
spur
.Your example of the “law of non-contradiction” does a bit better, but not as a universally accepted law of logic (I did mention para-consistent and intuitionistic logics as counter-examples).
br.d
So the next time you are in a store expecting the clerk to hand you back $10 dollars
And he hands you back nothing – while claiming he gave you $10 dollars
And you inform him that that is a contradiction
He can simply wave that off because he doesn’t honor the law of non-contradiction
He uses para-consistent and intuitionistic logic – whenever it serves his purposes.
Perhaps he would make a good money changer at the Temple! 😀
“Your argument against Calvinism is a straw man, because….because…errr….MYSTERY!”
Roland
You, like most non-calvinists, press everything down into a simple robot (external mind control as you put it) or a puppet analogy of Calvinists understanding of God’s interactions with His creatures.
br.d
That’s because the Non-Calvinist doesn’t have the Calvinist’s super mysterious divine inscrutable incomprehensible ungraspable incognizable otherworldly CLOSED SYSTEM of logic 😛
Wow, not only do you think you can read other peoples’ minds, but you further think that you can scientifically analyze it and systematize it. This is a shocking level of delusions of grandeur. I’ll just remind you, sir: YOU ARE NOT GOD.
Oh that is hilarious!
I get a kick out of the conclusions you jump to.
I’ll bet your friends find you entertaining also?
My friends don’t tip-toe right up to the line of calling me a wicked servant of Satan before scampering back and shouting “see, we didn’t cross the line”. One difference between them and the anti-Calvinists on this website.
So do you feel it would be inappropriate for someone to use terms such as “wicked servant of satan”?
They get very close to the line, I don’t see why they just don’t cross it. According to Pastor Loz I already have demonic beliefs in holding to a Calvinistic understanding of Scripture. He might as well call me a demon.
<<>> Yet again we see evidence of the typical calvinistic failure to distinguish between themselves and their belief system. It would be theologically incorrect to call you a demon, as demons and humans are two different types of being. It is likely that many calvinists are demonized, but that does not make them demons.
Roland – your logic is as bad as spurs!!
You don’t know the difference between a sickness and the person who has the sickness?
I guess that makes sense – because you often do not differentiate between a Calvinist interpretation – and scripture itself.
I have a suspicion your friends don’t tip-toe up to anyone for anything! :-]
Where you come up with these things is hilarious!!!
If you are willing to believe social science (sociology?) then you just about ready to start believing in Xenu and thetans. Sociology teaches all kinds of absolute nonsense like identity politics, critical race theory, etc. I would advise you to take social science with several truckloads of salt.
Very interesting!
That response is in fact – the historical response – from people who are devout members of known cults
It is also the historical response of people in STEM fields. Now you KNOW that I am in a STEM field, but it seems like you refuse to see that as the reason why I view sociology as hokum. Is that because you are biased against me because you want to keep putting me in your “Calvinist box”, I wonder?
spur – I’m wondering if you live in a world of wild imaginations?
You are in a STEM field????
Whatever that means???
I have a friend who is afflicted with paranoid schizophrenia
And it just occurred to me that she makes statements similar to yours.
Should I be connecting some dots here?
If you are not sure what a STEM field is, that just shows that you are unfamiliar with academic language. STEM fields refer to the hard sciences: Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. Me being in a STEM field has nothing to do with schizophrenia, but I trust that you will read everything I say from a sociology/humanities perspective where I am the oppressor (evil Calvinist that I am) and you are the oppressed (poor minority anti-Calvinist that you are). Once you start reading your interaction with the world from an exclusively oppressor-oppressed mindset, very little can get you out of there. Even logic is seen as a tool of oppression. I am done interacting with the raving narcissists that represent themselves as just “Bible-believing Christians” on this website. I don’t need to interact with narcissists, and I don’t want to, so I just won’t.
Two things.
Calvinists are the minority within the church. A noisy minority who aggressively seek to proseletize biblical Christians. A minority who view themselves as intellectually and theologically superior, and of greater humility, but a minority nonetheless.
And Calvinism is as narcissistic as it gets. It’s a “we’re alright Jack, stuff the non-elect” philosophy.
Do you think your second grand exit from the group will last a bit longer than the last one?
Br.d
Firstly:
What a person “represents themselves” as – is not always what is observed.
For example – there are biologically born men – who insist they are female and insist on participating in women’s sports.
“We SAY we are female – they declare – and therefore is is legitimate for them to participate in women’s sports.
But what happens when you discover things about them which reveal them to not be what they “represent themselves” to be?
Hmmm- you have a decision to make!
You start to understand that they operate in an *AS-IF* thinking pattern
They have simply chosen to treat themselves *AS-IF* they are female
Should be honor their *AS-IF* thinking pattern – and acknowledge them as whatever they choose to “represent themselves” as?.
Secondly:
The LABEL “anti-Calvinist” is yet another problem in thinking – because it can easily infer being against a person or persons – which would be a non-sequitur.
Thirdly:
And I guess you could LABEL me “poor” relatively speaking – because in comparison to a large numbers of people who are extremely wealthy I would be considered poor relatively speaking.
And finally:
As to whether or not you will continue to interact here – per the doctrine of decrees – that was never UP TO YOU to determine.
I find it always curious that I who do not embrace the doctrine of decrees – always seem to have to remind those who claim to embrace the doctrine of decrees – about how the doctrine of decrees works.
They claim to embrace the doctrine of decrees as unquestionable TRUTH
But then – just like the genetically born men – they treat the doctrine of decrees *AS-IF* they are FALSE
They go about their office *AS-IF* alternatives of that which is infallibly decreed are made available to them from which to select. Which of course is a denial of the doctrine of decrees – because the decree infallibly establishes only ONE SINGLE RENDERED-CERTAIN option.
Which they are given NO CHOICE in the matter of.
And no ability to refrain from.
WHATSOEVER comes to pass with you – was solely and exclusively determined at the foundation of the world before you existed.
And that would have to include WHATSOEVER impulses are decreed to infallibly and thus irresistibly come to pass within your brain – which are obviously also not UP TO YOU.
So the way we will know whether or not you will continue to interact with anyone here – is the same way any Calvinist knows what has been infallibly decreed to come to pass – – – – by A Posteriori knowledge.
So we’ll watch and wait – and if you don’t continue to interact -then we will know that Calvin’s god did not decree any further impulses come to pass within your brain – to make you interact.
Whatever impulses he determines irresistibly come to pass within your brain – we wish you well!
Br.d
Roland: “You, like most non-calvinists, press everything down into a simple robot (external mind control as you put it) or a puppet analogy of Calvinists understanding of God’s interactions with His creatures.”
Heather: We press it down into that because that’s the bottom line of Calvinism. None of Calvinism’s attempts to disguise it or redefine it will change the truth that Calvinism results in human robots that God controls.
Roland: “The Bible does not teach us that we are robots nor puppets and it teaches us that God is sovereign and He exercises His sovereignty in creation and His creatures as He pleases.”
Heather: Exactly. The Bible does not teach we are robots nor puppets, but it’s the Calvinist misunderstanding of God’s sovereignty that inevitably and undeniably teaches that. Calvinists starts with the unbiblical view that for God to be sovereign and in-control means He must actively control everything, preplan and cause everything to happen. And this makes us robots that God controls.
But biblically, God allows people to make real choices within certain boundaries. And not in the Calvinist sense where He gives them the nature that causes them to desire to choose what He predestined them to choose (and they couldn’t desire or choose anything else), which is still just us being robots He controls … but in the real sense that God allows people to choose between various options (it only makes sense for God to give us commands if we have the ability to choose to obey or disobey).
In Calvinism, God’s sovereignty means He preplans, causes, controls everything we do, even our sins, for His glory. But in the Bible, God’s sovereignty means He is so over and above all that He can work whatever we choose into His plans, even things He doesn’t want us to do, working it all together for good and for His glory.
In Calvinism, God is glorified because of our sins. by preplanning/causing our sins. But in the Bible, God is glorified in spite of the sin we chose to do, against His desires and will, because He knows how to take everything and work it together for good.
There’s a big difference between “God causes everything” (Calvinism) and “God causes everything to work together for good” (the Bible).
Nice one Heather!!!
Now let us watch the response
I’ll bet you any money – we will observe BACK-PEDDLING mode in regard to the MODEL of divine sovereignty that exists within Calvinism.
We can discern this by representations cloaked within INFERENTIAL language and EQUIVOCAL statements.
.
Calvinists have a strong urgency to make Calvinism APPEAR acceptable
The art of being a Calvinist is the art of making Calvinism APPEAR in whatever FORM the Calvinist calculates will be accepted – by any given audience.
When he is representing Calvinism to a Calvinist audience – he is very careful not to paint a picture which would in any way compromise divine sovereignty.
He will use EXPLICIT statements – because he knows his Calvinist audience will scrutinize his every word.
But that picture won’t work for Non-Calvinist audience
He knows he will be painting a picture – which the NON-Calvinist audience will find Un-Biblical.
So like the Chameleon- he will work to create a MORPHED picture of divine sovereignty – designed to give it characteristics he calculates the NON-Calvinist audience will accept.
BACK-PEDDLING Exhaustive Divine Determinism – using INFERENTIAL language – to make it APPEAR less Deterministic.- and to make human freedom APPEAR to have Libertarian attributes. The ability to refrain for example.
That is what makes Calvinist language a COSMETIC language
And Calvinist representations COSMETIC representations.
So Roland, without appealing to some non-existent mystery: How does God render it absolutely certain that you will be unable to bear temptation and commit your next sin? Such that there is zero possibility of choosing otherwise? Without of course programming you like a robot.
In like manner as God did with pharaoh. He told pharaoh through Moses to let His people go yet at the same time God was hardening pharaoh’s heart so that pharaoh would not let Israel free.
Why would God give a command but at the same time work against the very thing He is commanding? This is not Calvinism this is just basic Scripture reading. I don’t need Calvinism to see what is clearly revealed in Scripture: God works all things after the counsel of His own will.
Psalm 115:3
3 But our God is in heaven;
He does whatever He pleases.
If it pleases God to give a command and work in a person’s heart so that they disobey that command, then in faith I accept that God is free to do so.
<<>>
We know that God does whatever He pleases. The question is what it pleases Him to do. Does it please God to lie to you Roland? Does it please God to promise you that He will never let you be tempted beyond what you can bear, so that you can always find a way out from that temptation, whilst at the same 100% ensuring that you WILL give in to many of those temptations, in order to commit the sin He irresistibly and unchangeably ordained for you to commit?
We know that Pharaoh had already hardened his own heart before God strengthened him in that resolve. We know that Pharaoh was not sat there all innocent and God turned his will from innocence to sin, any more than He did with the King of Assyria. But your problem is that the question I asked you is not the same as the example you used, because we are dealing with God’s PROMISE TO HIS PEOPLE.
No God does not lie to His people. That’s your discernment of Calvinism. Calvinists never make the claim that God lies to His people. It is just another one of your strawman versions of Calvinism.
You guys accuse Calvinists of having a false unbiblical god who does not do the things we believe He does. Such as hardening pharaoh’s heart so that he would disobey God’s command. According to non-calvinists, pharaoh has libertarian freewill. But how free is pharaoh’s will when God is hardening it? It is free. It is subject to God’s sovereignty and will. It was God’s will that pharaoh would disobey God. According to you, that’s a contradiction.
Also, because God hardened pharaoh’s heart, does this make pharaoh a puppet or a robot? God made sure that pharaoh would disobey God’s command by hardening his heart, so according to non-calvinists, pharaoh is a robot or a puppet.
<<>>
Of COURSE Calvinists never explicitly claim that God lies to His people. I never said they did. But the INEViTABLE CONCLUSION of Calvinism, as applied to 1 Cor 10:13, is that God DOES lie to His people. Do you actually know what a lie is?
The BIBLE says that God WILL NEVER LET YOU BE TEMPTED BEYOND WHAT YOU CAN BEAR. He will ALWAYS provide a WAY OUT from under it.
But you yourself have admitted that you CANNOT resist the temptation to sin, wherever God has ordained for you to commit that sin.
Thus you have two statements that are utterly irreconcilable. On the one hand God promises not to let you to be tempted beyond what you can bear, on the other hand He ensures you WILL be tempted beyond what you can bear. So you trying to handwave it away as a straw man isn’t going to work.
The verse you cited, 1 Corinthians 10:13, states clearly that God does not tempt His people beyond what they can handle. I agree with the apostle Paul here. Charles Hodge writes in his commentary on this text that by using the word “with,” there is an implication that God is the bringer of the temptation. Hodge also acknowledges at the same time that God does not tempt with evil, James 1:3. Here, in 1 Corinthians the temptation is a test to whether the Corinthians will stand unlike the Israelites who did not stand and fell in the desert. The temptation is a test of the Corinthians virtue as a group upon whom the end of the ages has come, verse 11.
This verse also destroys the libertarian freewill argument as it shows that God does not allow us, showing His involvement in our temptations and exercise of His sovereignty, that even our LFW is not fully attributable to our escaping temptations and falling. It is dependent on to the degree to which God allows it.
…”God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but WITH the temptation will ALSO make the way of escape.” With the temptation God also provides the way of escape.
John Calvin wrote in his commentary on 1 Corinthians 10:13:
“God helps us in two ways, so that we may not be overwhelmed by temptation: He supplies us with the resources we need, and sets a limit to the temptation. God mitigates temptations to prevent their overpowering us by their weight. For He knows how far our ability can go.”
Under LFW there is no need for God to intervene as under LFW we are free to flee the temptation because we are not depraved and our choices are not determined. We are free to fall into the temptation or we are free to avoid the temptation according LFW.
Roland
I agree with the apostle Paul here.
Br.d
Since it is the case that Calvin’s god at the foundation of the world looked at every possible event in which he could decree you to perform a sin.
And for certain of those events he SELECTED “Roland WILL sin”.
And in the process of SELECTING “Roland WILL sin” – he REJECTED “Roland WILL NOT sin”.
Since for every one of those events “Roland WILL NOT sin” has been infallibly REJECTED – then where is he making a way for you to not sin?
Br.d
Since it is the case that Calvin’s god at the foundation of the world looked at every possible event in which he could decree you to perform a sin.
roland
That is a Molinist position, not a Calvinist position. Calvinists do not believe God “looked at every possible event in which he could decree you to perform a sin.” Under Calvinism the world is not a best of possible worlds nor a best of feasible worlds, it is exactly the world God decreed. God did not look at all the possible circumstances and choose a circumstance or world, where I would not sin, and then choose that world. He decreed the world He wanted, not the world in which He was limited to subjunctive conditionals that come from some mysterious place as WLC refused to answer in his discussion with James White.
One way in which God makes a way for us to escape is by His Word. In 1 Corinthians 10:12, we are to take heed, looking at the examples giving to us in verses 1-11, so that we may not fall. Another way is trusting in God’s faithfulness. Also, this temptation is not an internal temptation, it is an external temptation, see David Garland’s commentary on 1 Corinthians as he discusses the difference in the original language between temptation in 1 Corinthians 10:13 and James 1:3. And then there are the many ways not revealed to us that God provides ways for us to escape external temptations.
I understand the objections to this that God decrees one thing and then decrees something contrary to it. It is a LOGICAL problem for Calvinists but it is not a BIBLICAL problem for us. We see a biblical example in God’s dealings with pharaoh as I cited earlier. God commanded pharaoh to let His people go yet at the same time act to make sure that pharaoh did not let God’s people go. According to non-calvinists, God is “playing both sides of the chess board.” This is not a Calvinistic argument, it is a biblical example. The non-calvinists challenge is with God’s Word, not the Calvinists interpretation of it.
Br.d
Since it is the case that Calvin’s god at the foundation of the world looked at every possible event in which he could decree you to perform a sin.
roland
That is a Molinist position, not a Calvinist position.
br.d
You don’t even know your own doctrine!!!! :-]
When Calvin’s god decided to create the world – he had multiple options.
Create man or not create man
Create man as male or female or not create man as male and female.
Divide the light from the darkness on the 1st day – or the 2nd day or the 3rd day.
When Calvin’s god was conceiving Roland – he had multiple options to SELECT from
Make Roland a male
Make Roland a female
Give Roland blue eyes
Give Roland brown eyes
There is nothing particular to molinism in any of that.
Therefore – go back and read my post again about the SELECTION Calvin’s god made concerning the sins he decree you to perform
Roland
This verse also destroys the libertarian freewill argument as…….it (our sinning) is dependent on to the degree to which God allows it.
br.d
Calvin’s god ONLY allows what he decrees to infallibly come to pass.
John Calvin
-quote
NOTHING happens that is not knowingly and willingly decreed.
Of course there is no such thing as LFW in that- because man is not granted the function of CHOICE
Of course there is no such thing as LFW in that- because man is not granted the function of CHOICE
roland
Agree, there is no such thing as libertarian freewill. We are granted the function of choice but not in the libertarian sense. We have desires, inclinations, fears, circumstances, etc. that influence our choices. But there is no such thing as a choice that is libertarian. If choices are truly free, then we would never make a choice. Something always moves us to one choice or another. I choose to drink water because I get thirsty. I choose to eat because I get hungry. I choose to drive safely because I don’t want a ticket or want to avoid accidents. There is always a reason behind our choosing that moves us.
br.d
Of course there is no such thing as LFW in that- because man is not granted the function of CHOICE
roland
Agree, there is no such thing as libertarian freewill.
br.d
You are NOT agreeing with me – because I said “there is no such thing as LFW “IN THAT”
LFW is RULED out by Determinism – which is what you have in Calvinism.
Also – humans having the function of CHOICE is RULE out in Calvinism.
And I can show you how that is the case IF YOU DARE! 😀
Roland
We are granted the function of choice…..
br.d
OH REALLY????
if you have that much assurance of that – then you can easily give us an example of an event in which you as a Calvinist PERCEIVED yourself as being granted a CHOICE?
You are so sure you are granted the function of CHOICE – give us an example Roland
Roland
I choose to drink water because I get thirsty
br.d
Ok that is an example
You PERCEIVE yourself as making a CHOICE to drink water
Now here is the STANDARD definition for the word CHOICE
CHOICE
Websters Dictionary:
“The act of picking or deciding BETWEEN TWO OR MORE POSSIBILITIES
Cambridge Dictionary:
An act or the possibility of choosing the RANGE OF DIFFERENT THINGS from which you can choose
Collins Dictionary:
Your choice is someone or something that you choose from a RANGE of things
Oxford Learners Dictionary:
The act of choosing between TWO OR MORE possibilities
King James Dictionary:
The act of choosing; the voluntary act of selecting or separating from TWO OR MORE things
Now what we can see as a consistent STANDARD understanding of CHOICE – is s NECESSARY CONDITION of more than one option. There must be two possible options available to the creature – in order to constitutes a CHOICE.
As you can see – per the STANDARD definition – there is a NECESSARY CONDITION for the function of CHOICE
There must be a minimum of 2 options available in order to constitute a CHOICE
Now at Time-T – you PERCEIVED yourself as making a CHOICE to drink water.
But if you do drink water – the doctrine of decrees stipulates that Calvin’s god at the foundation of the world – looked at 2 options.
1) “Roland WILL drink water at Time-T
2) Roland WILL NOT drink water at Time-T
And the doctrine of decrees stipulates that Calvin’s god SELECTED “Roland WILL drink water at Time-T”
And in the process Calvin’s god REJECTED “Roland WILL NOT drink water at Time-T”
Therefore
1) You were granted ONLY ONE SINGLE OPTION – Roland WILL drink water at Time- T
2) You were given NO CHOICE about what that option would be
3) You were given NO CHOICE as to your role in that option
4) You were granted NO ABILITY TO REFRAIN from drinking water at Time-T – because that would be a LFW function.
Therefore – you were NOT given any CHOICE in the matter
Your PERCEPTION of having a CHOICE was an infallibly decreed FALSE PERCEPTION – because Calvin’s god knows that he made the CHOICE for you by infallible decree – and gave you NO CHOICE in the matter.
To sum up:
NO OPTION(S) + NO ABILITY TO REFRAIN = NO CHOICE
Of course I really only make one CHOICE! I cannot CHOOSE to drink water and CHOOSE to not drink water at the same. That is logically inconsistent! My example of choosing to drink water is REALLY the only choice I made at the time. You make it seem as if HUMAN CHOICES are ethereally floating before us and around and we just reach up, CHOOSE one choice, and it is only a real choice if that is what we are given. Our choices are far more complex than you make them appear.
Consider the choice to drink water. There are many factors that go into my decision to drink water. Am I thirsty? Why am I thirsty? Is it hot outside? Am I thirsty because I just woke with thirst? Have I just finished working out, running, or some other form of exercise? Do I want ice cold water? Lots of ice or just a little bit of ice? Am I inside my house or outside in the hot weather, temperate weather? I am drinking water to take medicine? The factors are multiple! The reasons can be many!
Roland
Of course I really only make one CHOICE!
br.d
FALSE
Go back and read the STANDARD definition for CHOICE which all people assume when they use the word CHOICE
A NECESSARY CONDITION for CHOICE – is a minimum of 2 options made available to the creature.
Calvin’s god does not grant that condition.
Therefore – per the STANDARD definition of the word – the function of CHOICE does not exist for you.
1) A CHOICE is made at the foundation of the world – and NOT by you.
2) You are granted ONE SINGLE OPTION
3) You are given NO CHOICE about what that option will be
4) You are given NO CHOICE about your role in that option
5) You are given NO ABILITY TO REFRAIN
NO OPTION(s) + NO ABILITY TO REFRAIN = NO CHOICE
Your problem is you are SHIFTING the meaning of the word CHOICE with a distorted meaning.
The word you should be using is INCLINATION – not CHOICE
You are granted INCLINATIONS
You are given NO CHOICE about what those INCLINATIONS will be
You are given NO ABILITY TO REFRAIN from those INCLINATIONS
Thus you are given NO CHOICE in the matter of anything
Roland
There are many factors that go into my decision to drink water
br.d
In Exhaustive Divine Determinism (aka Calvinism) – DETERMINATIVE factors – are ANTECEDENT factors that are outside of your brain’s control.
In Calvinism’s case – ANTECEDENT factors outside of the human brain’s control – are infallible decrees which DETERMINE what impulses will irresistibly come to pass within the human brain.
All other factors which are NOT DETERMINATIVE are COINCIDENTIAL factors
Concerning thirst – Calvin’s god is not obligated such that he HAS to decree the impulse of “Thirst” come to pass within your brain – along with the impulse to infallibly drink water
If Calvin’s god is TRULY omnipotent – then he is not LIMITED such that he HAS to decree any other impulse – other than the impulse to drink water.
If he happens to decree the impulse of “Thirsty” come to pass within your brain – then he made that decree as a side-factor.
Otherwise Calvin’s god is not TRULY sovereign over WHATSOEVER comes to pass
In this case – WHATSOEVER comes to pass within your brain.
.
<<>>
Except that if God has irresistibly decreed for us to commit a sin, then the provision of His Word becomes utterly redundant in the face of that decree. Thus pitting God’s decree against the promises in His Word.
<<>>
Again, utterly fruitless to trust in God’s faithfulness if God has irresistibly decreed for us to commit that sin. Thus pitting God’s decree against His faithfulness.
<<>>
Again running to your philosophers over God’s Word. It says NO temptation. It does not say “no EXTERNAL temptation has seized you…”
<<>>
Dealt with many times. You try to pit logic against Scripture. In doing so you make God, the LOGOS, the source of all true logic, to be illogical, in your quest to appear hyper-spiritual and superior in humility. All you do is bring your own Calvinist logic to bear on Scripture instead, and pretend it is simply Biblical.
<<>>
Not sure if you genuinely misunderstood what Br D was saying or you deliberately tried to twist it. Br D was NOT saying that we can actually MAKE more than one choice. He was saying that there needs to more than one AVAILABLE OPTIONS to GENUINELY choose from. So the option to drink water and the option to not drink water are both equally genuinely available to you, because the option you will choose has not been irresistibly pre-determined by God. All the different influences you cite on your choice are utterly irrelevant and redundant in Calvinism, because they are all outweighed by God’s pre-determination
Pastor Loz
All the different influences you cite on your choice are utterly irrelevant and redundant in Calvinism, because they are all outweighed by God’s pre-determination
roland
Since all you know about Calvinism is strawman Calvinism, I am not surprised that you are IGNORANT of what Calvinists actually believe. Of course you know some things about Calvinists because you resource from those websites that CHERRY PICK verses so that Calvinists sound as if they believe the STRAWMAN versions of Calvinism.
We believe that God decrees not only the choices but also the inclinations and the circumstances in which we will make these choices. Great job at doing your homework on Calvinism PL!
Roland
Under LFW there is no need for God to intervene as under LFW
br.d
In Calvinism
1) NO event has the possibility of existence – without that event being infallibly decreed – NO decree equals NO event
2) Any event that will come to pass – is therefore the byproduct of a decree
3) For Calvinist god to INTERVENE in any event would be to INTERVENE in what he infallibly decreed.
What is the problem with Calvin’s god???
Does he make mistakes when he decrees events to come to pass – and then finds he has to INTERVENE in what he decreed?
<<>>
No, that is not what the verse says at all, let alone clearly. You eisegeted that meaning into the verse with the help of your philosophers. Rather than respond to this question, which has been flapping in the breeze for weeks now, you had to go away and research the teachings of men to help you try and wriggle out of it. If that was what Paul meant, the verse would have been rendered, “God will not tempt you beyond what you can bear”. It does not say that. It says God will not LET you be tempted. In other words, He will not ALLOW you to be tempted. The temptation comes from elsewhere.
So God allows us to be tempted, up to a certain point, but He promises that He will ALWAYS provide a way out. Therefore, we never HAVE to give in to that temptation. The fact we DO give in to temptation at times does not nullify the promise. It reflects the fact that we exercise our freedom to choose to give in to those temptations. So for you to argue that this verse destroys freedom of choice is utterly ludicrous. The verse does not say that God will not let us give in to the temptation. It says that God will not let us be tempted. Be tempted is in the passive. Something that is being done by ANOTHER party, TO us. God will not allow the tempter to tempt us beyond what we can bear.
It is the Calvinistic premise that God irresistibly predetermines that we will give in to at least SOME of those temptations does contradict and nullify it completely and make God out to be a liar.
Equally, the verse says NO temptation. So it is NOT restricted to the specific example that Paul provided in the preceding verses.
<<>>
Except that Calvin also taught, as you do, that when God has irresistibly pre-determined that we will sin, then we will inevitably sin. Thus all you are doing by quoting him is showing that he is just as self-contradictory as you are.
<<>>
Oh, this reasoning really is pitiful and shows the true depth of your confusion and how you really haven’t thought things through, as you rely on your philosophers to think for you (an example of cultish behaviour). For a start, if we were not able to choose between resisting and giving in to temptation, then temptation would not even be a reality. It is the very fact that we CAN choose that makes it temptation. God has given us as believers the freedom to choose, and the ABILITY to resist. That is what this verse is all about. Freedom to choose does not mean that temptation will not come. Temptation is inevitable because of the world we live in and the activities of the enemy. God has given us the ability avoid SOME temptation, to flee SOME temptation, and to resist all other temptation.
Excellent point!!!
Demonic spirits are called SEDUCING spirits.
And in Calvinism WHO are they SEDUCING – except Calvin’s god.
Because Calvin’s god does not permit a human to be the DETERMINER of anything.
Calvin’s god is the sole and exclusive DETERMINER of WHATSOEVER comes to pass within the universe.
So a SEDUCING spirit who has any intelligence knows- if they want to get anything they have to SEDUCE the person who is the DECISION MAKER
And in Calvinism all DECISIONS are made at the foundation of the world.
Excellent point also Br D… not only this, but of course the calvinist god irresistibly predetermines those seducing spirits to seduce him. So in effect, the calvinist god seduces himself. This is why we rightly talk about the calvinist god playing both sides of the chess board, something Roland has yet to remotely refute.
Pastor Loz
This is why we rightly talk about the calvinist god playing both sides of the chess board, something Roland has yet to remotely refute.
roland
Refute the Bible because God gave pharaoh a command God made sure pharaoh would not and could not obey. The Bible shows God playing both sides of the chess board. Those are non-calvinists words not mine.
God through Moses commanded pharaoh to let Israel go,
God hardened pharaoh’s heart so that pharaoh would not let Israel go.
non-calvinists conclusion: God is playing both sides of the chess board (this is the high view of man, low view of God view)
Calvinists conclusion: God is demonstrating His sovereignty in creation and over earthly rulers (this is the high view of God, low view of man view)!!!
roland
Refute the Bible because God gave pharaoh a command God made sure pharaoh would not and could not obey.
br.d
That’s would not be refuting the bible – that would be refuting the Calvinist image of god.
A god who punishes his creatures for doing what he makes them irresistibly do – and NOT doing what he does not permit them to do.
What we have there – is Calvinist ethics.
br.d
That’s would not be refuting the bible – that would be refuting the Calvinist image of god.
A god who punishes his creatures for doing what he makes them irresistibly do – and NOT doing what he does not permit them to do.
What we have there – is Calvinist ethics.
roland
If you read God’s interaction with pharaoh as found in the book of Exodus, you will read that all I am doing is restating the events of the story. ALL I AM DOING IS RESTATING THE EVENTS OF THE STORY. THIS IS NOT CALVIN’S GOD, THIS IS SIMPLY A RESTATEMENT OF THE STORY. GOD GAVE PHARAOH A COMMAND THAT GOD MADE SURE PHARAOH WOULD NOT OBEY BY HARDENING PHARAOH’S HEART. HOW IS THAT CALVINIST ETHICS WHEN IT IS WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS HAPPENED?
Honestly, as far as the things you’ve stated about the Bible, I really don’t believe you are a Christian or a believer. I really believe you are just an atheistic philosopher wanting to argue against the God of the Bible. You don’t seem familiar with the Bible at all especially the historical account of God and pharaoh in Exodus. You have one argument about God infallibly bringing every impulse in the human brain to pass, another argument about God being a liar and lying to us because how can we know the truth if God infallibly decrees my brain’s impulses, etc.
Roland
If you read God’s interaction with Pharaoh……
ALL I AM DOING IS RESTATING THE EVENTS OF THE STORY.
br.d
What we have in Exhaustive Divine Determinism (aka Calvinism) is a god who is determining every impulse that will come to pass within a man’s brain. Where Calvinists strongly assert – there is no such thing as human AUTONOMY.
And you want to describe that process as “interacting” with a person.
In Calvinism – what we have is a god “interacting” with what he infallibly decrees come to pass.
Now that constitutes a WHOLE LOT MORE than simply restating the events in a story.
One thing you said here needs correction. Exodus DOES speak about Calvin’s God. Not br.d’s god, sure; not “Pastor” Loz’s god, certainly not Ed Chapman’s god, but it does speak about Calvin’s God, because there is only one true and living God, and Calvin’s Institutes does a pretty good job at describing that God.
I’m hardly taken aback that internet Calvinists are not among the brightest. Such as this fixation to pick at such petty issues which piles on the evidence that their case cannot take any sort of hold. Aren’t Calvinists all about praising a God who is the source of all good and evil! So why so snide?
Rabbinic Jews obviously reject Jesus having any Messianic credibility. They believe he was a fraud, the NT documents were also fabricated, and the apostles were fraudulent criminals. One needn’t call the obvious “demonic” – unless to cheaply seize on a pseudo inconsistency, and pretending to have the intellectuality acuity that such reasoning transcends the very dim-witted thinking that God decreed to instantiate on this blog to glorify himself. Spurcalluth is simply butt-hurt because, while he wants to endorse a late-medieval deity who is the ultimate ground of evil—after all evil begets evil—yet simultaneously, he wants to distance his god of the WCF that he is not evil! This is the sort of schizophrenia that both Roland and Spurcalluth find themselves in a mental straight-jacket.
Why is it that not a single internet Calvinist that has come on here, has yet to offer one single exegetical or philosophical argument worthy of its analytic rigor to make an iota of sense of all the backward nonsense that’s recycled and repackaged ad base un because they’re always running on argumentative fumes!
Thanks for your unsubstantiated opinion. It was really convincing. By the way Calvin’s god is spelt with a small “g”.
Spur
Calvin’s Institutes does a pretty good job at describing that God.
br.d
Yes – Calvin teaches his disciples to -quote “Go about your office *AS-IF* nothing is determined in any part”
Which means the Calvinist is to treat what he holds as the most sacred divine TRUTH *AS-IF* it is FALSE
And it just happens to be the case – that Calvin’s god also treats what he knows to be TRUE *AS-IF* it is FALSE
The question is
Did Calvin get his *AS-IF* thinking pattern from his god – or does Calvin’s god inherit his *AS-IF* thinking pattern from Calvin? 😀
spurcalluth – Do you really believe with Calvin that God gives to some, whom Calvin calls “reprobates,” a temporary faith so that God can “better convict” them in the final judgment for rejecting what they were never predestined to be able to receive?
It’s funny how calvinists believe God needs to further blind, deafen or harden those who are already born as totally deaf, blind, hardened spiritual corpses, and also that He needs to further condemn those who are already 100% condemned to eternal ccnscious torment.
I’ll answer you, because I think you and Heather at least are not toxic, evil narcissists. Yes, I do believe that. I know of no other way to interpret Hebrews 6. If you have another way of interpreting Hebrews 6, I’m interested in hearing it, although I cannot promise beforehand that I will agree with you.
If Calvin’s doctrine of “evanescent grace” was true, then those reprobates who his god plays this sick little unholy game with were never really enlightened, never really tasted the heavenly gift, never really shared in the Holy Spirit, never had anything to fall away from, never had a repentance to be brought back to. Your boy was just projecting his own depraved, perverted mind onto God.
And the “P” in the TULIP stands for perseverance of the divinely deceived “baited and switched” believers – who were decreed to infallibly take the “bait” of divine benevolence – and then get “switched” to eternal torment in a lake of fire – for his good pleasure.
That’s what ya call a “doctrine of grace”
,Makes ya just want to run right out and get some of that grace RIGHT NOW!! 😀
spurcalluth, I see Hebrews 6 and temporary faith compatible with faith being a freewill response to God’s initiatives to draw each person. I will never see or agree with the horrible notion of God displaying unrighteous behavior by creating predetermined reprobates and manipulating ways to “better convict” them in their pre-determined inability and unbelief.
See, the problem with your hermeneutic is that you first decide what you think is righteous or unrighteous behaviour and then go see whether you think God acts in this way or not. That is exactly upside down. God is the standard of righteousness, not your opinion. So first go see what God says He does or does not do, and then adjust your opinion of righteousness if it is not in accord with what He says. Otherwise, you have nothing to say to the LGBTQ+ lobby, nothing to well-meaning atheists, nothing to Muslims, in fact, you have no gospel for anyone. Because the first thing we need to realize with the gospel is that WE ARE NOT RIGHTEOUS.
The same hermeneutical model can be found in the process of – telling god what the bible says – and then calling that process – “Going to see what god says” :-]
What, spurcalluth!? God is light, and in Him is no darkness. His Word defines righteousness. So we agree. We are not righteous, and need His righteousness, which He gives through faith. We agree again.
For God to go against His Word and His profession of His desires for all to be saved, and His profession to have given each person His light and goodness to lead them to repentance, and to suggest He has been unfaithful to those professions is horrible, and definitely attributing unrighteous behavior to God, as defined by His Word.
It is calling Him a liar, on top of attributing the unbiblical unjust behavior of creating men to be sinners whose sins were all predestined, and tormenting them for not seeking Him and His mercy even though they were predestined, according to this evil theology, to not be able to respond positively to the light God gives them.
I’ve nothing else to add. I hope you will reconsider your loyalty to God’s Word instead of loyalty to theological concepts with no clear biblical support. The idea of an all encompassing decree before creation is one such concept.
Brian, didn’t you know that Calvinists are the sacred keepers of the magic decoder ring.- without which scripture cannot be rightly exegeted.
They are the supreme and holy pontiff’s of the sacred word of god – because only they have been granted the purity and sanctification wherewith to handle the magic decoder ring
They have been sacredly endowed and anointed with the “Divinus Revelationus Sui Inflati Magnificus” 😀
spurcalluth,
I did a blog post about Hebrews 6. I think people read it way too fast. They need to slow down and dissect it.
It’s about people that fall away from the faith DUE TO not being fed. In a nutshell, that’s what it’s about. The pastors keep teaching the same ole, same ole INTRODUCTORY TO CHRISTIANITY sermons, and never go beyond that.
And the story keeps going in circles BACK to “crucifying Christ” ALL OVER AGAIN.
So, the people say…”I’ve heard all that before…this is getting boring…I’m not learning anything here! I’m outa here!”
So, what Paul is saying is that he expects MORE out of church’s, to not only preach the INTRO STUFF regarding salvation, but to ALSO teach the things that ACCOMPANY salvation.
In a nutshell…that’s what Hebrews 6 is about. Everyone needs to SLOW DOWN their reading a bit on Hebrews 6.
Ed Chapman
Roland
the low view of man
br.d
In which NO impulse within man’s brain can happen unless it is – quote “knowingly and willingly decreed”
Pastor Loz
Equally, the verse says NO temptation. So it is NOT restricted to the specific example that Paul provided in the preceding verses.
roland
I bet you are one of those SELF-APPOINTED pastors who call themselves the MOG (the man of God) in his church and kicks out any one who questions his authority. Where did you learn to do exegesis? You wrote that “it is not restricted to the specific examples that Paul provided in the preceding verses.” Talk about poor exegesis that’s a statement worthy of its own star on the heresy hall of fame wall of poor exegesis.
David E. Garland Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament First Corinthians
“What is the testing that Paul has in view? The best option will make sense of it in THE CONTEXT of the warning examples he has just enumerated and the exhortation to flee idolatry that immediately follows…These interpretations assume that the peirasmos refers to some internal temptation to sin. Instead, Paul may have in mind external testing. The verb eilphen, has come upon, befallen, or overtaken, in the perfect tense, suggests that these trials come from outside their own willful desires (Fee, 1987).”
br.d
David E. Garland Baker Exegetical Commentary:
-quote
The best option will make sense of it in THE CONTEXT….
Sorry Roland – here is another LOGICAL FALLACY
A “best option” does not entail the ONLY option.
Therefore this commentary is not concluding the divine relief of temptation as restricted only to examples given.
Sorry I did not just post the whole book. The best option comment relates to what Paul was writing about in 1 Corinthians 10:1-12. It is the command to flee idolatry. From this point Garland’s proceeds to gives his interpretation of the text. True, the commentary does not limit it to the temptation of idolatry. There is application for other temptations.
Ok then we can ignore your assertion that his statement was false.
Its not worth pursuing.
This whole website has become not worthing pursuing.
well – per the doctrine – it must have been infallibly decreed that you would do so.
And since WHATSOEVER COMES TO PASS is decreed – then we can conclude that it impulses were decreed to come to pass within your brain – such that your brain was RENDERED-CERTAIN to do so.
The good news for us who enjoy being here is – we get to observe what impulses Calvin’s god decrees to infallibly and irresistibly come to pass within your brain.
Some of those impulses infallibly lead to TRUE conclusions coming to pass within your brain.
Some of those impulses infallibly lead to FALSE conclusions coming to pass within your brain.
Calvin’s god must have fun doing that to you.
And we get the fun of watching an external mind determine all of the impulses in your brain. :-]
<<>>
I won’t dignify your childish ad homs with a response. Can you ever answer a point without running to one or more of your philosophers? I guess since you are unable to study the Bible for yourself or engage with the originial languages, that’s all you can do. 1 Cor 10:5 (since you claim to love context so much), talks about not craving evil things. But you somehow expect us to believe that craving evil is not an internal temptation? You probably need to find a more convincing philosopher. Craving an evil thing is…guess what….a wfilful desire. Peirasmos – same word used in James 1:14 – each one is tempted when he is carried away BY HIS OWN EVIL DESIRE. Oh sorry Roland, is our own evil desire an EXTERNAL thing?
Roland
Calvinists never MAKE THE CLAIM that God lies to His people.
br.d
And Hillary Clinton did not MAKE THE CLAIM that she wiped her server.
But does it LOGICALLY FOLLOW that she did wipe her server – when the fact is – she paid a person specifically to do it for her?
The fact that Hillary Clinton did not MAKE THE CLAIM of what LOGICALLY FOLLOWS did not surprise a lot of people who know her
And the fact that a Calvinist will not MAKE A CLAIM about what LOGICALLY follows from his doctrine – does not surprise anyone here.
br.d
And the fact that a Calvinist will not MAKE A CLAIM about what LOGICALLY follows from his doctrine – does not surprise anyone here.
roland
Very true even for the non-calvinists and the LFW proponent. Both which logically result in the person, the decision maker, and the chooser being the savior of their own souls. For without their cooperation in the decision to repent and believe in Christ God cannot save them. God cannot save the sinner apart from their exercise of faith. This means that God can provide all there is to be saved, as many non-calvinists argue God has by Christ’s death, but unless the person makes a libertarian freewill choice to believe, God cannot save them. So, what logically concludes is that the libertarian freewill choice is what ultimately saves the person from damnation. Without it, Christ’s work on the cross avails nothing for them except an opportunity to be saved or Christ only made people savable but He did not save anyone on the cross when He died and resurrected three days later.
According to non-calvinists, Jesus died on the cross for all sinners, when a sinner adds their faith or exercises their libertarian freewill to believe, to Jesus’s death on the cross, then the sinner is saved. Jesus’s death plus a person’s libertarian freewill choice or exercise of faith equals salvation. Take away the person’s libertarian freewill choice or their exercise of faith, then Jesus never saved that person or anyone when He died on the cross. Jesus only provided an incomplete formula. Jesus + (whoever’s libertarian freewill choice) = salvation.
That’s why non-calvinists get to glory or boast in their decisions as they add the missing element in the formula of salvation according to non-calvinists.
Roland
Very true even for the non-calvinists and the LFW proponent.
br.d
What is hilarious about your assertions about LFW – is that you ASSUME the function of LFW for yourself every time you assume your brain is granted the ability to determine TRUE from FALSE on any matter.
You are like the man – who while driving his car – claims cars don’t exist! 😀
Roland
unless the person makes a libertarian freewill choice to believe, God CANNOT save them.
br.d
FALSE
Replace the word “CANNOT” with the words “CHOOSES NOT TO” and you will be accurate.
The rest of your statements follow from your false assumption – so no need to address them
Roland
According to non-calvinists, Jesus died on the cross for all sinners….
br.d
According to some Calvinists also.
So no need to address the rest of your statements which follow from this false assumption
<<>>
LOL. Heard this straw man many times before. Only in the upside-down world of calvinland does choosing to receive a gift make a person the provider of that gift. It’s like saying that a patient who signed a consent form for an operation healed themselves by performing surgery on themself. To be the savior of their own soul, a person would have to come to earth, live a sinless life, offer themselves as a perfect sacrifice on their own behalf, raise themselves from the dead and ascend themselves to Heaven.
<<>>
Another tired old straw man that further reveals your ignorance of what biblical non-calvinists believe. It has got nothing to do with God’s ABILITY, but with what God has CHOSEN to do. God has sovereignly chosen to demand a choice of people between accepting or rejecting the gift of salvation. But in Calvinism, you actually don’t ALLOW God to have that sovereign freedom.
This is why no Calvinist can provide a remotely convincing explanation for 1 Tim 4:10, which states that Christ is the Savior of ALL, ESPECIALLY those who believe. Which shows that in some sense He is the Savior of those who do NOT believe. The “temporal Savior argument” won’t explain it away”. The “only Savior argument won’t explain it away either, because the latter does not make Christ the Savior of those who do not believe in any way, shape or form. The attempt to redefine “malista”, based only on rare examples in extra-biblical literature won’t work either. The only plausible interpretation is that Christ is the Savior of all because He provides salvation for all, and ESPECIALLY of those who believe as He applies the benefits of that salvation to those who believe. This is why Romans 3:25 states that the propitiation is appropriated BY FAITH.
Jesus didn’t save you on the cross either. If He had, you would have been born saved. Until you believed, you were not saved. So your own argument backfires on you.
<<>>
For that assertion to be true, you would have to know every thought and every word of every non-calvinist, which you don’t. I have never yet met a non-calvinist who gloried or boasted in receiving an unearned, undeserved gift. But hey, while you whine about non-calvinists and their straw men, you bring plenty of straw men of your own. It’s part of the Calvinist script.
Pastor LOz
It’s like saying that a patient who signed a consent form for an operation healed themselves by performing surgery on themself
roland
That’s a poor analogy as it is easy to see physical needs but it is not so easy to see spiritual needs like forgiveness of sin and salvation in Christ. It is why most people believe they don’t deserve to go to hell because they are not really that bad. People generally have a high esteem of their morality. it is why almost all religions are based on works except Christianity.
Pastor Loz
It has got nothing to do with God’s ABILITY, but with what God has CHOSEN to do.
roland
Fair enough, then God cannot CHOOSE a person for salvation until that person CHOOSES to be saved. Either way you look at it, you make God dependent on the creature’s response. Is that how biblical salvation is displayed in Scripture? God is waiting on us to believe in order that He might choose us? Is that what Jesus said to the disciples in John 15:16?
Of course when your thinking is centered on the creature, man, you cannot help but put man first, then God second. That’s what you do with your theology, it is man centered.
Pastor Loz
The only plausible interpretation is that Christ is the Savior of all because He provides salvation for all, and ESPECIALLY of those who believe as He applies the benefits of that salvation to those who believe.
roland
If Jesus PROVIDES salvation for all men, then all men would be saved.
Here’s two definitions for provide:
1. make available for use; supply. Under this definition this would mean that Jesus has made salvation available for man’s use, He would supply it. If salvation is available for use, then all man has to do is use it. I did not know Jesus made salvation available for all to use.
2. make adequate preparation for. Jesus according to you, makes adequate preparation for salvation for all men. If this is true, then why are not all men saved since Jesus is making adequate preparation for them.
Pastor Loz
Jesus didn’t save you on the cross either.
roland
So you do believe that Jesus died for nobody on the cross? What poor and unbiblical perspective to have, not only as a Christian, but as a PASTOR!!! When Jesus was suffering on the cross, He was suffering and dying for nobody?
I can understand why you would believe this. According to you, no one is saved until they believe. Since, when Jesus died, no one believed in Jesus, then no one was saved. Now that makes sense to me. No one can be saved unless they believe. When Jesus died on the cross no one had believed yet. Therefore, Jesus died for no one! Now I get it!
Pastor LOz
It’s like saying that a patient who signed a consent form for an operation healed themselves by performing surgery on themself
roland
That’s a poor analogy as it is easy to see physical needs but it is not so easy to see spiritual needs like forgiveness ….
br.d
FALSE
The diagnosis of the patient is irrelevant
The simple fact of the matter is – it does not LOGICALLY FOLLOW that the patient performs surgery on himself – by virtue of consenting to having surgery.performed on himself.
Pastor Loz provided an example to show the LOGICAL FALLACY you committed.
Which is one of the most common ways of revealing a LOGICAL FALLACY.
br.d
The simple fact of the matter is – it does not LOGICALLY FOLLOW that the patient performs surgery on himself – by virtue of consenting to having surgery.performed on himself.
roland
It does not BIBLICALLY FOLLOW that sinners can or want to CONSENT to be treated by the Great Physician apart from the Great Physician’s surgery in their heart. In other words, the Bible teaches us that “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draw him; and I will raise him up at the last day.” John 6:44
You both commit an unbiblical assumption that all men are seeking the Great Physician’s treatment, they are not unless the Great Physician begins the circumcising the heart first.
roland
It does not BIBLICALLY FOLLOW that sinners can or want to CONSENT to be treated by the Great Physician apart from the Great Physician’s surgery in their heart. In other words
br.d
It does if one does not interpret scripture through the lens of Exhaustive Divine Determinism
And then have to learn DOUBLE-SPEAK in order to obfuscate the consequences of doing so. :-]
You seem to be saying that apart from interpreting Scripture, it is meaningless. I’ve read you make this argument in the past about Scripture requiring interpretation. If a person’s interpretation gives the text its meaning, then it means nothing apart from an interpretation. That is what I hear you saying. Is that what you mean?
I quoted John 6:44. Are you saying that Jesus did not mean to say what He did but the meaning of His statement is given by our interpretation of His Words. That is exactly what I read you communicating through your statements.
Roland
You seem to be saying that apart from interpreting Scripture, it is meaningless. I’ve read you make this argument in the past about Scripture requiring interpretation. If a person’s interpretation gives the text its meaning, then it means nothing apart from an interpretation.
br.d
FIRSTLY:
If when you look at any data – your brain does not interpret that data – then your brain does not have NORMAL function.
SECONDLY:
You always automatically attribute a NON-Calvinist reading of scripture – as a mistaken INTERPRETATION.
So you do acknowledge the process of INTERPRETATION when it comes to the Non-Calvinist.
In such case – I don’t see how you escape the specter of hypocrisy – or escape the conclusion that Calvinist brains are somehow different than Non-Calvinist brains.
THIRDLY:
We have Dr. Gordon Fee’s statement given in a seminary lecture on hermeneutics
-paraphrased
“Some people will say “we don’t INTERPRET scripture – we just read it and do what it says. I’m sorry to tell you that that is a manifestation of an immature mind.”
Roland
You both commit an unbiblical assumption that *ALL* men are seeking the Great Physician’s treatment
br.d
That is probably one of your most infantile straw-man statements yet! 😀
But of course in Calvinism – WHATSOEVER COMES TO PASS is infallibly decreed at the foundation of the world – which would have to include every impulse that comes to pass within the human brain.
So NO decree for an irresistible impulse to seek treatment equals no impulse to seek treatment.
Makes you want to just run right out and be a Calvinist right away!!! 😀
br.d
But of course in Calvinism – WHATSOEVER COMES TO PASS is infallibly decreed at the foundation of the world – which would have to include every impulse that comes to pass within the human brain.
roland
Above is the non-calvinist statement of what Calvinists do not confess or believe. Below is what we believe:
God from all eternity did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass, yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established. WCF 3.1
br.d
But of course in Calvinism – WHATSOEVER COMES TO PASS is infallibly decreed at the foundation of the world – which would have to include every impulse that comes to pass within the human brain.
roland
God from all eternity did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain WHATSOEVER COMES TO PASS
br.d
And he does not “ordain” them with infallible decrees?
And WHATSOEVER COMES TO PASS – does not mean everything that comes to pass?
And impulses in the human brain don’t come to pass?
And is it possible for a human to resist that which comes to pass infallibly?
CONCLUSION:
My statement is completely accurate
Roland
According to you, no one is saved until they believe.
Roland
When Jesus died on the cross no one had believed yet. Therefore, Jesus died for no one! Now I get it!
br.d
WOW!
That fact that you can’t see the LOGICAL FALLACY in that statement is a doooosy!!!
br.d
WOW!
That fact that you can’t see the LOGICAL FALLACY in that statement is a doooosy!!!
roland
WOW!
The fact that you can’t see that I’m just restating Pastor Lozer’s statement is a doooooooooooooooooooooosy!!!!
roland
WOW!
The fact that you can’t see that I’m just restating Pastor Lozer’s statement is a doooooooooooooooooooooosy!!!!
br.d
So where is the quote from Pastor Loz that Jesus died for no one???
In my discussion with him I told him that Jesus saved me on the cross when He died for me. He said that can’t be because then I would have been born saved. According to him, I was not saved by Jesus death on the cross since I had not believe yet. Since no one had yet believe in Jesus because Jesus had not yet died, how can anyone be saved before believing in Jesus’ death? That’s his argument not mine but of course he will say that I am twisting his words and accuse me of lying.
Roland
In my discussion with him I told him that Jesus saved me on the cross when He died for me.
br.d
When Jesus died for you – you did not yet exist.
How can he change the state of something that doesn’t exist?
Roland
He said that can’t be because then I would have been born saved.
br.d
And were you born saved according to your theology?
Roland
According to him, I was not saved by Jesus death on the cross since I had not believe yet.
br.d
What must I do to be saved – the man asked
And the answer was???
Roland
Since no one had yet believe in Jesus because Jesus had not yet died, how can anyone be saved before believing in Jesus’ death?
br.d
Now you’ve totally flipped the sequence – and now you are talking about people who exist before Jesus died – which has nothing to do with Pastor L’s statement
Roland
That’s his argument not mine….
br.d
Actually you jumped to a false conclusion concerning the argument
The argument simply is – believe is divine requirement of salvation.
Again:
What must I do to be saved – the man asked
And the answer was???
Pastor Loz: It has got nothing to do with God’s ABILITY, but with what God has CHOSEN to do.
<<>>
LOL. All you did was to kick your straw man can further down the road. God CAN choose a person for salvation. He is NOT dependent on their choice. He has CHOSEN to place that demand upon them. He can actually do that, without the need for you or any other Calvinist to give Him permission. Yes, that is how salvation is portrayed in Scripture. You must believe in order to be saved.
<<>>
The irony. Calvinism is the most man-centred philosophy you will ever find. It is electo-centric, not Christo-centric. It is all about “me, me, me, God chose me and He didn’t choose the non-elect. I’m alright Jack, stuff them”. Calvinism is a narcissist’s charter. I guess that’s why it has a tendency to appeal to narcissistic people. Desperate to feel special but hiding behind a fake humility to try and disguise it.
Pastor Loz: The only plausible interpretation is that Christ is the Savior of all because He provides salvation for all, and ESPECIALLY of those who believe as He applies the benefits of that salvation to those who believe.
<<>>
You simply confirmed that you don’t understand the difference between provision and appropriation. To make something available for someone to appropriate does not automatically mean they will do so. God has provided both salvation and the ability to appropriate it. Your lack of understanding is why you are unable to address 1 Tim 4:10 and Rom 3:25. Are they not in your Bible, or do we need to give you some time to run and see what your philosophers have to say about them before you can answer?
Pastor Loz: Jesus didn’t save you on the cross either.
<<>>
Non-sequitur. Jesus died for EVERYBODY on the cross. Really sorry that offends your narcissism so much. That’s why 1 Tim 4:10 (that verse you can’t address) states that he is the Savior of all, especially those who believe.
If you believe that Jesus actually saved you at the point in time when He died on the cross, then you have to believe that you were born saved, since you were born after Jesus died on the cross. If you were born saved, that means you were never under God’s wrath. If you believe you were never under God’s wrath, then you don’t believe Ephesians 2:1-3. If you were born saved, there was never any need for you to repent and believe. Your problem is that you don’t understand the difference between atonement and salvation.
Pastor Loz
For that assertion to be true, you would have to know every thought and every word of every non-calvinist, which you don’t. I have never yet met a non-calvinist who gloried or boasted in receiving an unearned, undeserved gift. But hey, while you whine about non-calvinists and their straw men, you bring plenty of straw men of your own. It’s part of the Calvinist script.
roland
Just like you do with Calvinists. You write as if you know every thought of all Calvinists. I say I have never met a Calvinist who says or acts in the ways many claim Calvinists do and you turn the argument against me. It is the part of the non-calvinists script: build a strawman to make it easier to tear down. Heather has already admitted that some of the things she claims Calvinists say they did not actually say them.
<<>>
As Heather and myself already explained to you. Pharaoh hardened his own heart first. He chose to do that. He could have chosen not to. Once he made his choice, God strengthened him in his resolve. So God was turning Pharaoh from a repentant heart / will to an unrepentant one. God knew that Pharaoh would never repent. He simply intensified / accelerated Pharaoh’s self-chosen process. So there is no contradiction there. Unlike in your situation, where God promised He would never let you be tempted beyond what you could bear, then ensured that you would be tempted beyond what you could bear for the sins He unchangeably ordained for you to commit. It’s OK, we know you can’t address that.
One question to ask the Calvinist:
Why does Calvin’s god command creatures to perform actions – he knows he does not give them permission to perform?
1) At the foundation of the world – Calvin’s god had 2 options from which to to select in his decree of what act Pharaoh WILL perform:
– The option of decreeing that Pharaoh WILL let the people go.
– The option of decreeing that Pharaoh WILL NOT let the people go.
2) When Calvin’s god looked at the 2 options – he selected Pharaoh WILL NOT let the people go.
3) He thus REJECTED the option Pharaoh WILL let the people go
4) The act of Pharaoh NOT letting the people go – was FIXED by infallible decree which cannot be changed.
5) The process of making that selection entailed REJECTING all ALTERNATIVES. And in such case the existence all ALTERNATIVES are infallibly EXCLUDED – and their EXCLUSION is FIXED by infallible immutable decree which cannot be changed.
6) All events and human actions EXCLUDED by infallible decree have no possibility of existence.
7) Thus Calvin’s god knows Pharaoh is not granted permission to perform the act of letting the people go.
So why does Calvin’s god command creatures to perform actions – he knows he does not give them permission to perform?
And
Why does Calvin’s god treat creatures like he is giving them a CHOICE – when he knows he is NOT giving them a CHOICE?
brdmod
:Why does Calvin’s god command creatures to perform actions – he knows he does not give them permission to perform?
roland
Why did the LORD command Moses to command pharaoh to let His people yet at the same the LORD made sure that pharaoh would never heed the LORD’s command?
Do you believe that God believes humans could obey His law and that’s why He gave it to us? Did God give us His law because we could keep it and live?
brdmod
Why does Calvin’s god command creatures to perform actions – he knows he does not give them permission to perform?
Roland
Do you believe that God believes humans could obey His law and that’s why He gave it to us?
br.d
We are talking about commanding a human to perform an act which Calvin’s god DOES NOT PERMIT that human to perform.
That is a situation that ONLY exists in Calvinism.
So as a Calvinist – answer the question:
Why does Calvin’s god command creatures to perform actions – he knows he does not give them permission to perform?
br.d
Why does Calvin’s god command creatures to perform actions – he knows he does not give them permission to perform?
roland
For many reasons. First, consider the example of pharaoh. God gave pharaoh a command that God made sure pharaoh COULD NOT or WOULD NOT obey. Why? To show His power. To rescue Israel. To show Moses that He is the LORD. Many reasons.
Furthermore, before the conversion of a sinner, God gave us His law to show us our sin. To show us our need for God. Read Romans 7. To show us His holiness as His law is a reflection of God’s holy character. To show us His judgment as He judges us by His law. He can give it for many reasons apart our obedience to it.
br.d
Why does Calvin’s god command creatures to perform actions – he knows he does not give them permission to perform?
roland
Why? To show His power.
br.d
So Calvin’s god cannot show his power without treating what he knows to be TRUE *AS-IF* it is FALSE?
He knows it is TRUE that he DOES NOT PERMIT man to perform an action
And yet he treats what he knows to be TRUE *AS-IF* it is FALSE
Roland
To rescue Israel.
br.d
So Calvin’s god cannot rescue Israel without treating what he knows to be TRUE *AS-IF* it is FALSE?
He knows it is TRUE that he DOES NOT PERMIT man to perform an action
And yet he treats what he knows to be TRUE *AS-IF* it is FALSE
Roland
To show Moses that He is the LORD.
br.d
So here we have Calvin’s god who determines every impulse that will come to pass within Moses brain.
And once again – by treating the situation *AS-IF* he doesn’t determined ever impulse in Moses brain – he is treating what he knows to be TRUE *AS_IF* it is FALSE
Calvin’s god has got some serous problems with treating what he knows to be TRUE *AS-IF* it is FALSE
That would make sense – if we understand that Calvin’s god is made after the IMAGE of a DOUBLE-MINDED man. :-]
Roland,
You had said:
For many reasons. First, consider the example of pharaoh. God gave pharaoh a command that God made sure pharaoh COULD NOT or WOULD NOT obey. Why? To show His power. To rescue Israel. To show Moses that He is the LORD. Many reasons.
Furthermore, before the conversion of a sinner, God gave us His law to show us our sin. To show us our need for God. Read Romans 7. To show us His holiness as His law is a reflection of God’s holy character. To show us His judgment as He judges us by His law. He can give it for many reasons apart our obedience to it.
My response:
First…
The Pharaoh…
The famous Romans 9, huh? God is telling a story of himself THRU the Jews, and it just so happens that the Pharaoh is USED as an example, or, better yet, a REPRESENTATION (type/shadow) of the devil.
And since this involves the Jews…then this applies…so that God can show his POWER. This DOES NOT happen in ANY OTHER SCENARIO not involving Jews. Why do you keep THINKING/BELIEVING that this is how God does things OUTSIDE the parameters of the Jews?
Has God shown his power thru YOU, or anyone that you personally know, that does not involve Jews on either side of the coin? God does not show his power thru Gentiles UNLESS it involves Jewish people. More specifically, the children of Abraham thru Isaac, thru Jacob (Israel).
Second…
God’s Law…
When did God give us his law? WHEN?
Gentiles have NEVER been under the law. Not ever.
Psalms 147:19-20
19 He sheweth his word unto Jacob, his statutes and his judgments unto Israel.
20 He hath not dealt so with any nation: and as for his judgments, they have not known them. Praise ye the Lord.
I think you misread Romans 7…or for that matter, all of Romans. Try this one out for size:
Romans 5:13 and 4:15.
Oh, and by the way, speaking of Romans 7…
Verse 1
Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,)
Now, who might that be? Gentiles?
Think…THINK…the ones TRANSITIONING from Law to Faith are the Jews.
Gentiles are just taught FAITH. What is SIN for lowly Gentiles?
What law are we Gentiles under NOW? Love thy neighbor as thyself.
But what is sin for us?
Romans 14:23
for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.
Also, NOT LOVING YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF is sin.
But, I’ll tell ya what…you can be under the law of Moses if you want, and OBSERVE “Thou Shalt Not Steal”, if you wish. But if you were to observe LOVE THY NEIGHBOR AS THYSELF, then there would be no need to observe THOU SHALT NOT STEAL.
So, when Paul went to proselytize, or EVANGELIZE to GENTILES…did Paul “Give Gentiles THE LAW”? Did he say to the Gentiles, HERE IS A LIST OF DO’S AND DON’TS?
Well, kinda, ya…Acts 15…BUT…in Acts 15 there is one that states DON’T EAT MEAT OFFERED TO IDOLS.
But that is clarified 1 Corinthians 8, where it states, YES, EAT MEAT OFFERED TO IDOLS…but why?
Act 15 is conditioned on the THOUGHT PATTERN that there really is IDOLS, whereas 1 Corinthians 8 is conditioned on the THOUGHT PATTERN that we already know that there is NO SUCH THING as Idols, because we know that there is only ONE GOD, THEREFORE, the idols are NOTHING.
But if one person’s faith is weak, then stay away from eating meat offered to idols, because that other person may still think that the idols are REAL.
My point…Whatever is not of faith is sin for Gentiles…and Jews…the law is NOT OF FAITH…
Galatians 3:21
…if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.
Galatians 3:12
And the law is not of faith…
So…when were we given the law?
There is SOOOOOOOO MUCH that Calvinists get wrong about God’s CHARACTER towards us lowly humans.
Such as…you being a sinner from the womb…such nonsense!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The truth behind that is that David’s own MOTHER was in sin, not David. Remember Ruth? She is NOT A JEW. Jewish line goes thru the mother, not the father. David’s FATHER doubted his Jewish heritage because of it. But, he had a Jewish concubine that he was going to have sex with, so that his child would FOR SURE be Jewish.
But David’s mother spoke to the concubine and they switched places. David’s mother got pregnant, and Davids father, when he found out, was OUTRAGED.
Now do you understand why DAVID WAS SO HATED by his own family…except his mother?
In the end, David’s father accepted the fact that since Ruth converted to Judaism that his heritage is secure, and therefore, so is David’s heratige as a Jew.
So, David was NOT a sinner from the womb. He was CONCEIVED in iniquity…his own mothers iniquity…not his own.
Are you seeing how you Cavlinists have set a stage that doesn’t exist? You have it wrong from the GIT-GO.
Ed Chapman
Roland,
The story I told you about David can be found here:
https://www.chabad.org/theJewishWoman/article_cdo/aid/280331/jewish/Nitzevet-Mother-of-David.htm
Here is a partial exerpt:
David’s father, Yishai, was the grandson of Boaz and Ruth. After several years of marriage to his wife, Nitzevet, and after having raised several virtuous children, Yishai began to entertain personal doubts about his ancestry. True, he was the leading Torah authority of his day, but his grandmother Ruth was a convert from the nation of Moab, as related in the book of Ruth.
During Ruth’s lifetime, many individuals were doubtful about the legitimacy of her marriage to Boaz. The Torah specifically forbids an Israelite to marry a Moabite convert, since this is the nation that cruelly refused the Jewish people passage through their land, or food and drink to purchase, when they wandered in the desert after being freed from Egypt.
Boaz and the sages understood this law—as per the classic interpretation transmitted in the “Oral Torah”—as forbidding intermarriage with converted male Moabites (who were the ones responsible for the cruel conduct), while exempting female Moabite converts. With his marriage to Ruth, Boaz hoped to clarify and publicize this Torah law, which was still unknown to the masses.
Boaz died the night after his marriage with Ruth. Ruth had conceived and subsequently gave birth to their son Oved, the father of Yishai. Some rabble-rousers at the time claimed that Boaz’s death verified that his marriage to Ruth the Moabite had indeed been forbidden.
Time would prove differently. Once Oved (so called because he was a true oved, servant of G‑d), and later Yishai and his offspring, were born, their righteous conduct and prestigious positions proved the legitimacy of their ancestry. It was impossible that men of such caliber could have descended from a forbidden union.
However, later in his life, doubt gripped at Yishai’s heart, gnawing away at the very foundation of his existence. Being the sincere individual that he was, his integrity compelled him to action.
If Yishai’s status was questionable, he was not permitted to remain married to his wife, a veritable Israelite. Disregarding the personal sacrifice, Yishai decided the only solution would be to separate from her, no longer engaging in marital relations. Yishai’s children were aware of this separation.
After a number of years had passed, Yishai longed for a child whose ancestry would be unquestionable. His plan was to engage in relations with his Canaanite maidservant.
He said to her: “I will be freeing you conditionally. If my status as a Jew is legitimate, then you are freed as a proper Jewish convert to marry me. If, however, my status is blemished and I have the legal status of a Moabite convert forbidden to marry an Israelite, I am not giving you your freedom; but as a shifchah k’naanit, a Canaanite maidservant, you may marry a Moabite convert.”
The maidservant was aware of the anguish of her mistress, Nitzevet. She understood her pain in being separated from her husband for so many years. She knew, as well, of Nitzevet’s longing for more children.
The empathetic maidservant secretly approached Nitzevet and informed her of Yishai’s plan, suggesting a bold counterplan.
“Let us learn from your ancestresses and replicate their actions. Switch places with me tonight, just as Leah did with Rachel,” she advised.
With a prayer on her lips that her plan succeed, Nitzevet took the place of her maidservant. That night, Nitzevet conceived. Yishai remained unaware of the switch.
After three months, Nitzevet’s pregnancy became obvious. Incensed, her sons wished to kill their apparently adulterous mother and the “illegitimate” fetus that she carried. Nitzevet, for her part, would not embarrass her husband by revealing the truth of what had occurred. Like her ancestress Tamar, who was prepared to be burned alive rather than embarrass Judah,5 Nitzevet chose a vow of silence. And like Tamar, Nitzevet would be rewarded for her silence with a child of greatness who would be the forebear of Moshiach.
Unaware of the truth behind his wife’s pregnancy, but having compassion on her, Yishai ordered his sons not to touch her. “Do not kill her! Instead, let the child that will be born be treated as a lowly and despised servant. In this way everyone will realize that his status is questionable and, as an illegitimate child, he will not marry an Israelite.”
From the time of his birth onwards, then, Nitzevet’s son was treated by his brothers as an abominable outcast.6 Noting the conduct of his brothers, the rest of the community assumed that this youth was a treacherous sinner full of unspeakable guilt.
On the infrequent occasions that Nitzevet’s son would return from the pastures to his home in Beit Lechem (Bethlehem), he was shunned by the townspeople. If something was lost or stolen, he was accused as the natural culprit, and ordered, in the words of the psalm, to “repay what I have not stolen.”
Eventually, the entire lineage of Yishai was questioned, as well as the basis of the original law of the Moabite convert. People claimed that all the positive qualities of Boaz became manifest in Yishai and his illustrious seven sons, while all the negative character traits from Ruth the Moabite clung to this despicable youngest son.
<<>>
Deuteronomy 30:11 Now what I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach. 12 It is not up in heaven, so that you have to ask, “Who will ascend into heaven to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?” 13 Nor is it beyond the sea, so that you have to ask, “Who will cross the sea to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?” 14 No, the word is very near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart so you may obey it.
Was God lying, or merely mistaken when He said this?
But who has ever obeyed God’s commands? If we can obey God’s commands, then why would God have write about a New Covenant in Jeremiah 31:31-34 and Ezekiel 36:24-28?
Your thinking is so man centered that you actually believe man can obey God’s commands. No one wonder you believe in libertarian freewill and esteem the freewill of man over the freewill of God!
Roland
Your thinking is so man centered that you actually believe man can obey God’s commands.
br.d
John 9:7
And Jesus commanded the man saying “Go wash in the Pool of Siloam”
So the man went and washed, and came home seeing.
Now on Calvinism – Calvin’s god made impulses come to pass in the man’s brain – to infallibly irresistibly get up and go to the pool and wash his face.
And in Calvinism Jesus gives a command to the man – knowing that he couldn’t.possibly obey.
But since Calvin’s god almost always treats what he knows to be TRUE *AS-IF* it was false – Jesus felt obligated to follow do pattern of thinking.
Don’t you just love the Calvinist version of scripture!! :-]
Deuteronomy 30:11 Now what I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach. 12 It is not up in heaven, so that you have to ask, “Who will ascend into heaven to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?” 13 Nor is it […]
<<>>
So I will ask you again, since you actually didn’t answer. Was God lying or merely mistaken in Deuteronomy 30? Because those verses aren’t going away just because you have a little straw man rant.
Pastor Loz
Was God lying, or merely mistaken when He said this?
roland
God cannot lie, Hebrews 6:18 and He does not make mistakes. In order to answer this question you would have to look beyond the verse you provided. According to you, you have to assume man’s ability to obey. If man has such an ability why don’t we obey? God said in Genesis 6:5 that human thoughts are continually evil. We don’t obey because we can’t. God’s law is simple, it is not complicated. However, the requirements to obey are not simple, they are profound. God’s commands are not mysterious, are not far off, are not in heaven, not beyond the sea, but it is very near.
The profundity to obey God is found in some of the earlier verses such as verse 6, obedience to God’s law requires a circumcised heart. It also requires that we love God with all our soul and heart. Until a sinner’s heart is circumcised by God, we will never obey.
Pastor Loz
God knew that Pharaoh would never repent.
roland
If God knew pharaoh was never going to repent, why would God have to intervene or intensify it? Are you saying that God is not patient and could not have waited until the end?
I acknowledge that pharaoh hardened his own heart but God still hardened it further to assure that pharaoh would never repent. Whatever pharaoh was doing to harden his heart, it was not enough and God had to intervene and harden his heart further.
It seems like all non-calvinists I have discussed with about pharaoh’s heart always want to say, “but pharaoh did it first.” It is irrelevant at this point as to whether pharaoh hardened his heart first (but I accept it as true in Scripture) or God did. What matters in the text is the purpose for which God hardened pharaohs heart. That is to show His power over pharaoh’s heart. To do with it as God is pleased to do and that was to further hardened it beyond what pharaoh had already done.
roland
If God knew pharaoh was never going to repent, why would God have to intervene or intensify it? Are you saying that God is not patient and could not have waited until the end?
Br.d
FIRSTLY:
The only way Calvin’s god can know what impulse will come to pass within Pharaoh’s brain – is to decree that impulse
John Calvin
-quote
He foresees ONLY as a consequence of the decree
SECONDLY:
The only things Calvin’s god has to INTERVENE in – are that which he decrees – because NOTHING happens that is not knowingly and willingly decreed.
Obviously Calvin’s god is not a PERFECT being- because a PERFECT being would not have to INTERVENE in what he decrees
John Calvin
-quote
He foresees ONLY as a consequence of the decree
roland
You really should familiarize yourself with Calvin. You are making sound as if Calvin believes that God decrees things without knowing them . Then God learns from His decree. That is not Calvin’s position. Cherry picking Calvin’s quotes to misrepresent Calvin’s understanding of God’s decrees.
Roland
You are making sound as if Calvin believes that God decrees things without knowing them
br.d
Calvin’s words speak for themselves.
He foresees ONLY as a consequence of the decree
If you have a problem with the words Calvin chose to write – then take it up with Calvin.
Point me to them in his writings. I guarantee they are out of context.
Institutes (Vol ii. p. 169.)
BTW:
This is a known issue with Calvinism’s version of omniscience
Calvin’s god does not have CERTAINTY of what [X] will be – until after it is infallibly decreed what [X] will be.
Therefore there is a point at which omniscience is lacking.
This is a deviation from the orthodox version of omniscience which is stated as an ESSENTIAL attribute.
And ESSENTIAL attribute – is an attribute that is never lacking – because it is an attribute that ESSENTIAL to the divine nature.
<<>>
It is not a matter of God’s patience. God is always able to be patient and wait if that is what He chooses to do. Just as the anti-calvinistic verse in 2 Peter 3:9 demonstrates. Just as God was patient with Jezebel. It is about God’s timing. God had a time to bring the children of Israel out of Egypt and He strengthened Pharaoh’s self-chosen hardening to bring that about at the appointed time. So it was nothing to do with Pharaoh’s self-hardening being somehow insufficient. It would have been sufficient eventually. God simply accelerated the process. He did not turn Pharaoh’s will from repentant to unrepentant.
Roland
In like manner as God did with pharaoh. He told pharaoh through Moses to let His people go yet at the same time God was hardening pharaoh’s heart so that pharaoh would not let Israel free.
br.d
Calvin’s god was already decreeing every impulse that would come to pass within Pharaoh’s brain.
The fact that he would have to “harden” a person’s heart – would imply a degree of creaturely autonomy exists.
But Calvinists know better.
There is no such thing as creaturely autonomy in any way shape or form in Calvinism.
Br.d: “I’ll bet you any money – we will observe BACK-PEDDLING mode in regard to the MODEL of divine sovereignty that exists within Calvinism….”
Heather: The best my Calvinist pastor could do about God’s sovereignty and human responsibility – what he resorted to at the end of it all – was this: “So how can God be sovereign and yet still hold men responsible for their choices? I don’t know. But the Bible teaches both God’s sovereignty [he assumes his version of it] and human responsibility, and so I have to accept them both as true.”
This doesn’t at all answer the questions/dilemmas/contradictions of God supposedly preplanning/causing the sins He commands us not to do and then punishing us for what He supposedly caused us to do. All it does is kick the can down the road. It’s Calvinists saying “Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!” (Wizard of Oz)
What I would have told your pastor – is the following:
CHOICE
Websters Dictionary:
“The act of picking or deciding BETWEEN TWO OR MORE POSSIBILITIES
Cambridge Dictionary:
An act or the possibility of choosing the RANGE OF DIFFERENT THINGS from which you can choose
Collins Dictionary:
Your choice is someone or something that you choose from a RANGE of things
Oxford Learners Dictionary:
The act of choosing between TWO OR MORE possibilities
King James Dictionary:
The act of choosing; the voluntary act of selecting or separating from TWO OR MORE things
Now what we can see as a consistent STANDARD understanding of CHOICE – is s NECESSARY CONDITION of more than one option. There must be two possible options available to the creature – in order to constitutes a CHOICE.
Now in Calvinism – according to the doctrine of decrees
1) The CHOICE for what the creature will do at any instance in time is DETERMINED at the foundation of the world.
2) That CHOICE is a legitimate CHOICE because at the foundation of the world there are multiple options available to the THEOS to select from. For example – he has the option of decreeing you to sin at Time_T or the option of decreeing you to NOT sin at TIme_T
3) Once the THEOS has selected what the creature will do at any instance in time – all ALTERNATIVE options are EXCLUDED by infallible decree
4) What the creature will do at any instance in time – is RENDERED-CERTAIN
5) All ALTERNATIVES to that which is infallibly decreed are EXCLUDED and their EXCLUSION is RENDERED-CERTAIN.
7) Therefore – any ALTERNATIVE to that which is infallibly decreed – has no possibility of existence.
8) That which does not exist – is not available to the creature
9) Therefore a LOGICAL CONSEQUENCE of the infallible decree – is the creature is granted only ONE SINGLE RENDERED-CERTAIN option – for every impulse and for every event.
CONCLUSION:
1) In Calvinism the creature is never granted but ONE SINGLE option
2) The creature is given NO CHOICE about what that option will be
3) The creature is given NO CHOICE about its role in that option.
4) The creature is not granted the ability to REFRAIN.
Therefore – the NECESSARY CONDITION for CHOICE does not exist for the creature in Calvinism
Therefore – the function of CHOICE is not granted to the creature in Calvinism
No Option(s) + No ability to refrain = NO CHOICE
Therefore in Calvinism – humans cannot possibly be held responsible for THEIR choices – because they are never granted the function of choice.
Every CHOICE – for every human impulse – and every human event – is made solely and exclusively by Calvin’s god atone.
So if he holds then responsible for a CHOICE – then he is holding them responsible the CHOICE that he made for them.
Because he did not grant then choice.
What he granted them was an infallibly decreed IMPULSE to come to pass within their brain.
And it is impossible for the brain of a fallible human creature to resist such an impulse..
How does God hold pharaoh responsible for disobeying His command to let Israel go while at the same time God was working to harden pharaoh’s heart so that he would not let Israel go?
Roland
How does God hold pharaoh responsible for disobeying His command to let Israel go
br.d
Firstly – in Calvinism – that command is a FALSE REPRESENTATION of the SECRET will.
Secondly – in Calvinism – Pharaoh has no say in the matter of anything
His every impulse, inclination and action, is determined at the foundation of the world.
And he is given NO CHOICE in the matter of anything.
So in Calvinism – Calvin’s god holds Pharaoh responsible – for what he himself infallibly decrees Pharaoh do
Pharaoh cannot possibly resist an infallible decree
And he cannot possibly resist the impulses which Calvin’s god makes infallibly come to pass within his brain.
Br.d.: “What I would have told your pastor – is the following:… (the whole post)”
Heather: Well said. I almost wish I knew him well enough to confront him personally about his views. Oh well. At least I was able to create a whole blog to confront his views, so my frustration wasn’t fruitless. 🙂
Pastor Loz: “The BIBLE says that God WILL NEVER LET YOU BE TEMPTED BEYOND WHAT YOU CAN BEAR. He will ALWAYS provide a WAY OUT from under it.
But you yourself have admitted that you CANNOT resist the temptation to sin, wherever God has ordained for you to commit that sin.
Thus you have two statements that are utterly irreconcilable.”
Heather: Great point! One of those has to be wrong. And it’s not the Bible. God can know that we will commit a certain sin when put in certain circumstances, and He can put us in situations that cause us to carry out the self-chosen sin that He knows is in our hearts, and He use our sin for good … and yet He would not be responsible for our sins. Because He did not put the sin in our hearts. But if He preplanned/caused us to sin, if He gave us no other option, if HE made the choice for us, then HE would really be responsible for our sins.
Roland: “How does God hold pharaoh responsible for disobeying His command to let Israel go while at the same time God was working to harden pharaoh’s heart so that he would not let Israel go?”
Heather: He holds Pharaoh responsible for not letting the people go because that’s what Pharaoh chose to do, BEFORE God hardened his heart. God already knew he would choose that, of course, and so He already knew how to work it into His plans, but Pharaoh chose – willingly chose – to be hard-hearted BEFORE God solidified his decision. Solidifying a person’s free-will decision (biblical “hardening”) is hugely different than the Calvinist idea of hardening, which is that God preplans/causes a person to desire/choose to disobey His commands, and that’s the only option they had (and then He holds them responsible for it, as if they had a choice).
Police officers who set up sting operations do not cause the criminals to be criminals. They just know what the criminals will willingly choose to do in a given situation, and they work it into their plans, using it for good. That’s how the cops can hold the criminal accountable for their crimes – because the criminal wanted/chose to do it. But if the cops preplanned/caused the criminal to commit a crime, if the criminal had no choice but to commit the crime because they cops forced them to do it, then the cops would be responsible ones. And it would be a major injustice for the cops to cause people to commit the crimes that the law tells them not to commit. We could not trust cops like that. Or the law. Calvinism does severe damage to God’s character and Word, turning Him into nothing more than a crooked cop.
You handled it in the way that you do.
And I appreciate the person the Lord had made you to be. :-]
Thank you, Br.d. 🙂
Roland: “According to non-calvinists, Jesus died on the cross for all sinners, when a sinner adds their faith or exercises their libertarian freewill to believe, to Jesus’s death on the cross, then the sinner is saved…”
Actually, according to the Bible, we need to believe/have faith to be saved: “Then they asked him, ‘What must we do to do the works God requires?’ Jesus answered, ‘The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent [Jesus].'” (John 6:28-29)
Calvinists wrongly view “believing in Jesus/accepting God’s offer of salvation” as “works, trying to earn salvation, trying to save yourself.” And so since we can’t work our way to heaven or save ourselves, then we must not be able to choose to believe in Jesus or to accept the gift of salvation, right?
But what does God say? In the verse above, God says that “believing in Jesus” is the one work we MUST do to be saved. Contrary to Calvinism, God does not consider believing in Jesus to be “working to try to earn heaven/save yourself”:
“‘Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.’ Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. However, to a man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness. David says the same thing when he speaks of the blessedness of the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works:” (Romans 4:3-6)
God is saying that believing/trusting in Him is different than the other kinds of “works” people do to try to earn their way with Him. We can’t do anything to earn our salvation, to work our way to heaven, but God does require one thing from us to be saved: To willingly, consciously believe in Jesus, to make Him our Lord and Savior. Which just happens to be the one thing Calvinists say that we can’t do. So then how in the world can anyone be saved the Calvinist way?
John 1:12: “Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God.” We become His children only after receiving/believing in Jesus.
John 6:40: “For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.” We are saved only after looking to Jesus and believing in Him.
God Himself repeatedly tells us that if we want to be saved, it is our responsibility to look to/believe in/receive Jesus. The things Calvinists say we can’t do. This is why I call Calvinism ‘demonic,’ because it denies the one thing God said we need to do to be saved. What better way is there to prevent people from being saved than to say that we can’t do what God said we need to do to be saved?
Yes Heather, only seriously low-grade calvinists still persist with that particularly low-grade straw man that by believing in the only One who can save us, we think we saved ourselves and want the glory for our salvation. It also goes towards the calvinist stance of “we’re better than you because our theology is more humble than yours”. Not that they would ever explicitly state it like that (before Roland demands a quote lol).
Funny that you call Calvinism demonic, but when mosckerr repeatedly called Jesus an incest-baby, you did not call that demonic. It almost seems like you call only Calvinism demonic, but are fine with anything and everything anyone else might be inclined to say.
Hi Spur
We were discussing the other day – whether or not Calvin’s god would have more “interaction” impulses come to pass in your brain – here at SOT101.
Its obvious he was not done decreeing those “Interaction” impulses come to pass – because here you are having one.
But it does raise the question – why would he decree you to infallibly have a FALSE PERCEPTION that you were done “Interacting” here?
It becomes obvious – that part of the PERCEPTIONS he infallibly decrees come to pass within your brain are FALSE PERCEPTIONS.
And it LOGICALLY FOLLOWS – with all of those FALSE PERCEPTIONS he determines into your brain – that during the period of time in which he has decreed your brain to have those FALSE PERCEPTIONS – that those FALSE PERCEPTION is “PERSEVERING” in your brain.
So in Calvinism’s doctrine of PERSEVERANCE we also have the PERSEVERANCE of FALSE PERCEPTIONS within the Calvinist’s brain.
Anything that has been established to be prolonged over a period of time by infallible decree is PERSEVERING by infallible decree..
Obviously that can include the PERSEVERANCE of FALSE PERCEPTIONS of election/salvation.
A Calvinist can go through his whole life – having thousands of FALSE PERCEPTIONS of election/salvation – and those FALSE PERCEPTIONS are thus part what PERSEVERES for that Calvinist.
So there is PERSEVERANCE of the saints in Calvinism – and there is PERSEVERANCE of NON-saints also in Calvinism.
PERSEVERANCE of FALSE PERCEPTIONS of ELECTION.
The next question then is – what percentage of the PERCEPTIONS he decrees to infallibly come to pass in your brain are FALSE PERCEPTIONS?
Obviously – you would never be able to know – because those FALSE PERCEPTIONS are PERSEVERING by infallible decree which cannot be broken..
But at minimum – we can see that Divine Deception of the believer is a prevalent reality in Calvinism
Spurcalleth: “Funny that you call Calvinism demonic, but when mosckerr repeatedly called Jesus an incest-baby, you did not call that demonic….”
Heather: Funny that you assume I actually read mosckerr’s comments. 🙂
LIL. And mosckerr didn’t attach the label of Christianity to his nonsense . Calvinists do
Roland: “According to Pastor Loz I already have demonic beliefs in holding to a Calvinistic understanding of Scripture. He might as well call me a demon.”
Serious questions, Roland:
You and Spurcalleth seem to be getting offended and upset at the idea of people calling Calvinism demonic. You seem to think it’s unfair and unkind for Christians to say this.
Question: Who is ultimately responsible for causing us to call Calvinism demonic? Who “ordained” it from the beginning for his glory and pleasure? Are you both seriously going to criticize things that Calvi-god preplanned /ordained /caused? If he thought it was best for his glory, who are you to think otherwise and to condemn it, to try to stop it?
I’m not totally asking rhetorically here, but I am suggesting that you both seriously consider your own theological beliefs and how you live them out. How should Calvinists respond – without being self-contradictory – to things they don’t like that Calvi-god clearly “ordained” for his glory and pleasure?
The real issue here isn’t that some of us call Calvinism demonic, but it’s why would Calvi-god cause us to do that? And how can you respond the way you do if you think he “ordained” it all for his glory and pleasure?
I think it’s easier for people to hold Calvinist beliefs – to hide behind things like “God ordains everything that happens for His glory. Who are you, O man, to talk back to God?” – when the bad things happen way out there, somewhere, in the world. But when it hits closer to home, they begin to realize the ways their theology doesn’t hold up and how it contradicts itself.
This is just one of the reasons why calvinism is an utterly self-defeating, ridiculous philosophical theory.
Calvi-god irresistibly pre-determines us to call calvinism demonic. And equally irresistibly pre-determines calvinists to be outraged at what he irresistibly predetermined us to say.
Calvi-god irresistibly pre=determines every abortion that has ever occurred. And equally irresistibly determines calvinists to campaign against the abortion he irresistibly pre-determined to occur.
If it wasn’t such a demonic, cancerous abomination, it would actually be hilarious. And calvinists wonder why we describe their mythology as Calvi-god playing both sides of the chessboard, and continually punching himself in the face, all for his maximal glory of course.
Pastor Loz, I like the “and continually punching himself in the face, all for his maximal glory of course” part. 🙂
Calvinists need to take a step back, away from the Calvinist books, and examine what they say they believe and where it inevitably leads, to see what it really does to God’s character, Jesus’s sacrifice, the gospel, and God’s plan for salvation. Contrary to the Calvinist straw-man argument that people don’t like Calvinism because they don’t want to believe they don’t really have free-will, I hate Calvinism because of the incredible damage it does to the things I just listed. My heart breaks for those who’ve been forced/manipulated into drinking the Calvinist Kool-aid (who have been convinced that it’s “the gospel”) and for the damage it will do to their faith in the future. Sad.
Heather, yes, the false accusation in relation to free-will is just one of a number of tired old straw-man arguments that calvinists wheel out in relation to the supposed motivation of non-calvinists. These include:
(i) We hate the idea that God is sovereign and in control
(ii) We worship our free-will over God
(iii) We want to take all or at least some credit / glory for our salvation
(iv) We think we are somehow smarter or better than someone who rejected salvation
All of which are pure garbage. Freedom of choice is NOT the central issue. It is peripheral. The central issue is God’s character, as revealed in the Bible. Something which calvinism consistently blasphemes – His love, His holiness, His integrity, His justice consistently dragged through the calvinist mud in their misguided attempt to defend their unique definition of His sovereignty and omnipotence.
Ironically, not only do calvinists demean God’s character in this way and make Him indistinguishable from the Bible, but they actually undermine His omniscience and sovereignty at the same time. Calvinism is one of the biggest abominations in the church today.
Pastor Loz
1) We hate the idea that God is sovereign and in control
2) We worship our free-will over God
3) We want to take all or at least some credit / glory for our salvation
br.d
The irony of these accusations – is that with each of then the Calvinist is pointing a finger of accusation back at himself
We know that when the word CHOICE is used – it is always assumed that MORE THAN ONE OPTION was made available to select from.
Hence a person has a CHOICE.
We know that where there is only ONE OPTION available – and NO OPTION to refrain from it – there really is NO CHOICE
And we know that the doctrine of decrees stipulates that for every human impulse ONLY ONE SINGLE OPTION can be RENDERED-CERTAIN
The Calvinist is granted NO CHOICE about what that option will be
The Calvinist is granted NO CHOICE about his role in that option
The Calvinist is granted no ability to refrain from his role in that option.
So a manifestation of the Majesty and supremacy of divine sovereignty – is Calvin’s god ALONE has the function of CHOICE
And yet – taking the function of CHOICE away from a Calvinist is like taking a piece of meat away from a caged lion.
Therefore when it comes to this particular aspect of Calvinist functionality:
1) He hates the idea that his god is sovereign and in control
2) He worships his function of choice over god
3) He wants to take all or at least some credit for CHOICES he makes and even asserts he can CHOOSE to love god.
Calvinism is a theology which makes its adherents shoot themselves in the foot! :-]
Loz: “Calvinism is one of the biggest abominations in the church today.”
Agreed! If Satan can’t defeat the Church from the outside, he does it from the inside.
I mean “TRY to defeat the church”.
Because of course, he can’t actually defeat it.
IMHO – Calvinism is the enemies strategy to prevent the church for warring against principalities and powers.
Every demon in hell – knows he has to work through temptation and seduction
And the only way that is LOGICALLY COHERENT is if humans are granted a degree of autonomy and choice-making
And for the Calvinist that would be a denial of the doctrine of decrees.
In Calvinism – the person a demonic spirit would have to tempt or seduce would have to be Calvin’s god since – for the Calvinist Calvin’s god is the sole and exclusive determiner of whatsoever comes to pass – thus he is the only decision-maker in the universe.
There is no sense in trying to seduce someone who has no power to make a decision about anything.
Since Libertarian Freedom doesn’t exist for humans for the Calvinist – there is nothing within a human for a demonic spirit to seduce.
The result being – in order for a church which embraces Calvinism – to war against principalities and powers – that Calvinist church would have be in denial of their own doctrine.
And in Calvinism – demon spirits are nothing more than puppets for Calvin’s god also.
So how is it possible for a Calvinist to interfere with what Calvin’s god has infallibly decreed a demon spirit do?
Thus there is no such thing as warring against principalities and powers where the Calvinist is CONGRUENT with is doctrine.
Agreed. Just as a choice requires two or more genuinely available options, so spiritual warfare requires at least two sides who are distinguishable from each other, and are genuinely opposed to each other. This does not exist in Calvinism. In Calvinism, their god is like a boy playing with his toy soldiers.
Yes agreed!
In Calvinism – there is no such thing as an enemy of god – because every entity whether spiritual or biological – gets its orders directly from infallible decrees – which RENDERS-CERTAIN they perform those orders with infallible obedience.
There is no such thing as creation disobeying an infallible decree – and every impulse is infallibly decreed.
br.d, It’s me Jeff again, have you ever heard the expression “Suffering Builds Character” I could be wrong, but isn’t that Expression about Suffering building character a Calvinist Expression built upon the Theology of John Calvin ? Do you personally agree that Suffering Builds Character, ? Some Christians have claimed that God does Not want people to Suffer, while Other Christians claim that God does Want People to Suffer to a Certain Extent, because it helps them grow spiritually, grow Closer to God, etc, but that even when God wants humans in this Earthly life to suffer to a Certain Extent, it does NOT mean that God somehow likes or Enjoys seeing people Suffer, it does Not Equal God liking or enjoying it when people Suffer.
I still wish God made the Bible Easier to Interpret and Understand, it’s so Confusing the Endless Debate over which Interpretation is Correct, it’s so Confusing and Frustrating
Hi Jeff – good to see you again.
I knew about that saying within the church long before I ever became aware of Calvinism.
Which means – I well understood the principle of it for many years within non-Calvinist congregations.
The references that it hearkens back to are verses like – “endure hardship as a good soldier”, and “God shall try every believer – as a gold-smith tries the gold in the fire”, “every mans work shall be tried by fire – and that which is hay wood and stubble (i.e.that which is of the flesh) shall be burnt away.
And “But we glory in tribulations also: knowing that tribulation worketh patience; and patience, experience; and experience, hope, and hope maketh not ashamed; because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us.”
Paul focuses on the manifestations of the flesh in his letter to the Galatians
Carnal flesh can manifest in a number of different ways.
There is lascivious flesh – as in drunkenness and reveling
There is also religious flesh – as in spiritual pride and Phariseeism
Jesus tells us what to look for with the.Pharisee
He always seeks to position himself in the chief seat
He does not humble himself – so that the Lord will lift him up.
He is the ESAU (spiritually speaking)
The one who is strong in his own flesh and does not have any need for the inheritance of the Lord.
Many years ago – I read the testimony of a certain man who graduated from seminary whose manner of speech was almost spell-binding.
The over-seers of the denomination sent him right out to a church which was located in a very wealthy area. They congratulated themselves – telling themselves that he would -quote “Bring home the bacon”
Which meant that he would bring lots of money into the denomination.
This is the type and shadow of ESAU and his father Isaac
Esau is the progenitor of the Edomites
The Edomites regularly attacked Israel, and both King Saul and King David fought them off.
So spiritually speaking – there are those within Christianity who are highly capable in their flesh.
But that flesh is RELIGIOUS flesh.
So the Lord brings trials and tribulations our way which are designed to help us understand how our flesh works against us, robs us of our crown, and keeps us earthly minded.
Calvinists are human – which means they are not exempt from RELIGIOUS flesh any more than you or I
As a matter of fact – Calvinists have a well earned reputation for spiritual pride – which is RELIGIOUS flesh. And within the society of Calvinism – it is not considered a sin to use deceptive or misleading or DOUBLE-SPEAK language. And that of course is carnal and of the flesh.
Hello Jeff,
You said “Some Christians have claimed that God does Not want people to Suffer, while Other Christians claim that God does Want People to Suffer to a Certain Extent,”
This is probably not the type of answer you were looking for, but I think we run into trouble when we start debating/deciding what God “wants,” if it’s not clearly written in Scripture. Suffering is an inevitable part of life, of being human, until God redeems everything and makes it good again. And God, even if He doesn’t want us to suffer and doesn’t like it, knows that it can serve a greater purpose, and so He allows it and can work eternal good out of it.
So I think it’s more an issue of God knowing that suffering will happen and promising to work it for good, instead of being an issue of “does He want or not want it.” Because once we start deciding if He wants or doesn’t want it, then we begin to evaluate His character based on that, like “What kind of a God would want people to suffer?”
A wise parent knows their kids will face trials and don’t try to shield them from every hardship or uncomfortable situation that comes along. (We might if we could, but we can’t.) We don’t “want” our kids to hurt, but we know it can and will happen. And so when it does, we try to help them through it in a production way that turns the pain/struggle into something good, into a life lesson that will help them mature. And I think God does this too. He knows pain will happen, doesn’t necessarily want pain to happen, but He allows it and helps us grow through it. Because He knows the good eternal results of it far outweigh the temporary pain.
Like I said, this may not be what you’re looking for, but it’s my two cents. God bless.
Perfectly explained as always Heather. And thankfully, God has made some of the things He desires and does not desire very plain in His Word. In Ezekiel 18:23 and 33:11, God tells us that He takes NO PLEASURE in the death of the wicked, but RATHER that they turn and live. Clear, explicit, unequivocal PREFERENCE.
But Calvinists are here to disabuse us of this notion, and explain that actually, God takes no pleasure in the death of SOME wicked (the elect wicked), but that He PREFERS that the rest of the wicked, MOST of the wicked (the non-elect wicked) die, than that they turn and live. They might not use those words, before the likes of Roland demand a quote, but that is the inevitable conclusion of their philosophical theory. Because God unchangeably ordained for those non-elect wicked to NOT repent, but to die. Of course many of us are not spiritual enough to discern this secret decretive will and preference of God, that contradicts His explicitly stated will. Back to the Institutes for us I guess.
Pastor Loz: ” God tells us that He takes NO PLEASURE in the death of the wicked,..”
That’s the verse that came to my mind too when I thought of verses where God explicitly states His desires. Also, when the Bible talks about God’s “Will”, it’s often His desired/preferred Will (according to the concordance), what He prefers to have happen, but He doesn’t force it to happen. It’s what He wants us to choose. His Will is that wicked men repent and turn from their ways. That’s what He wants them to do. But He doesn’t force it because He gave us the right to choose. Because forced love is not love at all.
But, to their (and Christianity’s) detriment, Calvinists have redefined “God’s Will” as “whatever happens is God’s Will because God’s Will always happens because He preplanned it and causes it to happen” (not a direct quote, but it’s what it is). Therefore, if people go to hell, it must be “God’s Will.” If a child is abused, it must be “God’s Will.”
And then since they have a wrong definition of God’s Will, they have to twist verses like “it’s not God’s Will for anyone to perish” and “God wills that the wicked repent and live” by twisting verses, adding secondary layers, and breaking everything into “two types of…” (one for the elect and one for the non-elect). Two types of Wills, two types of love, two types of decrees, two sources of sin, etc.
They take what God obviously said and the obvious, commonsense implications – God’s desire is that no one perishes and so, therefore, He would not cause anyone to perish – and change it into something God never said, such as “God has two kinds of desires. On one level, He doesn’t want anyone to perish; it makes Him sad that anyone perishes. But on a deeper level, God wants people to perish so that He can get glory for showing off His wrath against sin.” (Yes! Some of them do say this.)
And yet they convince themselves they are being true to Scripture, upholding God’s character and the gospel, bringing God the most glory possible, and that they are being super humble for accepting such terrible ideas like God causes child abuse and predestines people to hell. It’s sad.
And demonic. (The delusions and the theology. Not the people.)