You can find the original post over at Sin and Glory.
In the Reformed camp there is a big problem with conflation. If you’re not familiar, conflation happens when two separate things are brought together to appear as if they are one. Dictionary.com defines it thus: “the merging of two or more sets of information, texts, ideas, etc. into one.” Understanding this problem can clear up a lot of misconceptions.
Conflation was a problem long before the Reformation officially began in 1517. It actually goes back to Constantine and his conversion to Christianity. Constantine was a Roman Emperor who reigned from 306 to 337 A.D. Upon his conversion to Christianity in 312, he implemented several things for which the church should be grateful. The Edict of Milan in 313 eased the intolerance in the Roman Empire against Christians and he convoked the First Council of Nicaea in 325 which produced the Nicene Creed.
For all the good he did for Christianity, it cannot be forgotten that Constantine was a warrior. As Emperor of Rome, he integrated the Sword and the Word. In fact, Thomas Aquinas argued that “Church and State are two swords which God has given to Christendom for protection; both swords, however, are by Him given to the pope and the temporal sword is then by the pope entrusted to the rulers of State.” (Quoted in The Reformers and Their Stepchildren, p44). For support of this position, proponents pointed to Peter’s presentation of two swords to Jesus in Luke 22:23. From his words, “Lord, here is two swords,’ the Church constructed the doctrine that Jesus intended His Church to have two swords, the “sword of the Spirit” which the clergy wields, and “the sword of steel” which the soldier wields. You can read more about how this came to be and the fallout from it in the excellent book, The Reformers and Their Stepchildren, by Leonard Verduin.
As the years passed, the idea of the Church controlling the state became so ingrained that most people didn’t see a difference. The roles of each had been conflated into one role. As a result, the Church controlled the affairs of the State. This conflation was emphasized when dissenters were questioned about their loyalty. In the interrogations, dissenters, usually in prison, regularly would hear the question, “Should there be a magistrate, and should he sustain the Word of God?” For the questioner this is a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ question. There are no other alternatives. But to the one questioned it was clearly two questions. For him it was a ‘yes’ AND ‘no’ question. “Yes” to the question whether there should be a civil ruler, and ‘NO’ to the question whether it is his duty to sustain the Word of God. For the one asking, a negative answer to the question of whether a magistrate has the duty to sustain the Word of God was the same as saying there should be no magistrate. The result of these interrogations often ended in death, with the state carrying out the executions on behalf of the Church, while the Church sustained her perceived purity by relegating the responsibility to the State.
It would remain this way into the Reformation. One only has to look at John Calvin’s Geneva to see the horrific repercussions of such a policy. Unfortunately, the Reformers had no intentions of challenging this status quo. Though they challenged much of the Church’s doctrine, as they were faced with separating the magistrate from the clergy, each one succumbed to the lure of the Papacy.
In addition to Calvin’s Geneva, for example, when the City Council of Zurich let it be known that all contemplated reforms in the religious arena had to be officially approved by them first, Zwingli submitted. Likewise, Martin Luther stopped short of a full reformation, content to walk hand in hand with the State, bogged down halfway between Catholicism and the New Testament Church organization.
With this background in mind, it is no wonder that many in the Reformed camp have no problem with conflating arguments. They have a long history of doing so. Though the Reformed do not conflate the magistrate and the clergy per se, they do conflate a number of things that the Bible assumes are separate.
For example, it is not uncommon to hear someone make the comment in regard to salvation, “Either God is Sovereign, or Man is Sovereign.” By this they mean that salvation is 100% of God and 0% of man. Of course, non-Reformed also believe that Salvation is 100% God and 0% man. But the Reformed have conflated two things (not to mention redefined the term ‘sovereignty’) and combined them into one. They combine man’s choice to repent and God’s choice to save all those who repent into a single action and call it salvation. That is conflation. (That is then followed by building a strawman of man’s so-called sovereignty).
Another area that gets conflated often times is the idea of finding favor with God and meriting salvation. The Reformed act as if someone’s finding favor with God equals being saved. A person can do the things pleasing to God, acting in faith long before they are saved. Lydia is a case in point. Lydia was a God-fearer. She worshiped the God of the Jews. She hosted prayer meetings. In all of these acts, she would find favor with God. But it wasn’t until Paul and his companions arrived, preached Jesus to here that she believed and was saved. We could speak of the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8, of Cornelius in Acts 10 or all of the God fearers in Acts 13. Does God save those who find favor with Him? Yes. But it is two separate acts, not one.
Finally, it is common to hear the Reformed speak of the Atonement as if it is synonymous with Salvation. The Atonement was an event that took away the sin of the world. While is it a necessary requirement for someone to be saved, it is not what saves. The Atonement affects every human being, removing the sin that separates them from a holy God. But salvation comes only to those who humbly repent and accept the gift of salvation. Without the Atonement no one could be saved, but with the Atonement, anyone can be saved.
The Reformed have followed closely in the footsteps of the Reformers. From the early days of conflating the role of the magistrate and clergy to continued conflation of various ideas to make an incoherent systematic seem coherent, it seems to be a prerequisite. This conflation comes at the expense of scriptural veracity. The Bible assumes man has a genuine choice in salvation, the Reformed reject it. The Bible assumes people can find favor with God prior to being saved, the Reformed reject it. The Bible applies the Atonement to all mankind and salvation to those who believe, the Reformed reject it. All of these are conflations of what the Bible says.
Oft’ times the most powerful truths are those that are simply stated.
Hello Norm – and welcome
Here is another biblical argument as to why Calvinistic election cannot be true.
It is easier to pass a camel through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.
If election is true, then it wouldn’t be any harder for any elected person to enter the kingdom of heaven than any other elected person. In fact, it would be guaranteed that they would without them having to do anything. At some point they will be irresistibly drawn and saved no matter how much they might resist. Rich or not.
Take away election and input free-will. Then this verse means that a rich man is so attached to their worldly positions and has no desire for anything else that they won’t seek for and don’t think they need Christ. Their own pride, contentment, focus on worldly things and self-idolizing keep them from even realizing they are spiritually sick. Someone who is poor doesn’t have these attachments and comfort and for that reason are more apt to seek for contentment and help from God.
Good thinking!
Yes – the Calvinist essentially has to rely on DOUBLE-SPEAK tap-dance routines – when it comes to whether or not humans have any affect on anything.
In a 100% predestined world – everything is infallibly FIXED and humans function as pre-programmed puppets.
This DOUBLE-SPEAK tap-dance routine becomes obvious in the subject of prayer.
For example – a Calvinist finds himself overwhelmed with inclinations towards a certain sin.
Where did those inclinations come from?
Did they come from his nature?
*AS-IF* his nature has the power to affect anything?
Or did they come from an infallible decree – which his nature is powerless to countervail or alter?
Is he to pray for divine help?
Divine help from an infallible decree?
His doctrine stipulates those overwhelming impulses to sin – are in fact the divine immutable will.
Calvinism’s doctrine of Total Depravity is another DOUBLE-SPEAK tap-dance routine.
The doctrine of decrees stipulates – the state of man’s nature – at every nano-second in time – is meticulously predestined.
But the Calvinist doesn’t want to acknowledge what his doctrine stipulates.
Total Depravity is his strategy to evade his doctrine of decrees – and FALSELY attribute man’s condition to man – *AS-IF* man is granted the power to be the cause of anything.
So when it comes to man having any affect on anything in Calvinism – the pure unfortunate Calvinist is forced into a continual dishonest DOUBLE-SPEAK tap-dance routine.
Not an envious position for any professing Christian to be in!
That is what is difficult about refuting Calvinists. Instead of just considering they may have interpreted something wrong, they double down. If you bring up a point that they cannot refute, they will say they don’t believe what you said they do, will give a half-truth to back-up why they don’t believe it, and say you don’t understand Calvinism. But honestly I don’t think THEY understand Calvinism and how to follow where their claims inevitably conclude. Or worse, they will just appeal to mystery. The conversation NEVER goes to “I hadn’t considered that” or “I stand corrected” or even “I should look more into this, you make some good points”. It is always a proud, dogmatic defense with an ad hominem attack on your ability to discern God. Keep in mind, never and always is an exaggeration.
Yes!
Understood completely!
There is a very old joke that says “Will the REAL Calvinist please stand up!” ;-D
Every Calvinist considers his customized self-contradicting sugar-coated version of Calvinism – to be the golden standard.
I can’t tell you how many Calvinists I bump into – and I quote statements from John Calvin which are foundational to the doctrine.
And they say:
“I am a Calvinist and we don’t believe that!”
And if I had a dollar for every Calvinist who claims to not be a Calvinist – I could enjoy a very nice meal at a fancy restaurant. :-]
Yes – Calvinism is a system of DOUBLE-SPEAK.
They have their own private interpretations for various words and terms.
But they don’t want people to know they have their own meanings for those terms.
So craft those words into sentences designed to lead their recipient to interpret the word they are using – with it common meaning – when that meaning would in fact entail a total contradiction to their belief system.
So – in Calvinism – we are dealing with a highly engineered language of DOUBLE-SPEAK.
One has to know the underlying foundational doctrine – in order to discern when the Calvinist is using DOUBLE-SPEAK statements designed to create semantic FACADES of things which do not exist in their belief system.
Blessings!
I am not a Calvinist but this is a horrible argument. That verse does NOT says it is harder for some than others. It says it is harder for a rich man to get into heaven than for a camel to go through the eye of a needle!
Two verses later, after being asked by the disciples “Who then can be saved?”, Jesus says it is impossible with man. He’s saying every human is in this impossible situation unless God works.
I don’t believe he works capriciously as the Calvinist teaches but gives grace to the humble. Salvation is by grace through faith. God saves those who humble themselves and believe the truth.
Welcome Graham. Fair point, but though not a necessary inference it is a reasonable inference that Jesus meant it is harder for rich than for poor to enter the kingdom of God. James seems to have concluded this when he said – James 2:5 NKJV — Listen, my beloved brethren: Has God not chosen the poor of this world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom which He promised to those who love Him?
Welcome Graham,
Stay around and join the conversation.
I dont think A2A is as wrong as you say. The passage (and others) clearly says that it is harder for the rich.
That is of course inexplicable for a Calvinist. It should be equally hard for all (for Calvinists either you are irresistibly forced in or not…no difference in financial status). So once again, as with so many teachings from Christ, there is NO point to what He is saying (per Calvinism).
The Rich Young Ruler makes the case perfectly.
Mark 10: 22 At this the man’s face fell. He went away sad, because he had great wealth.
23 Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, “How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!”
It wasnt cuz Jesus didnt love him (what Calvinist would say) or that Jesus did not call him (what they would say), because both of those are stated clearly in the story.
He resisted Jesus’ direct call….and the passage (and Jesus) say it was because he was rich.
I can’t understand your point. The word hard or harder in and of itself is already a comparative term. Things are hard or they are easy. Christ is simply making a statement that it is difficult for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. You must ask yourself, then, WHY is it difficult, in this case specifically for a defined “rich” man, to do so? There would be no point to point out a specific quality of a person if it was just as difficult for anyone else. That would make Christ’s words and teachings frivolous, and God is not frivolous!
Your point even explains this. It is by grace THROUGH faith. Faith is required. So simple discernment would dictate that it is difficult for a rich man to have faith. I explained why in my other comment. Read Matthew 6 to see where Jesus further clarifies this.
To add, it is impossible unless God works. I agree. This is why Christ did His WORK on the cross! If He didn’t, no one could be saved. It would be impossible. So God did do the work.
it is impossible unless God works
br.d
This is not in fact what Jesus says
Let’s get the text the way it reads
verse 26 – KJV:
But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.
Now – was Jesus literally saying that ALL things are possible with God?
Or was Jesus using a manner of speech common to the Jewish language?
Can God deny himself?
Can God tell a lie?
Can God create a rock that is so heavy that he can’t lift it?
Can God create a square that is not a square?
The answer is – God is a divine perfect being.
And a divine perfect being – is not expected to do that which is contrary to himself – or that which he defines as impossible.
So what we are left with – is understanding what God himself defines as possible.
grahamecgould:
That verse does NOT says it is harder for some than others. It says it is harder for a rich man to get into heaven than for a camel to go through the eye of a needle!
br.d
You should be able to see through that!
In every generation and society of humans – there is always more than one single rich man.
Therefore – in every generation and society of humans – we have SOME who are rich – and others who are not.
So when Jesus uses the phrase “A rich man” – he is speaking generally – and not of a specific individual.
Otherwise – that one rich man would be the only man in the world – in whom it was harder! ;-]
So yes – it is harder for SOME to enter into the kingdom than for others – makes perfect sense.
I’m not sure what the debate about the rich man is over, but for what it’s worth … I always read that passage as it’s harder for rich men to get into heaven because they tend to trust in their wealth, their self-sufficiency, which makes them less likely to trust in God. But it is indeed possible for them, for all people, to be saved if they will put their faith in Jesus, instead of in themselves or something else. God can reach anyone and opens the door to all, but we need to turn to Him, to realize we need Him. And the richer and more self-made we are, the less likely we are to see our need for God and dependency on God.
I was wondering the same thing, and it boils down to this… for the love of money is the root of all evil.
That rich man had the right answers to Jesus’s questions. He just wasn’t willing to give up his money. Jesus was testing him.
Ed: “That rich man had the right answers to Jesus’s questions. He just wasn’t willing to give up his money. Jesus was testing him.”
My thoughts too. Jesus was getting to the heart of what was keeping this man from turning to Him, his idol: his love of his wealth.
Agree on all fronts. Wealth specifically as an idol provides many things in the world, causing one to not have much else to long for was my point. It’s a particularly difficult idol to let go of.
My bigger point was in Calvinism, it isn’t harder for ANYONE to get into heaven, because they are either elect and DEFINITELY will or are reprobate and DEFINITELY won’t.
A poor reprobate and a rich reprobate have equal difficulty getting into heaven (neither will) and it has nothing to do with their worldly attachments.
Similarly, a rich elect person won’t have ANY difficulty getting to heaven. God will irresistibly draw him at some point with no chance for him to resist. It isn’t difficult at all, certainly not more difficult than passing a camel through the eye of a needle.
Also, just thought of this, in Calvinism, God infallibly decreed that man would be rich. He also infallibly decreed if rich men are elect or not. The logical conclusions of Calvinism are so irrational and absurd it hurts my head!
Yep, I see what you mean, ATA. That passage makes no sense in Calvinist theology.
I was also thinking today about Hebrews saying that “by now you ought to be teachers (and not spiritual babies)” (Hebrews 5:12) doesn’t make sense in Calvinism either. How can anyone “ought to be” anything different if God has ordained/caused them to be the way they are for His plans and glory? Doesn’t make sense. If Calvinism is true then either God or the author of Hebrews got something wrong.
Good point Heather and there are even more like that.
Even God Himself says it:
I would have made you king forever…..but
If the Israelites go this way “they might” want to turn back.
God: I expected sweet fruit but got bitter grape.
There are many like this….even from God’s mouth.
Of course all reformed explication of these passages (even the ones saying, “The Lord God Almighty says”) start with “does this passage really mean what it says….”
And on and on….
I meant “A2A”: Atheist2apologist
This is twisted and unscriptural. In opposition to what you said, the scriptures state people are DEAD spiritually without Christ…not sick.(Eph2) Election is true because it’s scriptural. (Rom 8).If your post was scriptural, you would include the context of your reference…Jesus goes on to say, after the hearers are amazed…that salvation for man is impossible (rich and poor), but with God all things are possible.
Arminian or Pelagian error like this can always be shot down. The Lord bless you.
Welcome Matthias – you might want to take another look at the Scripture evidence you are pointing to.
[Eph 2:5-6 NKJV] even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised [us] up together, and made [us] sit together in the heavenly [places] in Christ Jesus,
The parallel passage of Eph 2:5-6 is in the other prison epistle by Paul – Colossian 2:12-13 and uses the same Greek word for “raised together” – from συνεγείρω, and “made alive together” – from συζωοποιέω.
In that parallel passage Paul clearly says that “raised together with Christ” is 👉”through faith”👈. The Calvinist wants to say that Eph 2 teaches their false “regeneration” – being “raised up” – is needed before God can speak effectively to the unregenerate spirit of man. They even try to falsely use the illustration of the raising of Lazarus.
But Scripture and good exegesis prove once again that saving grace has to go through faith (Eph 2:8), and that faith must exist and be in place first for that grace to go “through” it. The order is light, then faith, then life. The gospel must be heard, understood, and believed before the new birth.
Paul and Peter and James say this clearly – 1Cor 4:15, 1Pet 1:23, 25, James 1:18
[1Co 4:15 NKJV] For though you might have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet [you do] not [have] many fathers; for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you 👉through the gospel.👈
[1Pe 1:23, 25 NKJV] having been born again, not of corruptible seed but incorruptible, 👉through the word of God👈…. But the word of the LORD endures forever.” Now this is the word which by the gospel was preached to you.
[Jas 1:18 NKJV] Of His own will He brought us forth 👉by the word of truth👈, that we might be a kind of firstfruits of His creatures.
Saving grace through faith. Faith must be in place for saving grace to go through.
Also consider this – Rom 8:6-8 is talking about the fact that any “thinking” that is initiated by the flesh cannot please/satisfy God in an everlasting way or earn His righteousness. That is true for those unsaved who are “in the flesh”, but also continues to be true after regeneration when believers do things their flesh “thinks” they should do. Thinking from the flesh even in the believer can never please/satisfy God, even for sanctification.
But responding with thinking from the human spirit to the enablement of the HS is possible. For that spirit being able to seek and eventually make a decision of trust, if one does not harden oneself against it, is what the Scripture teaches can/does happen even before regeneration. It is the Spirit who makes a foothold in the unregenerate human spirit and thereby is bypassing the carnal mind (flesh).
That foothold does not please/satisfy God to earn His salvation, but it does create the opportunity, and thus the ability, of the human spirit to choose whether or not to humbly follow His drawing to the point of personal trust. If followed, then God fulfills His will and freely grants everlasting life in the new birth through that faith. Faith must be in place first for that saving grace to go through it.
Finally – According to Rom 5:6… spiritual death is not inability. According to the parable of the sower, the heart can positively respond to God’s Word before regeneration.
Paul, in Rom 5:6 used the word that means weak/sick to describe the unsaved condition. In that verse it is translated “without strength” – Rom 5:6 KJV – For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.
But it is not the word “dead” here. The Bible word – “dead” – has been twisted away from its biblical roots and given a meaning borrowed from modern medicine – “inability” or “no function”. The heart ceases to function and the brain isn’t working and the person is pronounced dead! That’s a modern meaning.
But biblically we know that a person continues to function after physical death… He is just without a body and dwelling in a different place! He is just “separated” from his body, which is the basic meaning of physical death in Scripture. And the basic meaning of spiritual death is that the spirit is separated from the indwelling presence of Christ. It is not that the human spirit doesn’t function, or that it cannot be appealed to by God’s Spirit.
The Calvinist needs to factor in what Paul meant in this verse, Rom 5:6 KJV – For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.
Before salvation we have a terminal illness, even though often before feeling conviction, we might not feel too bad. But the Doctor tells us we’re dying and that we need to trust Him. We learn that we need to take this miracle cure that He spent all He had to make and to offer to us. We also need to repent and stop trusting in all the other “cures” others have offered.
Mar 2:17 KJV – When Jesus heard [it], he saith unto them, They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.
God spoke all the time to “dead” people, like Adam, Nicodemus, and Cornelius, throughout Scripture, and He expected them to hear and to understand. He was not wasting His breath.
He told Israel to first repent and then to get a new heart! Repentance first, and then regeneration. Eze 18:30-31 KJV – 30 Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways, saith the Lord GOD. Repent, and turn [yourselves] from all your transgressions; so iniquity shall not be your ruin. 31 Cast away from you all your transgressions, whereby ye have transgressed; and make you a new heart and a new spirit: for why will ye die, O house of Israel?
Yes. If Jesus didn’t do His work on the Cross, there is nothing man could do to earn salvation. But He DID do His work on the Cross. Also if Dead meant Dead like you are saying, men couldn’t spiritually sin either. Dead can’t do anything.
Also, really? You are using the boogeyman fallacy with accusations of Pelagianism?
Kurt:
Also, really? You are using the boogeyman fallacy with accusations of Pelagianism?
.
The irony of Calvinists still pointing the finger of Pelagianism at people – is the fact that because the average Calvinist’s brain is contained within a tiny little cocoon – and not exposed to current day scholarship – they have no idea – that Augustinian Scholars have shown the whole business of the Pelagian accusation backfires on the Calvinist.
.
1) Scholars today look at the writings of Pelagiuas – and what they see is that he is getting his position from Augustine’s own writings – and from the writings of many other Christian authors in his day.
2) There are Augustinian scholars today who will tell you that Augustine’s arguments in his debate against the Manichaeins – is more Pelagian than Pelagias was.
3) Consequently – we will find Augustinian scholars today telling us – that Augustine himself was the originator Pelagianism – and not Pelagias.
To be fair, I’ve had Arminians (Wesleyan) accuse me of Pelagianism too. That was confusing to me, because Calvinists accuse Arminians of Pelagianism too. But then Arminians are to Calvinists as Calvinists are to the Catholic Church, in that they came from it.
The Pelagian accusation is flawed anyway. Essentially, because the Catholic Church (who Calvinists rebelled against) SAID that Pelagian is a heretic, therefore he was a heretic. It’s a strange circular reasoning. Someone I disagree with said something about someone I disagree with, so I agree with the person I disagree with!
It’s also a Poison the Well fallacy. Even if Pelagius had heretical beliefs, that doesn’t mean EVERY belief he had was heretical. John Calvin believed in infant Baptism, which many Reformed say is heretical. So Calvin was a heretic, therefore all his beliefs were heretical and they should dismiss them.
br.d
Yes
N.T. Write calls Calvin – a Catholic with a small ‘c’
.
And Arminius himself was a Calvinist – who departed only to a certain degree from it.
Arminians today – even though some of them are very intelligent – carry more of the Calvinist baggage that they need and should.
.
Once one understands – the Calvinist TULIP is designed to obfuscate the foundational core of its doctrine – in order to make Calvinism appear other than it really is – one would reject the use of the TULIP altogether – and simply stick to the scriptures.
Hello Matthias and welcome
.
Matthais
This is twisted and unscriptural. In opposition to what you said, the scriptures state people are DEAD spiritually without Christ
.
br.d
Matthais – here is what the statement says
-quote
Here is another biblical argument as to why Calvinistic election cannot be true. It is easier to pass a camel through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. If election is true, then it wouldn’t be any harder for any elected person to enter.
.
In Calvinism – Calvin’s god – is a divine potter – who at the foundation of the world ASSIGNS each individuals eternal destiny. He also ASSIGNS how much money each individual will have during their life-time.
.
Please explain how a fallible creature having more money than another fallible creature – is going to make the process of ASSIGNING that creature’s eternal destiny – more difficult for an infallible god?
.
Additionally – the Westminster Confession explicitly states – Calvin’s god’s decree for each individual has NOTHING to do with and is not based on ANYTHING having to do with the creature or the condition thereof.
.
Westminster Confession
-quote
Although god knoweth whatsoever *MAY* or *CAN* come to pass upon all supposed conditions. Yet hath He NOT decreed anything because He foresaw it as future, or as that which *WOULD* come to pass upon such conditions. The decree is solely within himself”
The argument wasn’t even addressed. Perhaps I reword it.
Per Calvinistic election
1). If someone is “elect” that person will definitely be saved.
2). This salvation was determined before the foundation of the Earth.
3). God will regenerate the elect in His time, irresistibly drawing them to belief in Christ.
4). This is NOTHING that the person does on their own.
5). Therefore, there is no degree of difficulty for one to be saved (enter the kingdom of heaven) because they don’t do anything for it to happen.
Which premise is not true in Calvinism, or is the conclusion not true, with reasoning?
Here is an analogy. A father decided when his sons turned 16, he would buy them a car and give it as a gift. The oldest son turns 16, and receives the car as a gift. The youngest son, three years later, turns 16 and receives a car as a gift. Let’s say there are 5 other sons. The father decided the same thing for all of them about giving them a car at 16. When each of them turned 16 they each got a car as a gift.
Was it harder for any one of the brothers to get the car than any other? No, because there was nothing on their side they had to do to get the car.
How, then, could it be harder for a rich man to enter heaven than anyone else? Is Jesus teaching us that nobody who is rich is one of the elect? If not, how is it harder for God to regenerate a rich man than it is for Him to regenerate a poor man?
br.d
YES!
Another good example – of how Calvinism is DOUBLE-MINDED – and must impose its DOUBLE-MINDEDNESS onto scripture. :-]
I’ve never seen a Calvinist actually address a contradiction someone points out. They do 1 of 3 things
1) Avoid and deflect, pointing to out of context proof texts that don’t address the contradiction
2) Appeal to mystery. I don’t know why God did it that way, but it is what the Bible teaches.
3) Without giving reasons how, simply deny that it is a contradiction. I.E. Compatibilism
Even reading Chosen But Free by Geisler. He makes great points about Free Will, but also affirms God’s sovereignty (Calvinist definition of the word) and doesn’t address the contradiction that causes. In later videos, he calls himself a zero point Calvinist, but in his response to James White, says he only denies limited atonement. It’s strange, because overall I think Geisler is fantastic, and a great example of a very logical mind!
br.d
Yes – I know what you mean Kurt.
In my dialogs with Calvinists – when I point out what logically follows with their system – often times it goes in one ear and out the other – without hitting any brain cells on its way through! :-]
.
A significant percentage of them also don’t like quotes from John Calvin.
They’ve been fed a sugar-coated magical lollipop version of Calvinism.
And some are prone to adding imaginative inventions into their version – in order to escape some aspect of the doctrine they don’t find palatable.
.
Once in a while – it will happen that one Calvinist will claim his version of Calvinism is the golden standard
And another Calvinist claims his version is the golden standard.
And the two versions are in contradiction to each other.
The both of them are aware of the contradiction – and somehow both versions are divinely inspired.
.
It gets pretty funny sometimes! 😀
I’m actually sad, and don’t mean to sound belittling, but it seems like buying into strong delusion.
br.d
Yes – I would agree.
You might be interested in checking out Kevin Thompson’s Youtube “Beyond the Fundamentals”
His testimony is that when he was a teenager – his church took in a Pastor who came into the church deceptively.
The Pastor’s plan (which appears to be a common strategy within Calvinism) was to teach Calvinism to the church without letting them know it was Calvinism.
.
When he believed a majority of the congregation were sufficiently indoctrinated – he would require the congregation put to vote whether the church should be classified as reformed.
.
And – if there were any members who disagreed and represented any serious resistance – the pastor would claim they were causing division and figure out them to leave under the premise they were operating in rebellious spirits.
.
The strategy is typically called “Manufacturing Consent” and is a way of manipulating people into a belief system.
It would not be until Kevin grew older and matured – before he understood what was going on there.
.
But years later he would become pastor himself who would have to deal with similar strategies of Calvinist dishonesties.
This stimulated within him – a quest – to try to understand what sociological powers were at work within the Calvinist system that would seduce people into state of mental ensnarement.
.
He has produced a number of youtube videos in which he discusses the phenomenon.
And he is still in the process of learning about how sociological and psychological influences are involved.
.
There was a very well known expert on cult characteristics – known as Margaret Singer – who described a characteristic of cults – which she called a “Closed system of logic”.
.
When you dialog with Calvinists – it becomes obvious – their minds are captured within a “Closed system of Logic” in which self-contradictions are accepted as divine – in order to prevent the mind from questioning the doctrine.
Saved? Is the one who found favor with God but who dies never hearing about Jesus condemned to an eternity in hell or saved?
Hell Larry,
That is a difficult question – because some people will insist that if the gospel is not officially presented to a person – and that presentation does not meet certain criteria and traditions – then that person has no way of a receiving truth sufficient to believe up on Jesus unto salvation.
We however have testimonies from people who had near-death experiences – who insist that they were given understanding while unconscious – and believed upon Jesus unto salvation before coming back to consciousnesses.
Some people – who insist on an official presentation of the Gospel meeting their criteria and tradition – will reject such testimonies – insisting they do not meet criteria – which they insist is required by scripture.
I remember reading a novel decades ago that had that same premise–that Jesus entered into a person’s coma and witnessed to him, and he was ultimately saved. That is just the sort of thing my God would do: continue fighting for the soul of a person right up until they crossed the threshold.
My sister-in-law also says that she witnessed to my father-in-law on his deathbed, and although he couldn’t respond, his expression changed from anger to joy. As the Calvinist would say, “who are we to say” that God can’t save someone in those circumstances.
br.d
Hello Pamela and welcome
.
Yes we also have testimonies of people who have died on the operating table and who later wake up – sometimes in the morgue – who claim they were not saved prior that – and in that state they met with Jesus and they were returned back to earth.
.
I would guess that those are people who at some point heard the gospel within the life-time – and who did not act upon it – and in this case the Lord is giving them a last chance to make a choice.
.
But of course in Calvinism – humans are not granted CHOICE
Because a necessary condition of CHOICE is the existence and availability of more than one option – in order to constitute having a CHOICE.
.
And in Calvinism – impulse in the human brain is infallibly predestined by an infallible decree and cannot possibly be other than what it was decreed to infallibly be.
.
And an infallible decree does not grant any ALTERNATIVE from that which it decrees.
.
Consequently – that decree does not grant any ALTERNATIVE to any human from which to choose.
The CHOICE was made at the foundation of the world – and cannot be remade or unmade.
.
Blessings!
br.d
Hi Brdmod, I’m not sure I follow the need for near death. Granted Heb 9:27 advises after death we face judgement. yet this does not seem to preclude one who has not yet received the Gospel presentation but is found in favor with God being enlightened by Jesus when meeting him on the other side of eternity.
Hi Larry,
I don’t think any of the testimonies indicate a specific need for a near death experience.
Its simply the case that there are testimonies in which people insist they received understanding in that situation.
As I said – there are those who would insist such testimonies are invalid – because they do not conform to certain criteria within one’s tradition or church teaching.
But we are still left with people who currently believe in Jesus as their savior – and have that as their testimony.
My personal opinion on the subject is – I think God can meet a person where ever God chooses to meet that person.
br.d
You had said:
“I think God can meet a person where ever God chooses to meet that person.”
My question:
So, man can’t come to God? God has to come to man instead?
I’m reminded again and again and again and again that those who don’t know Jesus are judged based on their God given conscience after they die.
God have all of us a conscience. Jesus is the judge.
Romans 2:14-16 applies. No religious mental gymnastics needed.
Ed Chapman
Ed
You had said:
“I think God can meet a person where ever God chooses to meet that person.”
My question:
So, man can’t come to God? God has to come to man instead?
br.d
To meet someone does not imply a criteria on who comes to who.
I can meet you for coffee half way between my house and your house.
And in such case – we’ve both come to each other.
brdmod,
Ohhhhh…good answer! I can’t argue against that. Meeting for coffee, that is. LOL.
Hi Larry, I understand why you would ask this, with what the article said about Lydia. I, however, think there is a different possible interpretation of the Lydia story.
In the Bible, it never says that the message Lydia responded to was about salvation or that God opened her heart to get saved. It just says Paul preached a message. Personally, I think that what he preached might be about the need for a believer to be baptized, because that’s the next thing she does. And this would be similar to what happened in Acts 19 when Paul instructed other disciples/believers about the need to be baptized in Jesus Christ.
To me, this makes the most sense and would explain how she could be a worshipper of God (a believer), yet have her heart opened to a message. It wasn’t about salvation but about baptism. Just a thought.
Hi Heather,
Thanks for your reply.
I suspect Lydia was a believer in God as revealed in OT and was trusting in Him for her salvation when she arrived at her Sabbath meeting with fellow women. However, I am inclined to think from the Acts account that prior to that day she did not have specific Jesus knowledge (life, death and resurrection knowledge) and that Paul’s message included this as well as instruction that if she accepted the truth of Paul’s words of Jesus that baptism should follow.
But the crux of my question was her salvation state prior to Paul’s message. What she saved? Would her God have rejected her had she died the prior evening?
Cornelius is another case in point questioning his salvation state prior to Peter’s enlightenment. I’m leaning to the possibility of an Emath like encounter of Jesus as portrayed by CS Lewis. Inclusivism is the theological position and I suspect I’m treading in what every well taught calvinist would brand as heresy.
Thank you, for me, as I read the word of God, I bump into words such as”the world, whosoever, anyone, everyone, all, God’s desire, without excuse etc”from my perspective, it seems that God is fully sovereign, and in control. On the other hand, God initiated to the whole world a relationship with Him. He gives us knowledge, convicts us of living for ourselves, and we have the choice to reject or accept his rescue plan for our lives
Welcome Patrick! Good thoughts.
Hello Patrick and welcom
Patrick
we have the choice to reject or accept his rescue plan for our lives
br.d
The issue of humans having CHOICE is a sticking point for Calvinism.
An example of the STANDARD definition of the term “Choice” can be found from the KJV dictionary
-quote
The act of choosing; the voluntary act of selecting or separating from TWO OR MORE things
You will notice a NECESSARY CONDITION for this definition of “Choice”.
TWO or MORE options must be available – in order to constitute what people understand as a “Choice”
Now – you must understand that Calvinism represents a 100% meticulously predestined world.
Every event and every human act is 100% predestined.
And a predestined event – by definition – cannot be OTHER than that which was predestined.
Consequently – for every human event and every human impulse – there is never granted more than ONE SINGLE PREDESTINED – RENDERED-CERTAIN option.
Since that is the case – the NECESSARY CONDITION of TWO or MORE options is not granted to man.
Thus the function of “Choice” – per its STANDARD definition – does not exist for humans within Calvinism.
Calvinists however – do not find this aspect of their doctrine palatable.
And they will insist they are granted “Choice”
In order to claim they have “Choice” however – they have to created a DISTORTED definition of the term “Choice”
Lydia worshiped the God of the Jews, because she was a Jew, under the law of Moses. God opened her heart like Jesus did at the end of John 9. Paul had just gotten into town, and as his custom, he always visited the Jews first, on their sabbath. He would not be talking to gentiles until the Jews were first spoken to, on another day. Acts 17 is the example, with which both 1 and 2 Thessalonians are written… to the Jews. There is way too many on both sides that deny this, not acknowledging the “For there really is a difference between Jew and gentile…outside of Christ”. That’s the distinction between Romans 11:8 and 15:21. Jews need their hearts open, gentiles don’t. In addition Romans 5:13. And children. I reject the interpretation that David is a sinner from the womb. Without knowledge of good and evil, the default is Romans 2:14-16. Conscience. No one likes discussing Romans 5:13 on either side. Or 4:15. Or Abraham’s sin of bro/sis relations. Or Romans 7:7-9. But instead both sides think that God must nudge an unbelieving gentile to believe, with some kind of magic potion.
br.d
I think Calvinist have a “beguiling language” problem.
Thank you for another great article & love this fact that you point out;
“Conflation was a problem long before the Reformation officially began in 1517.”
Agreed 100% and it hasn’t stopped yet & unfortunately this quote is true to some extent as well (from someone who can remain nameless)… “If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed.”hmm where was the discernment here🤔 maybe checked at the door of let’s not make waves…”
The lie of “meticulous devine control” cleverly disguised to give God all the glory and change/ meld/conflation/blend a word like sovereign with meticulous control… However it cleverly leaves out, that it also gives Him the other side of that as well… unless you add in secondary causes etc.. as if that is Biblical and makes sense..
Simple…
1 Corinthians 14:33 NKJV — For God is not the author of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints.
I find no peace in calvinism and plenty of confusion… it is void of hope for most of humanity except the few favored people.. nope i reject calvinism not the good news of the Bible and the power of the gospel to save…🌻
Reggie
unless you add in secondary causes etc.. as if that is Biblical and makes sense..
br.d
But then again – in Calvinism every secondary event is itself just as meticulously determined (i.e. controlled) as every primary event.
John Calvin explains
-quote
The creatures…are so governed by the secret counsel of god, that NOTHING HAPPENS but what he has knowingly and willingly
decreed. (Institutes, 1, Chp 16, Par. 3)
No specific secondary event can happen – without that specific secondary event being specifically knowingly and willingly decreed.
That still makes Calvin’s god the AUTHOR of not only every primary event – but every secondary event as well.
They demand a THEOS who is sovereign over everything without exception.
So they ought to swallow every bit of their theological camel – without exception
But finding a Calvinist who is willing to swallow the whole camel without choking – is the interesting part to watch! ;-]
Br.d John Calvin explains
-quote
The creatures…are so governed by the secret counsel of god, that NOTHING HAPPENS but what he has knowingly and willingly
decreed. (Institutes, 1, Chp 16, Par. 3)
Crazy and void of any true meaningful relationship.. thank you for always pointing to the main issue “”complete and utter puppet like control”
If they quoted this on Sunday I’m sure there would be an exodus at least i would hope so…
Reggie
If they quoted this on Sunday I’m sure there would be an exodus at least i would hope so…
br.d
YES!
That is why Calvinist language is designed to be a beguiling language.
And that is why IMHO – the various reformed confessions came about.
People within reformed churches were being fed a diet of John Calvin – and they were leaving.
So they created the various confessions – carefully crafted with softer-gentler language – designed to HIDE dark TRUTHS Calvin would declare without blinking – within a Biblical sounding word-salad
br.d
“People within reformed churches were being fed a diet of John Calvin – and they were leaving.”
roland
I’ve never heard about this exodus from Reformed churches. When did this happen?
br.d
“So they created the various confessions – carefully crafted with softer-gentler language – designed to HIDE dark TRUTHS Calvin would declare without blinking – within a Biblical sounding word-salad”
roland
So the Reformed confessions were created with, “carefully crafted with softer-gentler language?” Can you provide examples from Reformed confessions that use softer-gentler language please? This is new to me.
br.d
Hello Roland
FIrstly
You neglected to include a part of my quote where I said “IMHO”
Secondly:
It doesn’t take much of a comparison between the language of John Calvin and the confessions to see the difference.
John Calvin
-quote
Some are pre-ordained (i.e. infallibly decreed for) to eternal life
Others to eternal damnation
And accordingly as EACH HAS BEEN CREATED for one of these ends, we [Calvinists] say he has been predestined to life or death.
John Calvin
-quote
individuals are BORN….DOOMED FROM THE WOMB to certain death, and are TO GLORIFY HIM by their destruction.(Institutes 3.23.6)
And concerning the preponderance of the believers – Calvin says this:
-quote
The Lord….instills into their minds such A SENSE……as can be felt WITHOUT the Spirit of adoption.
(Institutes 3.2.11)
-quote
He ILLUMINES ONLY FOR A TIME TO PARTAKE OF IT; then he justly FORSAKES THEM … and STRIKES THEM with even greater blindness (Institutes 3.24.8)
-quote
a SMALL and contemptible number are hidden in a HUGE MULTITUDE and a FEW GRAINS of wheat
are covered by a PILE of chaff…..
-quote
by the eternal GOOD PLEASURE of god THOUGH THE REASON DOES NOT APPEAR, they are NOT FOUND but MADE worthy of destruction. – (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of god pg 121)
So there is a few samples for you Roland
And now its your turn.
Please provide quotes from any confession – which unflinchingly communicates these aspects of the doctrine.
You are the one who wrote that the Reformed confessions softened the language of Calvin. I did not read any quotes from the Reformed confessions to prove your claim. You did not provide any you only quoted Calvin. You made an unsubstantiated claim.
Roland
I did not read any quotes from the Reformed confessions to prove your claim.
br.d
But the question is – did you read any quotes from the reformed confessions – which unflinchingly communicate the few quotes I provided from Calvin?
I think you know they don’t :-]
You made the unsubstantiated claim. You’re responsible to provide proof of your claim. I’m not responsible to provide proof of your claim. That’s like charging a person with murder and asking the defense counsel to provide proof that the defendant committed the murder! Come on br.d you are far more intelligent than that. You wouldn’t let me get away with that for a second! 😉
br.d
There wouldn’t be a reason why wouldn’t want to provide any quotes of those aspects of the doctrine – now would there Roland??? 😀
No. But of course your intellect has perceived a motive in me that I did not know I possessed. Your insights into my being have discovered that I have secret motives to hide these statements from Calvin from non-calvinists.
Easy. There is a Calvinist Church I went to. First off, I didn’t know they were calvinists because it didn’t state they held Calvinists beliefs. They openly say they are non-denominational. Then in their statement of Faith, it doesn’t say plainly that they are Calvinists who believe in TULIP. Instead they said they believe in the Doctrines of Grace. At the time, I knew what Calvinism was, but didn’t know what the Doctrines of Grace were. I didn’t know it tied to Calvinism. I didn’t even know Reformed Theology was Calvinism. Then, instead of saying plainly they believe in TULIP they hid the 5 points in the explanation of their beliefs. IE, we believe man is totally depraved….but doesn’t say we believe in the Doctrine of Total Depravity.
If they truly weren’t hiding anything, they could just say we believe in the teachings of Calvin and all 5 points of TULIP. Plainly stated. They didn’t, and it tricked me.
Atheist2Apologist
they said they believe in the Doctrines of Grace
br.d
AH! Here is another example of Calvinism’s language
Calvinism – calls its doctrines – “Doctrines of grace”
But are they *REALLY* doctrines of good-evil simply being LABELED doctrines of grace.
Lets see what a few Calvinists have to say:
John Calvin
-quote
Not only the destruction of the wicked is foreknown, but that the wicked themselves HAVE BEEN CREATED FOR THIS VERY END —that they may perish. – (Commentaries Romans 9:18)
br.d
Now there is a doctrine of grace!!!
R.C. Sproul
-quote
God ordains evil……..and he only ordains that which is good.
br.d
BINGO!!!!
I wonder where John Calvin would get the idea that God created the wicked for the day of doom (evil)?
Proverbs 16:4
4 The Lord has made all for Himself,
Yes, even the wicked for the day of doom.
Why would Calvin believe such a harsh evil thing?
Roland
Why would Calvin believe such a harsh evil thing?
br.d
Why does Calvinism call evil good?
br.d
Why does Calvinism call evil good?
roland
I can you give me an example of Calvinists calling evil good? Do you mean that when Calvinists say that God has decreed all things, including the sin in this world, that we are saying the sin in God’s decree is good?
Roland
I can you give me an example of Calvinists calling evil good?
br.d
Did you not read the second quote I provided – from R.C. Sproul.
1) Calvin’s god FIRST CONCEIVES – and then knowingly and willingly decrees – whatsoever will come to pass
2) A large part of whatsoever is FIRST CONCIEVED and then knowingly and willingly decreed to come to pass – is evil
QUESTION:
Would you describe what Calvin’s god FIRST CONCEIVES and then knowingly and willingly decrees as good or evil?
Where’s the quote from? I’d like to read it in context before I respond to Calvin’s statement that God conceives is evil.
Thanks
Roland
I’d like to read it in context before I respond to Calvin’s statement that God conceives is evil.
br.d
It is stated within Calvin’s propositions – as follows:
1) Calvin’s god has foreknowledge of evil
2) In Calvinism – divine foreknowledge is simply knowledge of that which has been decreed
John Calvin
-quote
He foresees future events ONLY in consequence of his decree (Institutes Vol ii. p. 169.)
John Calvin
-quote
Since he foresees the things which are to happen, simply because he has decreed that they are so to happen, it is vain to debate about divine prescience…
John Calvin
-quote
He consequently foreknew because HE SO ORDAINED BY HIS DECREE. (Institutes Vol. 2, 955-956)
3) Evil events cannot happen without the decree
John Calvin
-quote
The creatures…are so governed by the secret counsel of god, that NOTHING HAPPENS but what he has knowingly and willingly
decreed. (Institutes, 1, Chp 16, Par. 3)
4) The decree is established at the foundation of the world – before any creature exists.
Now ask yourself this question:
How does Calvin’s god decree evil without FIRST CONCEIVING the evil he is going to decree?
It doesn’t take rocket science to connect those dots! :-]
br.d
Now ask yourself this question:
How does Calvin’s god decree evil without FIRST CONCEIVING the evil he is going to decree?
roland
Thank you for the question. This is not something that any Christian, Calvinists, Arminian, or Molinist likes to affirm or even acknowledge. That there is a world that exists with an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscience, and omnibenevolent God and evil. The existence of God and evil is a problem for every Christian. I don’t believe it matters whether you’re a Christian who believes in LFW or divine determinism.
First, I submit the following biblical pronouncements in the following verses. Isa 45:7 “I am the LORD and there is no other, besides Me there is no god…I form light and I create darkness, I make well-being and I create calamity, I am the LORD who does all these things.
Deuteronomy 32:39 “I kill and make alive, I wound and I heal.” 1 Samuel 2:6 “The LORD kills and brings to life; He brings down to Sheol and raises up” Amos 3:6 “Does disaster come to a city, unless the LORD had done it?” Lamentations 3:37-38 “Who has spoken and it came to pass, unless the LORD has commanded it? Is it not from the mouth of the Most High, that good and bad come?” Job 42:11 “..and they consoled him and comforted him for all the adversity that the Lord had brought upon him.”
“The God of the Bible does not shy away from his providence over evil as much as philosophers tend to do on His behalf. God in the Bible is quite comfortable affirming His full providence over both good and evil, and his apologists tend to make a bigger deal out of the authorship of evil than the biblical God Himself does.” Guillame Bignon, Excusing Sinners and Blaming God, p. 176
I would agree with Bignon and his assessment of God’s revelation regarding Providence and evil. I prefer God’s revelation over man’s philosophical attempts to defend God’s providence over good and evil. I begin there: what God has revealed, I believe.
You are asking me is God the conceiver of sin? I would ask you:
Does God bring about some evil in some way?
If God does not bring some evil in some way, then He either brings ALL EVIL or NO EVIL AT ALL?
If in any way God brings about some or all evil, then Calvinism is wrong (you assert this with Calvin’s quotes).
I would guess you are making the argument that God, either by His decree or permission or will, etc., does not bring any evil at all into creation. If that is your argument, then not only are you refuting Calvinism, you are refuting God’s revelation. God’s revelation is clear, God brings about evil in at least some ways. He wills, He wounds, He creates darkness, He creates calamity, etc.
Second, regardless of whether you are Arminian or a Molinist, you believe that God took a risk in giving LFW to humans. God at least knew that His creatures would use their LFW for good as well as evil. So every view, Calvinism, Arminianism, and Molinism, has God involved in evil in at least some way. Either by decree or permission.
You are probably, maybe thinking, that Calvinism is different, therefore wrong, because in Calvinism God divinely determined evil. Since God has not divinely determined evil, as argued by Arminians and Molinists, then Calvinism is false. Arguing against Calvinism because it proposes that God divinely decreed or determined evil is a redundant argument. It is as if you are saying Calvinism (proponents of divinely decreed or determined evil) is false because it proposes divinely decreed or determined evil (Calvinism). If this is your argument, then it is not particular enough to make a distinction between Arminianism and Molinism.
I would agree with Calvin, evil events cannot happen without God’s decree. You either agree that God is involved in evil in some way or no way at all. If you believe either, then you are refuting biblical testimony, God’s revelation, and His relationship with evil and creation. It is not Calvinism you are arguing against, it is Scripture.
br.d
Now ask yourself this question:
How does Calvin’s god decree evil without FIRST CONCEIVING the evil he is going to decree?
Roland
This is not something that any Christian, Calvinists, Arminian, or Molinist likes to affirm or even acknowledge.
br.d
NAH!!
Calvinist James White – has consistently and unflinchingly asserted that if Calvin’s god does not determine evil – then evil is meaningless.
And concerning evil – John Calvin – who is the Calvinist of Calvinists – unflinchingly asserts the following:
-quote
He does this by first working in their hearts the very WILL which precedes the ACTS THEY ARE TO PERFORM
(Secret providence pg 243)
The question is very easy for any Calvinist to answer.
The answer is either YES or NO
No Calvinist is going to say that Calvin’s god does not have a functioning mind – with which he FIRST CONCEIVES what he decrees come to pass.
John Calvin
-quote
He consequently foreknew because HE SO ORDAINED BY HIS DECREE. (Institutes Vol. 2, 955-956)
So I’ll provide the answer for you – since you are having an emotional problem with it.
YES – it logically follows – Calvin’s god must FIRST CONCEIVE what he decrees.
Therefore the answer is YES every evil – is FIRST CONCEIVED in Calvin’s god’s mind.
And scripture says – when sin is FIRST CONCIEVED – it brings forth death.
I wrote in my comment “LIKES to affirm or acknowledge.” LIKES as in enjoys. I never wrote that Calvinists do not acknowledge these truths as you quoted from White and Calvin. You completely misunderstood my comment or at least it appears so from your response.
Roland
I wrote in my comment “LIKES to affirm or acknowledge.
br.d
As I stated – that would not be TRUE for the NON-Calvinist – because the NON-Calvinist does not have a deity of evil or a deity of deception.
Additionally:
In Calvinism – per the doctrine of decrees – which stipulates that WHATSOEVER comes to pass is infallibly decreed – every event and every human impulse is predestined at the foundation of the world,
And predestined events – by definition – cannot be OTHER than what was predestined.
Thus – for every event – and every human impulse – you are never granted more than ONE SINGLE PREDESTINED RENDERED-CERTAIN option – which is established at the foundation of the world – which you were given NO CHOICE in the matter of.
CONSEQUENTLY:
If the WHATSOEVER which was decreed – is that your brain will like [X]
Then (the function, the act, and the event) of your brain liking [X] is what will be granted.
And since the infallible decree cannot be falsified or countervailed
Then (the function, the act, and the event) of your brain NOT liking [X] is simply NOT granted.
So in Calvinism – your brain is not granted the function of choosing one way or the other.
And that includes having a choice about whether you will like something or not.
Putting it in your words:
For it to be left *OPEN* for you to choose one way or the other – would make him DEPENDENT upon and REACTIONARY to you.
br.d
Now ask yourself this question:
How does Calvin’s god decree evil without FIRST CONCEIVING the evil he is going to decree?
Roland
You are probably, maybe thinking, that Calvinism is different,….
br.d
Absolutely!
John Calvin clearly provides the difference between the Calvinist and the NON-Calvinist position – by distinguishing between the words FOUND and MADE
-quote
by the eternal good pleasure of god THOUGH THE REASON DOES NOT APPEAR, they are NOT FOUND but MADE worthy of destruction. – (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of god pg 121)
In the NON-Calvinist view – the creature is held morally accountable for that which he is FOUND to be and do.
For the Arminian – that is classified as “Simple Foreknowledge”
The THEOS looks into the future – and OBSERVES what the creature will be and do.
Thus the creature is held accountable for what the creature is FOUND to be and do.
Same thing for the Molinist and the Open Theist.
Calvinism is different because the foundational core of Calvinism is EXHAUSTIVE DIVINE DETERMINISM – as enunciated in Calvinism’s doctrine of decrees.
Therefore Calvin is completely correct – when he states – in Calvinism – the creature is held accountable for what the creature is MADE to be and what the creature is MADE to do.
John Calvin
-quote
Not only the destruction of the wicked is foreknown, but that the wicked themselves have been CREATED FOR THIS VERY END —that they may perish. – (Commentaries Romans 9:18)
Its very simple.
In Calvinism – Esau was CREATED to be hated.
The MANY within the human population are specifically CREATED specifically for eternal torment – for his good pleasure.
The non-Calvinist simply does not have a deity of evil
Nor does he have deity of deception
br.d
Therefore Calvin is completely correct – when he states – in Calvinism – the creature is held accountable for what the creature is MADE to be and what the creature is MADE to do.
roland
AMEN! Just like when God told Moses to command pharaoh to let His people go. Then God said that He would harden pharaoh’s heart so that pharaoh would not let HIs people go!
Exodus 4:21 And the Lord said to Moses, “When you go back to Egypt, see that you do all those wonders before Pharaoh which I have put in your hand. But I WILL harden his heart, SO THAT he will not let the people go. 22 Then you shall say to Pharaoh, ‘Thus says the Lord: “Israel is My son, My firstborn. 23 So I say to you, let My son go that he may serve Me. But if you refuse to let him go, indeed I will kill your son, your firstborn.” ’ ”
God gave pharaoh a command through Moses that God made sure pharaoh would not be ABLE to obey! According to the non-calvinists understanding of this text, God would not have done such a thing. He would not have MADE sure that pharaoh would disobey Him. He would have only FOUND out that pharaoh disobeyed Him.
And pharaoh is held accountable for his disobedience when he refused to let God’s people go. But God MADE sure that pharaoh would not let His people go. I’m so happy to be a Calvinist as we would rather adhere to God’s revelation than some man made logical and philosophical suppositions regarding God’s character and will. I’m much rather agree with what Scripture CLEARLY reveals about God’s actions in Scripture than to subject God’s actions to men’s standards.
Moses knows that God will harden pharaoh’s heart yet he goes anyway with God’s message for pharaoh. According to non-calvinists Moses is just wasting his time. Why would he give pharaoh a command that he knows pharaoh cannot obey? It is the same charge leveled against Calvinists. If election is true, predestination is true, then why should Calvinists preach the Gospel and give universal invitations to come to Christ? We do so because God commands us to do so and it is in God’s power and will to save sinners.
br.d
Therefore Calvin is completely correct – when he states – in Calvinism – the creature is held accountable for what the creature is MADE to be and what the creature is MADE to do.
roland
AMEN!
br.d
So in Calvinism people are held accountable for what they were infallibly decreed to be and infallibly decreed to do.
And the choice of what they will infallibly be and infallibly do – was FIXED at the foundation of the world.
That which is FIXED cannot be OTHER than what it is – and is boiled down to ONE SINGLE infallibly decreed option.
Calvinism represents a *CLOSED* world.
All choices have been made at the foundation of the world – and those choices are now *CLOSED*
There is no choice left *OPEN*
Therefore there is never any choice left *OPEN* for a creature to make.
Answer this question. Was it fixed that pharaoh would not let God’s people go? Or was it “open”? And if it is “open”then was God mistaken when He told Moses that He would make it so that pharaoh would not let Israel go?
br.d
Roland – I just got done detailing this to you.
In Calvinism – per the doctrine of decrees WHATSOEVER COMES TO PASS is established at the foundation of the world. It is therefore FIXED.
Remember – since every event is FIXED by an infallible decree – then every event is MADE to come to pass infallibly.
The creature cannot make anything come to pass infallibly – only Calvin’s god can do that.
So the creature cannot make anything come to pass.
And the way Calvin’s god knew what pharaoh would infallibly do – was by simply knowing what he would MAKE pharaoh infallible do.
John Calvin explains:
-quote
He consequently foreknew because HE SO ORDAINED BY HIS DECREE. (Institutes Vol. 2, 955-956)
He foresees future events only in consequence of his decree (Institutes Vol ii. p. 169.)
He could not grant pharaoh a choice in the matter – leaving it *OPEN* for pharaoh to choose one way or the other – because as you say – that would make him DEPENDENT and REACTIONARY upon a choice that pharaoh would make.
You gave me the Calvinist answer. Are you Calvinist? Do you agree with Calvin?
br.d
So if I understand your question – you are asking – if there is a way for a perfect being (i.e. god) to know what a creature would do in any circumstance – given that that perfect being did not determine what the creature would do in that circumstance.
I think you already know the answer.
We have physicists today with computers – which if they enter in the correct data – can calculate what every atomic particle within a given physical domain will do – given the characteristics of every atomic particle within that domain – and given the characteristics of that domain.
So we have a computer which can accurately ascertain – what every atomic particle will do – without functioning as the DETERMINER of what that particle will do.
Thus we understand the capabilities of a computer.
Now compare that – to a divine being – who created every atomic particle – and thus has perfect intimate knowledge of every atomic particle – and every characteristic of every atomic particle – and also created the domain in which those atomic particles reside – and thus has perfect intimate knowledge of every characteristic of that domain.
And you think a divine perfect being with that capability – does not have the ability of a computer?
br.d
And you think a divine perfect being with that capability – does not have the ability of a computer?
roland
God is not a computer. That is a poor analogy. Interestingly enough, one of the means God uses in His infallible decree is the law of nature. Those atoms are determined to move according to the laws of nature as created by God. The laws of nature would not be the determiner of the knowledge or the atoms’ movement, but they would be a means or secondary cause used by God. Ultimately, God determined how those particles would move.
That wasn’t what br.d said though. He said do you think that God doesn’t have the ABILITY of a computer, not that He IS a computer. Even with that error, it doesn’t matter, because your analogy doesn’t follow. You say God determined how the atoms move, but by that you mean determined every movement they would ever make. But how do you KNOW that He didn’t design them to randomly move and interact with other things within the confines of that design and the laws of physics He created? Is your God INCAPABLE of creating something which can move randomly within the confines of certain laws/rules? How also does it follow that He could not intervene in that process at any time He chose, in any way He wanted, for any reason He wanted to accomplish His goals and will? Could God change the very Laws of existence at any time? Does He possess that ability? Could He completely change any part of or all of reality in an instant? The God of the Bible can. Do you think a being with those abilities and that much power would be incapable of achieving whatever He wanted to just because there are creatures He created who DO NOT have any of those abilities but simply have freewill to make their own choices? Does that honestly threaten His sovereignty, power, ability or status in any way? The God I believe in in the Bible could do all of this without even remotely being threatened by it because He is the all powerful God. The god of Calvinism apparently can’t accomplish things if His creation can do things outside of Him.
A2A….well said and thanks!
Those are exactly the kinds of questions a Calvinist should be asking….but isnt. We have said many times on these pages —-like AW Tozer did—- that it appears that the Calvinist God is so weak that He can only win if He makes every player do exactly what He tells them.
That’s not a strong being but a weak one.
One idea for you A2A: smaller paragraphs so we can follow your thoughts better.
FOH
One idea for you A2A: smaller paragraphs so we can follow your thoughts better.
roland
Sorry if I’m wrong that I interject here but I agree with you. One of the reasons, besides many others, that I do not answer some questions or comments directed towards me is the person’s length of the question or comment. And it is also difficult to have 5 conversations at the same time. I cannot remember to whom I responded and not responded.
Not trying to be snarky here but your “interjection” makes a point.
Some people have written in too big of chunks and you have chosen not to respond.
My take on that would be that God lets us work/ decide/ communicate within the confines of His chosen parameters of His logical, natural world.
The Calvinist’s take would have to be that before time (not one dust particle is not decreed) God decided which posts you would respond to.
In previous posts, it “sounds” like you (and Helms) are saying that God sets up the parameters and lets men exercise their will inside those. But that would lead to a non-Calvinist world, since men might “randomly” turn left one day and not right (and get into an accident). ((“Nothing is random” you protest. Thus, all is programmed. You want to, but cannot have it both ways.))
But for Calvinists, all turns and accidents are divinely decreed (“Declares the end from the beginning”) so the Calvinist only “thinks” he is making a choice. And Helms only “thinks” that man is exercising his will as a secondary cause. It (“Declares the end from the beginning”) has really already been decreed and immutably ordained.
You can protest that idea in CAPS all you want, but at the end of the day, the reformed philosophy states that clearly.
FOH
In previous posts, it “sounds” like you (and Helms) are saying that God sets up the parameters and lets men exercise their will inside those. But that would lead to a non-Calvinist world, since men might “randomly” turn left one day and not right (and get into an accident). ((“Nothing is random” you protest. Thus, all is programmed. You want to, but cannot have it both ways.))
roland
We are not “programmed.” This is language non-calvinists attribute to Calvinists. We deny such language because it is insufficient to describe the Biblical revelation of God’s interaction with His creation. We are not robots. We are not puppets. We are creatures created in the image of God. We have wills, thoughts, emotions, desires, inclinations, etc. Humans are SELF-AWARE something that robots, programs, and puppets lack.
FOH
so the Calvinist only “thinks” he is making a choice.
roland
In Acts 4:27-28, when the early church declared this truth about God, Christ’s crucifixion, and the men involved, did the men who crucified Jesus make choices to crucify Christ? They did whatever God’s hand had predestined for them to do. According to your logic, Peter should have prayed that these men were only programmed to do what God predestined them to do. Peter should have prayed that these men were mere puppets or robots.
roland
We are not “programmed.”
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 pg 4)
WOOPS!! 😀
Roland
This is language non-calvinists attribute to Calvinists.
br.d
INTERPRETATION:
These are words Calvinist’s do not like using because of the obvious implications! :-]
Roland
We deny such language because it is insufficient to describe the Biblical revelation of God’s interaction with His creation.
br.d
It is critical to understand that Calvinism uses the same vocabulary as everyone else – while having their own private dictionary for words. In this case – the word “Interaction:
Here “Interaction” is the process of decreeing WHATSOEVER impulses – and WHATSOEVER perceptions – will come to pass within the Calvinist’s brain.
Roland
We are not robots.
br.d
Do you not have a “CPU” which you call a “mind”?
Do you have not “INCLINATIONS” which you call a “will”?
Roland
We are not puppets.
br.d
Who decreed that you would write: “we are not puppets”?
Roland
We are creatures created in the image of God.
br.d
Here again – we have another private definition.
In this case – the Calvinist has a private definition of what “image of god” means.
Roland
We have wills
br.d
In Calvinism – what percentage of your “will” is determined by you – rather than someone external to you?
Roland
We have thoughts
br.d
In Calvinism – what percentage of your “thoughts” are determined by you?
Roland
We have emotions
br.d
In Calvinism – what percentage of your “emotions” are determined by you?
Roland
We have desires
br.d
In Calvinism – what percentage of your desires are determined by you?
Roland
We have inclinations
br.d
In Calvinism – what percentage of inclinations are determined by you?
Roland
Humans are SELF-AWARE something that robots, programs, and puppets lack.
br.d
In Calvinism – what percentage of your self-awareness is determined by you?
So Roland – perhaps you can tell us – why is it that Calvinists rely so heavily upon a smoke&mirror terms like like “we have wills, and thoughts and desires etc”
But then when the Calvinist is asked probing questions about who determines their “wills and thoughts and desires” the Calvinist evades the question?
Why should anyone not assume Calvinism’s claims are nothing more than self contradictions hidden behind smoke-screens of illusive language?
br.d
WOOPS!!
roland
Does the author you quoted speak for all Calvinists?
roland
Does the author you quoted speak for all Calvinists?
br.d
So his statement is FALSE according to you?
Calvin’s god does not *PROGRAM* all thoughts motives and actions within infallible decrees?
Or are we just playing word games?
A2A
But how do you KNOW that He didn’t design them to randomly move and interact with other things within the confines of that design and the laws of physics He created?
roland
I don’t know that. I am only expressing what is the clear teaching of Scripture regarding God’s decree, His will, His providence over creation.
A2A
Is your God INCAPABLE of creating something which can move randomly within the confines of certain laws/rules?
roland
Nothing in this universe moves randomly. If it is moving randomly under the confines of certain laws/rules, then it is the laws/rules that are the cause of the object’s random movements. The conclusion is that it is not random. Nothing in the universe is random. Everything has a purpose.
A2A
How also does it follow that He could not intervene in that process at any time He chose, in any way He wanted, for any reason He wanted to accomplish His goals and will?
roland
Even God has limits. He is limited by His nature as to how He would intervene. I would reject that God would “in any way He wanted” intervene. He would never intervene in a sinful manner.
A2A
The god of Calvinism apparently can’t accomplish things if His creation can do things outside of Him.
roland
That is not what Calvinism teaches or believes. Man operating outside God’s providence is not a biblical idea. Paul said in Acts that in God we have our being, we live in Him, move in Him. There is not a single human being that operates outside or apart from God. To believe that humans operate apart from God is an unbiblical concept.
I agree that God has limits. But that is a problem for Calvinism, not non-Calvinism. In Calvinism, God determines every thought and action of every person, and everything that comes to pass He determined would happen before He even created it.
So, in Calvinism, God decreed this statement I am about to make. Remember, He DETERMINED and CAUSED me to say this! Calvinism is false.
If Calvinism is true, then the statement “Calvinism is false” is a lie. But if Calvinism is true God determined I would lie, making Him the primary cause of and ultimately responsible for and the AUTHOR of that lie, which even you said is a limit for God.
But if Calvinism is false, I just made a true statement, and God didn’t lie or author any sin.
And don’t go into me being a secondary cause of that lie. For one, God controls every secondary cause and ordains every action of that secondary cause making it NOT ACTUALLY a secondary cause!
Even if it WAS a secondary cause (which can’t logically exist in Calvinism) that STILL doesn’t absolve God of sin and moral wrongs.
Example. A woman is murdered by a hit man. The primary cause of that murder was the husband who HIRED, PAID FOR, and INSTRUCTED the assassin to kill his wife. The assassin was the secondary cause.
In a court of law, if they proved the man hired the hit man he would be found GUILTY of first degree murder, and JUSTLY so!
Point being is a secondary cause doesn’t absolve a primary cause of responsibility.
FOH
Even if it WAS a secondary cause (which can’t logically exist in Calvinism) that STILL doesn’t absolve God of sin and moral wrongs.
roland
Does it or can secondary causes exist in the Bible?
When Job has all his stuff stolen, does he attribute his loss to the men who took it? If you believe he does, then why does he say that naked he came out of his mother’s womb, naked he shall return, the LORD gave and LORD takes away, blessed be the name of the LORD?
Why does Job, at least implying, that God could be responsible for his losses because the LORD gives and takes? According to non-calvinists’ logic, Job really should be saying, the LORD give but the men took it away.
Roland
Does it or can secondary causes exist in the Bible?
br.d
1) Dominoes don’t push themselves over.
Every secondary event is determined by a primary event.
No primary event = no secondary event.
2) Calvin’s god’s divine sovereignty and control extends to every secondary event just as meticulously as it does to every primary event.
Calvin’s god meticulously determines every movement of every molecule.
3) In Calvinism – every part of every event comes to pass infallibly – which requires every part of every event – being touched by an infallible hand.
I asked you about Scripture, you answered disregarding my question. You accuse me of evading questions all the time.
Roland
I asked you about Scripture,
br.d
You’re confusing me with FOH
You asked FOH a question.
I provided a TRUTH STATEMENT
A2A
Point being is a secondary cause doesn’t absolve a primary cause of responsibility.
roland
Please explain to me your understanding of Christ’s death on the cross. Did Jesus come to do the will of the Father? If so, did the Father’s will include Christ’s death? If so, does this make the Father ultimately responsible for Christ’s death? It wasn’t the Father who hung Jesus on the cross, slapped Him across the face, put the crown of thorns on Him, it was Pontius Pilate, the Pharisees, the Roman soldiers, etc.
According to your thinking, God is ultimately responsible for His Son’s death. Why isn’t God guilty of murdering Jesus?
br.d
And you think a divine perfect being with that capability – does not have the ability of a computer?
roland
God is not a computer. That is a poor analogy.
br.d
That is an ontological distinction which is a red-herring
The question has nothing to with ontology – and everything to do with functionality.
The answer to the question should be obvious.
Instead you simply evade it.
And that is understandable.
If you don’t think a divine perfect being has the capability of a computer – then say so.
Roland
one of the means God uses in His infallible decree is the law of nature.
br.d
Yes – but nature does not have the attribute of infallibility.
It does not have the ability to move itself – such that that movement is infallible.
And every movement in Calvinism – comes to pass infallibly.
And there is only one being who can make an atomic particle move infallibly.
So an infallible hand- has to be involved in every movement of every element of nature.
Roland
Ultimately, God determined how those particles would move.
br.d
He has to cause each one of them to move in the specific movement that he wants to the move.
He exercises meticulous determination of the precise movement of every falling domino – and the domino after that one – and the domino after that one.
As John Piper says
-quote
He controls the movement of every dust particle in the air.
And Calvinist Robert R. McLaughlin says
-quote
“God merely *PROGRAMMED* into the divine decrees all our thoughts, motives, and actions”(The Doctrine of Divine Decree pg 4)
And as Calvinist Paul Helms says
-quote
Not only is every atom and molecule, every thought and desire, kept in being by god, but EVERY TWIST AND TURN of each of these is under the DIRECT CONTROL of god (The Providence of God pg 22)
And as Calvinist Louis Berkhof says
-quote
“God is IMMEDIATELY OPERATIVE in every act of the creature. Everything that happens from moment to moment is determined by the will of god – and in every instance THE IMPULSE TO ACTION PRECEDES FROM god” (Systematic Theology)
What you seem to have is a mixture of Arminian concepts mixed with Calvinist concepts.
For example – the Arminian view of divine foreknowledge is called “SIMPLE” foreknowledge
The Arminian god looks into the future and OBSERVES what impulses and perceptions will come to pass within man’s brain – through simple foreknowledge.
He does not DETERMINE every impulse and perception which comes to pass within man’s brain.
But that view of divine foreknowledge is rejected in Calvinism
Calvin’s god has foreknowledge of every impulse and perception which will come to pass within man’s brain – because he DETERMINES every impulse and every perception that will come to pass within man’s brain.
A.W. Pink
-quote
God foreknows what will be because he decrees what will be. (The attributes of god)
John Calvin
-quote
He foresees future events only in consequence of his decree (Institutes Vol ii. p. 169.)
Calvinist Paul Helms
-quote
Gods foreknowledge is simply his knowledge of what he has decreed. (Divine Foreknowledge – Four Views pg 12)
Therefore – Calvin’s god foreknows what impulses and perceptions will come to pass within your brain – because he decreed every specific impulse and perception that will come to pass within your brain.
And this brings us back to the last question.
When you were faced answering a TRUE/FALSE question about the Bible – and Calvin’s god decreed your perception of the answer to be TRUE – when the actual answer was FALSE – did Calvin’s god grant your brain discernment concerning the answer?
br.d
If you don’t think a divine perfect being has the capability of a computer – then say so.
roland
No, I don’t think a computer’s functionality or capacity or ability is comparable to that of a divine perfect being; God.
I agree with you that God knows all things intimately. Our disagreement is HOW God knows everything. The non-calvinist believes God knows everything because He has the functionality of a computer. The Calvinist believes that God knows everything because He has declared the end from the beginning.
Isaiah 46:10-11
10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:
11Calling a bird of prey from the east,
The man who executes My counsel, from a far country.
Indeed I have spoken it;
I will also bring it to pass.
I have purposed it;
I will also do it.
br.d
And as Calvinist Paul Helms says
-quote
Not only is every atom and molecule, every thought and desire, kept in being by god, but EVERY TWIST AND TURN of each of these is under the DIRECT CONTROL of god (The Providence of God pg 22)
roland
Thank you for providing these quotes and the source. I have Helm’s The Providence of God. I like to look at the source and read the quotes in their context.
I don’t believe you understand what Helm is saying. You capitalize to put emphasis on what you believe Helm is directly pointing out. Something non-calvinists continue to deny and ignore regarding what we believe about God’s providence is secondary causes. Helm does not deny them. Further on page 22 Helm wrote this:
“The controller is God, who is the supreme purposer of the universe. He exercises control, as far as men and women are concerned, NOT APART FROM WHAT THEY WANT TO DO, or (generally speaking) BY COMPELLING THEM TO DO WHAT THEY DO NOT WANT TO DO, BUT THROUGH THEIR WILLS.”
He then goes on to quote Augustine: “Our choices fall within the order of the causes which is known for certain to God and is contained in His foreknowledge – for, HUMAN CHOICES ARE THE CAUSES OF HUMAN ACTS. It follows that He who foreknew the causes of all things could not be unaware that our choices were among those causes which were foreknown as the causes of our acts.”
br.d
What you seem to have is a mixture of Arminian concepts mixed with Calvinist concepts.
roland
No I do not have a mixture of Arminian and Calvinist concepts. You have a misunderstanding of what we are saying. You write and answer as if God’s decree results in us being puppets. Here is what I believe: WCF 3.1God 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.
God has ordained whatsoever comes to pass;
He is not the author of sin;
He does not violate creaturely freedom;
He does not take away second causes.
This is what I believe. But according to non-calvinists, us Calvinists HAVE TO, MUST believe that we are robots and puppets under WCF understanding of God’s decree. According to non-calvinists’ understanding of Calvinism, humans are mere sock puppets over God’s hands.
Poor br.d!
Always your fault! You never quite understand Calvin, even though you quote him extensively! Always your lack of understanding (“you just don’t get Calvinism!”)
God controls every movement of man but not as robots, but rather a devine being who lets them do their will……. “He exercises control, as far as men and women are concerned, NOT APART FROM WHAT THEY WANT TO DO, or (generally speaking) BY COMPELLING THEM TO DO WHAT THEY DO NOT WANT TO DO, BUT THROUGH THEIR WILLS.”
So….He ordained from before time that they would WANT to do the evil that they do.
So much clearer now!
I get it!!!! Before time He ordained/ decreed what they would do so that in “real time” He can let them do whatever evil they want (wink wink) and tell them how wrong they are. It is a matter of before time/ real time, or secret will/ revealed will.
Yes! And all that from “declares the end from the beginning”!
(((I am sure you will defend yourself br.d, but like I keep saying, “What’s the point?” God has apparently decreed from before time that Calvinists think their man-made ideas describe Him and think ours ideas are heresy.)))
FOH
God has apparently decreed from before time that Calvinists think their man-made ideas describe Him and think ours ideas are heresy.)))
roland
I don’t believe a non-calvinist understanding of God is heretical. I’ve never called anyone who disagrees with Calvinism a heretic. There are some beliefs that are heretical, LFW and Arminianism do not fall under heresy. Some Calvinists would disagree with me.
I appreciate the clarification!
We have had more than one young buck (YRR) come on here….thinking we “only need to see a few verses we have missed.” ((After all, they did not start out as Calvinists either, and a few verses (and a book or two) from friends worked for them!))
They share ideas (all of which are covered in the many articles of this web site).
We begin the discussion. They last a few days…. call us heretics…. and slam the door on their way out.
So, thanks again for the clarification.
You’re welcome, I’m trying to be gracious in my discussions with you guys. Not saying it is easy. Especially because us Calvinists have a reputation for being mean and ungracious. I’ve read and heard lots of stories about us. I’ve also met some young Calvinists who are really into debating everything theological from eschatology to ecclesiology, politics, etc.
Yes!
This is called the Calvinist two-step
Calvin’s god decrees every part of what every impulse within the human brain will be.
But not in such a way that he meticulously decrees every part of what every impulse within the human brain will be!
;-D
roland
No, I don’t think a computer’s functionality or capacity or ability is comparable to that of a divine perfect being; God.
br.d
Once again – you again evaded the question.
Does a divine perfect being have the capability of a computer or not?
roland
The non-calvinist believes God knows everything because He has the functionality of a computer.
br.d
That is a wonderful example of a straw-man! ;-D
The Non-Calvinist believes a divine perfect being DOES have the capability of a computer – and much much more.
The Calvinist (you in this case) is unwilling to say whether he does not not :-]
One could easily assume you believe a computer has more capability than a god
Because after being asked multiple times – you still refuse to say whether or not he does.
roland
The Calvinist believes that God knows everything because He has declared the end from the beginning.
Isaiah 46:10-11
br.d
Congratulations – every Arminian believes that also.
You have something in common with the Arminian conception of divine sovereignty.
But you have not yet described a conception of divine sovereignty unique to Calvinism.
I’ve given you multiple quotes from multiple Calvinists.
Your response is to say they are being take out of context.
Roland
“The controller is God, who is the supreme purposer of the universe. He exercises control, as far as men and women are concerned, NOT APART FROM WHAT THEY WANT TO DO, or (generally speaking) BY COMPELLING THEM TO DO WHAT THEY DO NOT WANT TO DO, BUT THROUGH THEIR WILLS.”
br.d
Does he or does he not determine every meticulous detail of what they WANT TO DO?
Does he or does he not determine every meticulous detail of what their THEIR WILLS will be?
And he knows what THEIR WILLS will be – because he determines – and he determines what THEIR WILLS will specifically be.
Roland
HUMAN CHOICES ARE THE CAUSES OF HUMAN ACTS.
Does he or does he not determine every meticulous detail of HUMAN ACTS?
roland
No I do not have a mixture of Arminian and Calvinist concepts.
br.d
The KEY DIFFERENTIATOR between the Arminian and the Calvinist position on divine sovereignty is detailed by John Calvin himself.
During his day – after the publication of his institutes – there were Christian thinkers who disagreed with Calvin.
They argued that God does not meticulously and specifically determine every minute detail of every event – and he does not meticulously determine every impulse which comes to pass within the human brain.
Calvin’s detractors took the position of divine sovereignty – which is today held by Arminians and most Non-Calvinists.
Calvin identified 2 KEY DIFFERENTIATORS of their position on God’s divine sovereignty from his.
1) Their God functioned as a -quote “Passive Onlooker”
who
2) -quote “MERELY” permits nature to determine what will come to pass – without meticulously determining it himself.
So those are the 2 KEY DIFFERENTIATORS
1) A God who simply OBSERVES something that comes to pass – without himself meticulously determining it
2) A God who “MERELY” permits nature to determine some things that will come to pass – without himself meticulously determining it.
When you first came here to dialog and express your version of divine sovereignty – you consistently followed the position of Calvin’s detractors – which is the position of Arminians today.
You portray Calvin’s god as an “ONLOOKER” who “MERELY” permits nature to determine things which will come to pass – without himself meticulously determining it himself.
That is what we typically call a “Calminian”
A person who is half Arminian – half Calvinist
If I had a nickel for every time a Calvinists said this….
“I am only expressing what is the clear teaching of Scripture regarding God’s decree, His will, His providence over creation.”
Then they quote (out of context) a verse saying “end from the beginning” and “turns the kings hearts” and declare that is the “clear teaching.” ((As if God is establishing a huge doctrine from one out-of-context half-verse in Isaiah…. and a half verse of a Proverb. Frankly, you can prove anything using verses that way.))
They are always out of context and can always have multiple interpretations. But they are the “clear” teaching that determinism is built on.
Whereas the hundreds and hundreds of in-context statements from “the Lord Almighty” saying He did not want X or did not command Y, or will do Z if man will do Z……they all get swept away (filtered) through the narrow/ preferred interpretation of a few “clear” (“roll the dice in the lap”) verses.
Why bother?! This is nuts! That’s why I left Calvinism….. but then again, maybe I was ordained to leave it?
God ordained someone who believed the truth to walk away from the truth and then end up arguing against the truth (if Calvinism is the truth). Why? Because:
Who are you to question God!?
And
His ways are higher than your ways!
Or, and just for a moment, consider the possibility and see how it fits…
Calvinism is false, which means through prayer and seeking, God helped guide you to the truth!
So which makes more sense and is in line with God’s character? If Calvinism is true, Making someone go away from the truth and believe a lie? Or, if Calvinism is false, helping someone who is earnestly seeking Him and pursuing wisdom by leading them out of a lie and into the truth?
I know which one sounds like the Biblical God to me. I also think one of the options sounds an awful lot like something Satan would do…
Me:
Raised in non-Calvinist home.
Bible college and got on the wave at the time of MacArthur and Piper.
Later put down my Pink, van Til, and Boettner (frozen chosen era of reformed guys—that few people read— before Matt Chandler made it so hip) and read the Bible through yearly.
Day after day after day (literally every day) I encountered verses, passages, and stories where I started my interpretation of them with “this cant mean what it says, since I KNOW that (((fill in 2-3-4 reformed tenets))) tells me other wise.”
That gets old if one is honest. There are way, way, way more verses requiring verbal gymnastics for a Calvinist than for a non-Calvinist.
I found myself using the “this passage cant mean what it says” every day. Then I began to wonder if it was really a good thing to MAKE God be the way we want Him to be and filter all that He says to us through a very few verses that reformed theology is built on.
Nah. Not a good idea.
FOH,
Hey, I was looking at Proverbs 21:1 recently.
PROVERBS 21:1
The king’s heart is in the hand of the Lord, as the rivers of water: he turneth it whithersoever he will.
Please note the first word. And the apostrophe in the second word.
We are only talking about one king here. Not all kings.
The one thing that really bothers me regarding calvinism is that they think that what was meant for Jews is the same for all of mankind.
King Solomon wrote Proverbs. And he was given not only riches, but wisdom… all from God.
In my opinion, the Jews are the elect, all because they are telling a story about God… and that verse isn’t discussing mankind at all. Just one Jewish king.
And the purpose? One word. Prophecy. If God told Moses to write something down regarding prophecy, then prophecy is going to come true. Such as Jesus coming from the line of Judah.
Judah’s child, Onan, didn’t want kids from his wife. So God killed him, as he was a useless piece of work. Onan’s brother didn’t want a child either, as that child would be considered Onan’s child for inheritance… and prophecy of Jesus coming from the line of Judah. So God killed him, too. Both was Satan’s influence, as he didn’t want Jesus to be born.
But. Prophecy came true because Judah slept with his daughter-in-law, making sure that Jesus came from the line of Judah.
Why do I discuss that? Jewish kings have a job to do regarding prophecy. God toyed with king saul… but he didn’t toy with king David or Solomon.
Both deal with prophecy of Jesus. King David, if you read it, is a shadow of Jesus. King Solomon is, too, as Jesus builds the house of God. In this, you see David as the father, Solomon as the son.
So, I see proverbs 21:1 as it deals with Solomon, the author, and does not deal with anyone else.
There is only one king in proverbs 21:1, if you read it spiritually…Jesus.
Just something to ponder…especially the calvinists.
To me, that’s the clear teaching of scripture. People aren’t looking deep enough. They only see a surface, and don’t dig very deep.
My position, which I thought have been consistent in, is what WCF 3.1 states.
God from all eternity did by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass [whatsoever has passed in this world has its origin in God’s decree. That is my position]; 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.
This is my position regarding God’s determinations in His creation and creatures. God is not the author of sin but it has come to pass by His decree. There are plenty of verses in the Bible that show this. God does no violence to human’s will. He doesn’t force us or coerce us into doing things yet what we do has come to pass by His decree. He also uses secondary causes to establish His decrees.
br.d
You portray Calvin’s god as an “ONLOOKER” who “MERELY” permits nature to determine things which will come to pass – without himself meticulously determining it himself.
roland
I don’t ever remember posting this. But if you say so. I believe God does use permission as a means to establish His decree. Again, the unfolding of God’s decree in creation is not uniform, it is manifold. It is not God decreed, creation acts. I’ve expressed this many times yet you press me with questions that imply this mode of thinking.
br.d
I’ve given you multiple quotes from multiple Calvinists.
Your response is to say they are being take out of context.
roland
You’re biased against Calvinists and Calvinism. I’m always suspicious of your quotes. For that reason, I would like to read them in context. You intentionally provided a quote from Paul Helm but you disregarded the rest of Helm’s beliefs. I understand what Calvinists are trying to understand about God. When I read your quotes from Calvinists, immediately I know that what you believe they are saying, they are not saying. Just like in the case with Helm’s quote.
br.d
Does he or does he not determine every meticulous detail of HUMAN ACTS?
roland
Yes. He has ordained and decreed whatsoever comes to pass. But humans are not robots nor puppets. The manner in which you posed the question implies that we are robots or puppets.
thanks for reading, br.d, have a blessed day!
“God is not the author of sin but it has come to pass by His decree.”
What in the world does this even mean? If God is “sovereign” in the way Calvinists say, and He decrees something….then He is most certainly the author of it. This is clearly an A = not A construction.
“There are plenty of verses in the Bible that show this.” As a former Calvinist I know all the verses implied here and they do NOT say it. These “plenty” of verses are mostly vague, poetic, prophetic-language, proverb-like things like
end from the beginning
turns the heart of a king
rolls the dice in the lap.
You dont build a doctrine on this stuff! Unless you come with the doctrine already built as Augustine did. ((and JWs do)).
God states clearly that He did not ordain/ decree some things in places like Jer 19:3:
This is what the Lord Almighty, the God of Israel, says: Listen! I am going to bring a disaster on this place that will make the ears of everyone who hears of it tingle. 4 For they have forsaken me and made this a place of foreign gods; they have burned incense in it to gods that neither they nor their ancestors nor the kings of Judah ever knew, and they have filled this place with the blood of the innocent. 5 They have built the high places of Baal to burn their children in the fire as offerings to Baal—something I did not command or mention, nor did it enter my mind.
He states who He is, so we can know He is giving us “a doctrine from His mouth”.
He states that He did not decree this behavior.
He states that He will now do something ….”because they have forsaken me.”
He is interacting with His creation (His right), but this is not allowable in deterministic (WCF), Calvinistic theology.
All reformed efforts to explicate the many passages like this start with, “Is the Lord actually saying….” (direct quote from CARM site)
Of course they start with “this passage is not saying what it says.” They have to!
The Lord God Almighty says His name and then speaks….. but, nooooo, we know better!
FOH
What in the world does this even mean? If God is “sovereign” in the way Calvinists say, and He decrees something….then He is most certainly the author of it.
roland
Ephesians 1:11 In Him also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will,
Does God work all things according to the counsel of His will? Does “all things” mean all things or only some things?
FOH
You dont build a doctrine on this stuff! Unless you come with the doctrine already built as Augustine did. ((and JWs do)).
roland
“This stuff!’ is Scripture, God’s Holy Word. Reformed Christians honor it as such, hold it to be infallible, and true. It sounds to me like you are saying we cannot derive truth about God from poetic, mostly vague, prophetic-language, proverb-like things. Jesus used parables, poetic language, the words came straight from His mouth, are they not the basis of our doctrine?
Dr. Flowers loves to use the illustration of the prodigal son. Was this a real life situation? Or is the prodigal son more like the parables, poetic language, that precede it? The lost coin and the lost sheep. If so, should I disregard Dr. Flowers truths he derives from the prodigal son because it is “poetic”?
Why can’t we derive truths about God from some language? Genuine question, I am not ridiculing your statement.
FOH
God states clearly that He did not ordain/ decree some things in places like Jer 19:3:
roland
But God also states clearly that He did declare the end from the beginning like Isaiah 46:10
Why is it that Calvinists cannot draw truths from Isiah 46:10 but non-calvinists like yourself can draw truth from Jeremiah 19:3?
FOH
Of course they start with “this passage is not saying what it says.” They have to!
roland
How do you start Isaiah 46:10? Does God declare the end from the beginning?
Like I said….this is a futile exercise.
Of course He works all things…. you are making that mean “decrees” all things. And then you are turning around saying “He decrees it but does not decree it all (if it’s sin).” But you cannot hear yourself. You are like MacArthur….both are true. He decreed every last thing that ever happened, including sin, but did not decree sin.
You are just being silly with the “this stuff” straw man (which is why I have stopped a couple times dialoguing with you). Read Ecclesiastes and Proverbs. You could make all kinds of wild doctrines if you yank half verses out of context. I think everyone reading our conversation gets my point, but you set up a straw man and try to take the “infallible word” moral high ground as if i don’t believe that. Sad.
It does not matter if the Prodigal son is a real person or a story from Jesus. It is a direct lesson from Christ (like the Sower, and Rich Young Ruler, that Calvinists cannot explain) that teaches things contrary to Calvinism. Ecclesiastes/Proverbs is a genre that is not intended to help followers establish doctrine (all is vanity, right?)
Isaiah: The Lord is talking to His chosen people (Is 44) telling them not to go the way of others who make and adore idols (they do, against His will.) He then spends chapters saying who is like me; there is no one like me. In that discourse He says…
I make known the end from the beginning,
from ancient times, what is still to come.
Fantastic!
Of course He does not say He decrees all things at all there. But from that verse, yanked out of any (“Chosen people of Israel”) context, Calvinists pin all their hope that God has decreed all evil. Amazing.
Truly Calvinists have perfected the idea of ignoring the lion’s share of the Bible and scaffolding a philosophy on a half verse from here and there.
When FOH is saying you can’t use this stuff to build doctrine, he means it is single parts of scripture, without context and not weighed against the whole of scripture. He doesn’t hold a lower view of scripture, just that mush mashing a few verses together to prove your point isn’t rightly dividing the word of truth.
For example, someone could go throw rocks at homosexuals and adulterous women until they die, and the say the Bible condones that action and give scripture to back up their claim. That wouldn’t be rightly dividing the word, because the whole of the Bible teaches we shouldn’t do that, in context (Let he who is without sin cast the first stone as an example).
2nd, I don’t see the scriptures you are using as supporting your conclusions. You are missing the word COUNSEL in counsel of His will. To counsel is your teach, guide, impart wisdom and coach, but LITERALLY not be the one who is doing it. It appears to me you are reading it “according to His will” and not “according to the COUNSEL OF His will”.
Declare the end from the beginning. That says NOTHING and doesn’t suggest IN ANY WAY that God controls every single thing that happens. In the beginning He created everything, in the end He will make it perfect again. This is a great example of reading something INTO the text.
Even if these things DID seem to suggest what you are claiming, those interpretations would still have to be weighed against other scripture to create something coherent.
Roland
Does God work all things according to the counsel of His will? Does “all things” mean all things or only some things?
br.d
Per the Calvinist interpretation of that verse:
Since “ALL sin” and “ALL evil” – are a part of “ALL THINGS”
It logically follows – “ALL sin” and “ALL evil” are WORKS of Calvin’s god.
br.d
Per the Calvinist interpretation of that verse:
Since “ALL sin” and “ALL evil” – are a part of “ALL THINGS”
It logically follows – “ALL sin” and “ALL evil” are WORKS of Calvin’s god.
roland
I know that quoting Scripture is pointless to you because you’ve written so before. You seem to believe that Scripture is void of meaning but meaning is brought to the text by the reader. By quoting the Scripture below, as I was told by another post on this site, let the LORD speak, I am letting the LORD speak for Himself. God will punish the men, settled in complacency, saying in their heart, the Lord will not do good, nor will He do evil. In other words, God will punish the men who believe God is passive, a mere observer in creation. As Calvin puts it in his commentary on Zephaniah, God will punish those who believe God ‘rests idly in heaven.’
Zephaniah 1:12
“And it shall come to pass at that time
That I will search Jerusalem with lamps,
And punish the men
Who are settled in complacency,
Who say in their heart,
‘The Lord will not do good,
Nor will He do evil.’
br.d
Per the Calvinist interpretation of that verse:
Since “ALL sin” and “ALL evil” – are a part of “ALL THINGS”
It logically follows – “ALL sin” and “ALL evil” are WORKS of Calvin’s god.
roland
I know that quoting Scripture is pointless to you because you’ve written so before.
br.d
There is no such thing as an interpretation without logical consequences
In that verse – the Calvinist interpretation entails the word “WORKS” = “DECREES”
Hence – “WORKS” all things simply means “DECREES” all things.
That is why that verse is functions as a key PROOF-TEXT for Determinism within Calvinism.
Thus we have the following:
1) “ALL sin” and “ALL evil” is a part of “ALL THINGS”
2) Calvin’s god “DECREES” “ALL sin” and “ALL evil”
3) “DECREES” = “WORKS”
Thus – per the Calvinist’s interpretation – it logically follows:
All sins and All evils are the WORKS of Calvin’s god
br.d
Does he [Calvin’s god] or does he not determine every meticulous detail of HUMAN ACTS?
roland
Yes. He has ordained and decreed whatsoever comes to pass
br.d
Is it your position that Calvin’s god cannot decree you to have a FALSE PERCEPTION?
br.d
I usually like to follow up with “Does He always get what He wants?”
or
“Is everything that happens exactly what He wants?”
Of course they wont answer …but if they do answer “yes” (the only answer available to them) then everybody (but Calvinists) can see how deceptive, misleading, and cruel that would make God be.
There are NO verses that say that He always gets what He wants…..and there are many, many where He says Himself, “I did not want…”
But somehow they seem to know better….
Amen, FOH! But God ultimately gets what he wants in the creation of covenant love through free will faith commitments, which means He must allow some other wants to go unfulfilled.
But for the Calvinist –
T – No one can want God unless God wants them.
U – God does not want everyone.
L – God sent Christ to pay for only those He wants
I – If God wants you, He will make you want Him
P – God makes those He wants to keep wanting Him forever
do you mind if I change the last one?
P – God wants the destiny of good which he created the few for – and the destiny of evil which he created the many for – to last forever
Yes!
You are totally correct FOH
The art of Calvinism – is the art of deceptive and misleading language.
And we both understand why!
br.d
1) When you were asked a TRUE/FALSE question about the Bible
2) And the perception which came to pass in your brain – was that the answer was TRUE
3) When the actual answer was FALSE
Obviously – it is your position that Calvin’s god had foreknowledge of that specific false perception which came to pass in your brain.
Your answer to the next question will tell me if you take the Arminian position of divine sovereignty
Did Calvin’s god foreknow every part of that perception in your brain by meticulously determining it?
Or
Did Calvin’s god “MERELY” permit nature to determine what your perception would be without himself determining it in every part?
Roland,
If I may, I’d like to ask that if God is not the author of sin, who is?
I ask that, because God is Holy, and therefore, the only one who can define what sin is, is God himself. And that, to me, makes God the author of sin.
I’ve never seen the bible phrase, “author of sin”, so how can anyone say that God is not the author of sin?
Satan himself didn’t write a book, giving it to God, telling God what sin is…did he?
What is sin?
1 John 3:4
sin is the transgression of the law.
Romans 3:20
the law is the knowledge of sin.
***********
Nehemiah 8:8
So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading.
The law of Moses is known by many names, one of which is…The Law of God. Other names is, The Law of Moses, The Law, or just Moses.
Satan violated laws of God, but isn’t the one who wrote the laws:
Genesis 3:5
For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
Genesis 3:22
And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
God is indeed the author of sin, as the Law of God is by Him alone.
*************************************
Next:
Regarding “Declaring the end from the beginning”, there is a mystery behind that, unrelated to anything that the Calvinists teach.
God had the Bible written in such a way in Genesis, that you can take the events and go backwards, where it ends just as it began.
That’s why it is said “Declaring the end from the beginning”. It’s a fascinating study. For example, the rapture of the church is told in the story of Noah’s Ark. And in the beginning, there was the Tree of Life in the Garden, which the book of Revelation mentions in the end.
Genesis has a lot of treasure in it. If you want to know how the story ends, look to the beginning. He declared Revelation from Genesis.
Like verses such as your “Declaring the end from the beginning” are found in Ecclesiastes:
Ecclesiastes 1:9
The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.
Ecclesiastes 3:15
That which hath been is now; and that which is to be hath already been; and God requireth that which is past.
***************************************
Now, the bible does say that God is not the author of confusion, but that has a context of an orderly way of doing things in church…speaking in tongues, prophesying, etc.
But I still can’t find that allusive “author of sin” phrase.
There is only 3 verses in the whole Bible that uses the word “author”.
Hebrews 5:9
And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;
Hebrews 12:2
Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.
And finally,
1 Corinthians 14:33
For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.
And what is the context? What is the topic of chapter 14? It is discussing orderly conduct of spiritual gifts during church service.
Ed Chapman
Ed
If I may, I’d like to ask that if God is not the author of sin, who is?
You’re going to get different answers from different Calvinists.
Roland will probably try to evade the question altogether.
Some Calvinists will try to argue that sin and evil are non-existent entities.
Calvin’s god doesn’t create them – and therefore they are like a black-hole of nothingness in space.
But of course – that argument breaks down pretty fast when we find out that sins are actions which do in fact exist.
But you always have to give a Calvinist credit for being inventive! ;-D
br.d
Yes, and I’ve found it fascinating how much Satan is downplayed, as just another actor in the play, with cameo appearances every now and again, before exiting stage left.
But I’d be interested in hearing how many authors of sin that various Calvinists say that there are, other than God himself.
Isaiah 33:22
For the Lord is our judge, the Lord is our lawgiver, the Lord is our king; he will save us.
If God is the lawgiver, then he’s the author of sin.
Ed Chapman
br.d
1) Whatsoever will come to pass must be FIRST CONCIEVED in the mind of Calvin’s god – in order for it to be the content of a decree.
2) That content which is FIRST CONCIEVED in the mind of Calvin’s god – becomes the content of the decree which Calvin’s god then AUTHORS
3) Any alternative of that which is decreed would falsify the decree.
4) Therefore no alternative of that which is decreed is possible – at pain of falsifying the decree.
5) Consequently – nothing (including any sin or evil) is possible – unless it is FIRST CONCIEVED in the mind of Calvin’s god.
6) And additionally – nothing (including any sin or evil) is possible – unless it is AUTHORED as the content of a decree.
It’s not to difficult to connect a few dots – to see who the author of sin and evil is – within Calvinism ;-]
br.d
When you were faced answering a TRUE/FALSE question about the Bible – and Calvin’s god decreed your perception of the answer to be TRUE – when the actual answer was FALSE – did Calvin’s god grant your brain discernment concerning the answer?
roland
You continually bring up this dilemma about TRUE/FALSE perceptions, God granting me the discernment, etc. I fail to see the relevance of this question or argument. I think your dualistic understanding of God’s decree comes from the mistake that you press everything down into this: God decreed, we act like puppets or robot. You completely disregard secondary causes, human nature, human desires, will, etc. According to you, under Calvinism humans are mere puppets. God is NOT ANSWERING for me. I am ANSWERING FOR MYSELF yet not apart from God’s decree. My thoughts are not on strings to which God is pulling this and that way.
br.d
When you were faced answering a TRUE/FALSE question about the Bible – and Calvin’s god decreed your perception of the answer to be TRUE – when the actual answer was FALSE – did Calvin’s god grant your brain discernment concerning the answer?
roland
You continually bring up this dilemma about TRUE/FALSE perceptions, God granting me the discernment, etc. I fail to see the relevance of this question or argument.
br.d
Did you notice how you stated “God granting you the discernment” *AS-IF* he did?
So let me get this straight
Calvin’s god decreeing a false perception to come to pass within your brain – is what you call granting you discernment.
Roland
You completely disregard secondary causes, human nature, human desires,
br.d
Again the Arminian question:
Does Calvin’s god foreknow [secondary causes, human nature , human desires] by OBSERVATION and MERELY permitting nature to determine them – or does he decree every part of what they will be?
br.d
Again the Arminian question:
Does Calvin’s god foreknow [secondary causes, human nature , human desires] by OBSERVATION and MERELY permitting nature to determine them – or does he decree every part of what they will be?
roland
I have answered this questions several times. Again, God does not foreknow things by observing, which implies that God learns about creation, He FOREKNOWS because He has DECREED it. I thought I’ve answered this.
Also, God has decreed the ENDS as well as the MEANS. God’s decree is not UNIFORM. He has decreed the means to be manifold.
I would say that God’s decree and His use of means is analogous to Scripture. Were the men who wrote God’s wrote mere instruments in God’s hands? Did God use them as robots, puppets, programs to write His Word? No because that is not what Scripture says. God’s decree is similar as it is manifold. He uses many different means to accomplish His ends.
roland
I have answered this questions several times. Again, God does not foreknow things by observing, which implies that God learns about creation, He FOREKNOWS because He has DECREED it.
br.d
Thank you!!!
So then – Calvin’s god foreknows every perception that will come to pass within your brain – because as you say – he FOREKNOWS the perceptions he has DECREED will come to pass within your brain.
So then:
1) We have a case – in which you were asked a TRUE/FALSE Bible question.
2) Calvin’s god decreed that the perception that would come to pass within your brain was the perception that the answer was TRUE – when the actual answer was FALSE
3) Calvin’s god – at the foundation of the world – made a decision about what perception would come to pass within your brain concerning that TRUE/FALSE question
4) He had the option of decreeing your perception of the answer – would be that is it TRUE
5) He had the option of decreeing your perception of the answer – would be FALSE
6) Concerning your perception – he selected – you would have the perception that the answer is TRUE
7) Concerning your perception – he rejected – you would have the perception that the answer is FALSE
Therefore:
Your brain was not granted the option of perceiving the answer to the question as FALSE – because that perception was rejected at the foundation of the world – as what would infallibly come to pass.
Therefore – your brain was not granted the function of choosing between TRUE and FALSE in that event – because only one perception was granted to your brain.
This BTW is laid out in Jonathon Edwards classic writing “On The Power of Contrary Choice”
where he shows – that in Determinism (aka Calvinism) the brain is not granted a choice between two options – because only one option can be predestined.
A Contrary choice – Edward shows – would be as follows:
1) if your brain chose TRUE – then it chose “contrary” to FALSE
2) if your brain chose FALSE – then it chose “contrary” to TRUE
In such case – nothing determined what your brain would perceive – which would constitute a LIBERTARIAN choice.
And that would falsify the doctrine of decrees.
Agree. Humans do not have the power to choose contrary, LFW, because God has decreed all things according to the counsel of His will. If I can choose contrary to God’s decree, God’s decree would be false.
Since your presupposition is that there is no decree, you assume LFW or the power to choose contrary. You must be an open theist. LFW or the power to choose contrary can only function in open theism. If God has perfect foreknowledge of all our choices, then if I choose contrary to one of those choices foreknown by God, God’s foreknowledge is imperfect. It then necessarily follows that God is not God according to His revelation. He’s a human who can err in prophecy, break His promises, His will can be resisted, etc. God could not have inspired John to write Revelations. For throughout history someone can choose contrary to God’s foreknowledge, thwarting God’s will.
The only consistent proponent of LFW or power to choose contrary is the open theist.
Roland
Agree. Humans do not have the power to choose contrary
br.d
Wonderful!
So again – contrary choice is as follows:
1) If your brain were to select TRUE – then it would selecting CONTRARY to FALSE
2) if your brain were to select FALSE – then it would be selecting CONTRARY to TRUE
This would constitutes a LIBERTARIAN choice – because Calvin’s god is not the determiner of what perception will come to pass within the brain.
Therefore – in Calvinism it follows:
1) The Calvinist brain is not granted choice between TRUE and FALSE on any matter – because that would constitute a CONTRARY choice.
2) The Calvinist brain is granted one single predestined – rendered-certain perception.
3) Calvin’s god has the option of decreeing the perception granted to the Calvinist – will be the perception of TRUE
4) Calvin’s god also has the option of decreeing the perception granted to the Calvinist – will be the perception of FALSE
5) In ether case – only ONE SINGLE PREDESTINED RENDERED-CERTAIN perception is available to the Calvinist’s brain
CONCLUSION:
Since the Calvinist brain is not granted choice between TRUE and FALSE on any matter – it follows he cannot know whether any matter is TRUE or FALSE – because he discern between TRUE and FALSE on any matter.
Thus you have a conundrum
Your brain is performing a Contrary choice between TRUE and FALSE on the matter of whether or not Contrary choice is TRUE or FALSE.
Thus your claim that Contrary choice is FALSE is defeated by your brains process of Contrary choice. :-]
br.d
it follows he cannot know whether any matter is TRUE or FALSE – because he discern between TRUE and FALSE on any matter.
roland
If I cannot discern between true and false, why try to convince me or have me discern whether Calvinism is TRUE or FALSE?
roland
If I cannot discern between true and false, why try to convince me or have me discern whether Calvinism is TRUE or FALSE?
br.d
This is a model of logic classically called: “Modus tollens”
1) If [P], then [Q]
2) Not [Q]
3) Therefore not [P]
It is used in courts of all law all the time
For example:
1) It is asserted that Jane drove a mini-van through a red light. And consequently struck the Parker’s child – who was crossing the road on his way to school.
2) Jane is a paraplegic who cannot drive and does not own a car.
3) Therefore the argument concerning Jane cannot possibly be TRUE
In our case – the argument is as follows:
1) If [P] then [Q]
If [Contrary Choice does not exist] then [Contrary choice is not a function available to me]
2) Not [Q]
It cannot possibly be true that contrary choice is not available to me – because making a truth-claim requires concerning Contrary choice – required that I choose whether the claim is TRUE or FALSE – which required a choice between TRUE and FALSE
3) Therefore Not [P]
Therefore the original claim cannot possibly be TRUE.
BTW:
This all has to do with how Determinism (which is what Calvinism presupposes) is self-refuting
Dr. John Searle – UC Berkeley – Epistemology and Ontology
-quote
All rational activity logically presupposes Libertarian function.
This becomes obvious when one realizes that rationality is possible only where one has a choice among various rational as well as irrational options.” (Rationality in Action)
William Lane Craig
-quote
When you come to realize that your decision to believe in determinism was itself determined and that even your present realization of that fact right now is likewise determined, a sort of vertigo sets in, for everything that you think, even this very thought itself, is outside your control.
Determinism could be true; but it cannot be rationally affirmed, since its affirmation undermines the rationality of its affirmation.
Calvinist Gregory Koukl
-quote
The problem with determinism, is…. rationality would have no room to operate.
Arguments would not matter, since no one would be able to base beliefs on adequate reasons.
One could never judge between a good idea and a bad one.
One would only hold beliefs because he has been predetermined to do so.
Although it is theoretically possible that determinism is true…..no one could ever know if it were. Everyone of our thoughts dispositions and opinions would have been decided for us by factors completely out of our control.
Therefore in practice, arguments for determinism are self defeating.”
Modus tollens can be used to show that Christ is a contradiction or logically impossible.
If Christ is divine, then he is immaterial.
If Christ is human, then he is material.
So, Christ is not material and material.
It is a logically impossible for Christ to be both material and not material. This can be shown with almost any divine attribute.
If Christ is divine, he is omnipresent.
If Christ is human, he is not omnipresent.
Christ is both omnipresent and not omnipresent.
Should Christians reject Christ’s divinity because it is logically impossible and/or a contradiction?
Roland
If Christ is divine, then he is immaterial.
br.d
No that doesn’t follow.
You are simply creating your own definition for “divine”
That is called begging the question.
Jesus walked on the road to emmaus and talked with two of his disciples
He sat down with them and broke and eat bread with them
Jesus later walked through a wall to get into the room where his disciples were
He had holes in his hands and a hole his chest.
He again sat down and eat with them.
Later Jesus was taken up into heaven.
What you are arguing is – in order for any of that to be true – he could not have been divine.
Calvinists NEED contradiction to be ok or acceptable because their doctrine LIVES on contradiction. Instead of seeing a contradiction as a sure fire sign that something is flawed in the theology, they try to just say contradictions are simply ok! Here, Roland is creating a contradiction where a contradiction doesn’t exist by changing the definition of a word AND ALSO ascribing to the Gnostic doctrine condemned by the Bible that the flesh is impure so Christ couldn’t have been in the flesh.
Contradiction is NOT ok. It is a way to distinguish true from false.
A2A
Here, Roland is creating a contradiction where a contradiction doesn’t exist by changing the definition of a word AND ALSO ascribing to the Gnostic doctrine condemned by the Bible that the flesh is impure so Christ couldn’t have been in the flesh.
roland
How am I “creating” a contradiction?
Which premises of my syllogism are false?
Divine means of, from, like God or a god. So Jesus was from God and was God. When you use the scripture that God is spirit, you forget the Trinity.
Finally every single one of us has a soul/spirit and are all eternal beings outside of the material which also isn’t a contradiction. God taking the form of a human isn’t a contradiction.
Water that is in a jar isn’t the water being both a liquid and a solid at the same time. In the same way, Christ being God IN THE flesh is not a contradiction.
Roland, truly, you seem like a nice man who loves God and is genuinely trying to please Him and desires to honor Him with being studied and know the truth about Him. Might I suggest reevaluating your interpretations but with the filter of contradictions NOT being acceptable. It is amazing how well it all fits together and how everything falls into place.
I’d go as far as to say that one of the biggest evidences that the Bible is the divinely inspired, authored, infallible Word of God is that it is 66 books written by 40 different people over 1500 years and it doesn’t contradict itself even ONCE! THAT isn’t HUMANLY possible.
br.d
I like you’re answer better than mine!
br.d, your comments are always much more scholarly than mine. Your use of quotes and references is top notch, and truly I hope God gifts me with that ability when I further the Apologetics ministry He is calling me to!
A2A
Roland, truly, you seem like a nice man who loves God and is genuinely trying to please Him and desires to honor Him with being studied and know the truth about Him. Might I suggest reevaluating your interpretations but with the filter of contradictions NOT being acceptable.
roland
I don’t believe the Bible contains contradictions. However, I don’t believe the Bible is a book of logic or philosophy. I believe it to be true not because there are no contradictions in it but because it is God’s revelation to man. It is an issue of faith not reason. My understanding of Scripture is that if there appears to be a contradiction in it then it is our inability to comprehend Scripture and not God’s failure to clearly communicate His message to us.
Roland
My understanding of Scripture is that if there ***APPEARS* to be a contradiction
br.d
Once upon a time – there was a young man whose family had raised him as a Jehovah’s Witness.
When he was a senior in high-school he became very interested in the critical thinking.
In his studies he learned about all of the various types of fallacies one’s thinking can fall prey to.
He became very adept at immediately spotting fallacies and contradictions.
This had a profound effect on his family, because the more fallacies and contradictions he learned to recognize – the more problems he started to see within the Jehovah’s Witness belief system.
The Elders of the Jehovah’s Witness church became alarmed.
They demanded to speak with him and correct the errors of his ways.
With open bibles – they surrounded him in an attempt to correct his thinking.
He easily answered every bold declaration – because he could easily see through the self-contradictions within the system.
As an answer – the Elders declared – they were only contradictions in appearance.
What they have is really divine revelation – which is too inscrutable for the human mind to understanding.
They walked away telling themselves JW doctrines were not real contradictions.
He walked away free
A few things we need to be careful with here. Appeal to mystery can be greatly abused and become a lazy excuse to not understand things. In fact, appeal to mystery is part of what kept me an atheist for as long as I was. I’d ask a question genuinely seeking an answer and get a “God works in mysterious ways” answer. This didn’t satisfy me, and made me doubt the truth of Christianity. When I found out that THERE WERE logical and coherent answers to my questions, it bolstered my faith greatly, I truly believed, and got saved. It is why I love Apologetics.
There ARE mysteries of God. Our new bodies as an example. But there is no information and no explanation for things like that. There is no way to reason it out. The things Calvinists claim as mystery ACTUALLY HAVE well reasoned explanations from non-calvinists.
Finally saying understanding and believing the Bible by purely faith is a misattribution of application of faith. One must believe that the Bible is TRUE (this is having faith in it) and the thing is WHEN SOMETHING IS TRUE, there will be evidence it is true. Logic, reason, history and investigative process will all back up and provide evidence of truth. Something false will be exposed by these things.
The Bible is in words. Words have meanings. Words communicate concepts. It requires reason and logic to read. It isn’t JUST faith. If you had a Russian Bible in front of you and couldn’t speak or read Russian, would you understand anything in it? Clearly not. One has to read it to understand it and then it takes faith to believe what is understood in it.
This is so true A2A! Happy to have you on these discussions.
We have so many good answers for what they call “mystery” (which allow for their contradictions).
Often in appealing to mystery they will mention the Tri-Unity of God (mystery) and the Divineness-Humaness of Christ (mystery). But those are about the nature of God that are not understandable to us.
What He did with His creation is often so clear in Scripture, yet in order to make Calvinism work they have to claim “mystery” all the time.
Or they have to take broad/ vague verses (or half verses) that say He “reveals the end from the beginning” “roll the dice in the lap” “turn the hearts of the king” and build their definition of sovereign on those.
There is nothing mysterious about God being “Sovereign enough” to create His world in a way where people make real choices. But their imposed definition of “sovereignty” requires that He decree all things (but He’s not the author of sin). Mystery!
Nah.
Exactly! What I find interesting is how much importance they give to Sovereignty of God (which is their definition). I believe God’s sovereignty, in the actual definition of being the highest authority who answers to no other authority, is implied even in Genesis 1:1
The Calvinist will say freewill isn’t taught in the Bible and that this is important because it contradicts (their definition) of God’s sovereignty (which is a contradiction they ARE NOT ok with).
But if freewill is not taught in the Bible and God’s sovereignty is of such importance, why is the word freewill in the Bible (KJV) and the word Sovereign or Sovereignty not in the Bible once?
Sovereignty, then, is implied, but not mentioned specifically. Freewill is implied (as early as Genesis 1:26) AND mentioned, but they reject that it is ok to go off of implication!
I can never understand why they are so repulsed by the concept of freewill, because the second something happens on earth TO THEM that violates THEIR freedom, or even someone else’s, they cry injustice and an act of evil and oppression! Yet, the very beliefs they hold to about God make Him out to be just like the oppressive tyrant they say is unjust! It is baffling!
A2A
The Calvinist will say freewill isn’t taught in the Bible
br.d
They do have a “FORM” of free will – which is called “Compatibilism”
Reformed scholar Dr. Oliver Crisp
-quote
Compatibilism is just the idea that….determinism is COMPATIBLE with me being free IN SOME SENSE. A theological Compatibilist would say, god determines what comes to pass. And that is CONSISTENT with me being free…..provided our account of freedom is THIN ENOUGH that it can be made CONSISTENT with god determining all that comes to pass.(Trinity podcast 82)
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
-quote
Compatibilism is the thesis that free will is compatible with determinism.
What Oliver Crisp means by “Thin Enough” is as follows:
1) The creature is “Free” to be/do ONLY that which is infallibly decreed
2) The creature is NOT “Free” be/do OTHERWISE than that which is infallibly decreed
3) No Alternative to that which is infallibly decreed is permitted or possible
4) Therefore – no Alternative of that which is infallibly decreed – is granted to the creature.
Thus in Calvinism – with Adam in the garden we have:
1) Adam was “Free” to eat the fruit – because eating the fruit was COMPATIBLE with that which was determined.
2) The impulse within Adam’s brain to eat the fruit was granted existence – because that impulse was CONSISTENT with that which was determined.
3) Adam was NOT “Free” to NOT eat the fruit – because NOT eating the fruit was NOT COMPATIBLE with what was determined.
4) The impulse within Adam’s brain to NOT eat the fruit was NOT granted existence – because it represented and an ALTERNATIVE from that which was infallibly decreed – which is not permitted and not possible – and thus not available to the creature
You can think about it this way:
In order for an infallible decree to be successful – all NECESSARY CONDITIONS for that infallible decree must be included within the decree.
IF – for example:
[X] were decreed to infallibly come to pass
And [X] were not permitted to come to pass
Then Calvin’s god would be a house divided against himself.
He must therefore permit – what he decrees to infallibly come to pass
This is what the Calvinist means by the “Divine Permissive Will” or the “Permissive Decree”
It simply means – Calvin’s god must permit what he decrees – or he would be in conflict with himself.
The same principle applies to Freedom
If [X] were decreed to infallibly come to pass
And [X] were not granted “Freedom” to come to pass
Then Calvin’s god would again be a house divided against himself.
He must therefore grant to [X] “Freedom” sufficient for the decree to be successful.
So when a Calvinist says man has “Freewill” what he means is – Calvin’s god decrees what the person’s will will be – and in order for that decree to be successful – requires granting “Freedom” for it to be what it was decreed to be.
That is what Dr. Oliver Crisp means when he says “Freedom” must be THIN ENOUGH to qualify as “Freedom” compatible with Determinism.
We have 2 things going on with compatibilism.
1). It is simply a denial of the law of non-contradiction. Freedom necessitates the ability to choose between 2 or more options. Determinism necessitates there is only one option, that which God decreed. These two concepts are in direct opposition to each other. They are about as A and Not-A as any two things could be. They are by their very definitions, not compatible. Compatibilism is a Calvinist pushing a square peg into a round hole, and then affirming “this is where it belongs!”
2). To get around this (because deep down, they even recognize the absurdity of confirming a contradiction) they play their language game and redefine a word as they see fit. They use the word “freedom”, but don’t actually mean the definition of freedom, which is the ability to make choices.
The absurdity is so obvious it makes no sense to not just adopt an interpretation that works without any of the absurdity. Just as they can redefine words on a whim, they can also find absurdity in sound reasoning. Again, it is baffling.
Yes!
So how to explain how they can be so fully ensnared by it?
It has to be pride. Not to level an accusation, but I don’t see another reason. They have received a “special revelation” from God and have a “deeper understanding” of scripture. It gives them a sense of superiority in a way. Even the concept of the doctrine of election. I am specially selected and chosen by God, even though I don’t understand why. I am thankful I am not a reprobate!
It is also hard to admit you were wrong. There are other attachments to. Let’s take MacArthur or Sprohl. Entire books and sermons, the money they get, their life’s work and reputation. Is it easy for them to then turn around and say, “well actually, all that stuff I taught was in error!”? It’s the same attachment in a way that the rich man has!
I’m gonna have to interject and take issue here A2A. I think you being too hard on them.
Most of them come in the same way I did. I was an evangelical, raised in a non-Calvinist home. I wanted to serve the Lord and give Him the most glory/ awareness/ power/ reverence that I could.
When I was a young student other older guys who had studied the subject “tricked” me time and time again, using all kinds of statements like:
You are a universalist then?
Dead men dont make choices.
Looks like you have a man-centered Gospel.
Oh, so you are saying that God doesnt plan the end from the beginning?
And on and on.
Then, with the help of the 40 magic verses (out of context) they convinced me that this “previously hidden gem” actually gave God the most glory. So you dont swallow the whole thing at once….. just the “give glory” parts and then you (they) build on that with more and more (deeper) ideas.
Example: Many years later my daughter was on staff at a church. The young youth leader was reading Piper / Sproul books and was a YRR recruit. He told her he was a Calvinist. She said…..”Okay, so you believe X, and Y, and Z?” She did this with about 6-7-8 things (beliefs).
He categorically denied ALL of the (Calvinist) things saying that he did not believe that!!!
Her answer: But you will soon.
Couple years later—- unless he pushed back and looked for answers outside of the Piper silo — likely he believes (or at least teaches) that all evil in the world is brought about by God for His glory (like Piper teaches).
How he then teaches high school boys to avoid porn I dont know. Cuz they can always say at the end of the day:
“God determined/ decreed/ ordained all that happened today, cuz we know that all that happens is exactly what God wants to happen.”
Nah.
You are right of course. I think too, that there are different levels of Calvinists. Some are deeply engrained, stubborn and completely aware of their beliefs and have heard the good arguments against it (James White comes to mind). Others have just not heard anything else. Others just think they are honoring God and just aren’t seekers much themselves. So there is an array of Calvinists and thus an array of why they would be hesitant to believe something else.
Yes!
It has to be flesh doesn’t it!
So it is a system designed to serve the flesh.
And for a professing Christian to continue in that – he need to figure out a way to justify it.
And one would expect nothing less than the strategy to justify it – would to call it divine revelation.
So I would suspect once a person gets to that point – their are so committed to it – there is not much the Lord can do to draw them out of it.
I know Dr. Flower’s testimony as a Calvinist – is that it eventually started to fall apart for him – when he allowed himself to question it.
And if FOH is reading this – perhaps you could give us your story of what you feel the critical issue was that finally made you disconnect with Calvinism?
I am reading and I have given my testimony many times in this space.
Put the books down (they all have an agenda) and just read huge chunks of the Bible every day. Dont filter it….let is speak for itself.
Dont make God be something (cuz you want Him to be that) that the Bible doesnt say.
Lots of sects have built their case completely from the Bible (JW).
Interesting. Not in opposition to anything you said there, but I personally find the RIGHT filters to be necessary to come to correct interpretation. Letting Scripture help understand scripture for example. If 2 things in the Bible appear to contradict, then you know that it isn’t the Bible that is contradicting, but there is something you are missing and you need to dive deeper to find out where the misunderstanding is.
I think a good concordance helps. I think keeping context of the verse helps. I think understanding who and what is being addressed helps. I think understanding figures of speech and historical practices of the time helps. I think understanding the literary style helps.
These things may not be “filters” per say, but they help have a good understanding. As you said, JW get their theology from the Bible, but I believe it is because they put it through the wrong filters.
br.d
A behavior pattern I think you’ll find very consistent with a large population of Calvinists – is they have the capacity to recognize there is a difference between what the text of scripture says and how one reads it – when they are examining anything other than Calvinism.
When it comes to Calvinism however – all of a sudden there no such thing as an interpretation of the text. They do not interpret the text. They simply read what it clearly and plainly says.
In these dialogs – I remind them that when Jesus was tempted by the lawyer – he asked the lawyer 2 questions
1) What does the text say?
2) How do you read it?
Clearly for Jesus – the second question is just as critical as the first.
The lawyer had no problem answering Jesus’ first question – he quoted the verse verbatim.
But he avoided Jesus’ 2nd question.
He avoided it – because it brought his vulnerability in front of a spotlight.
Scripture stands on its own authority.
But a human interpretation can be corrupt and is thus subject to scrutiny.
I can’t tell you how many Calvinists to whom I have pointed out how critical Jesus’ 2nd question is.
And it saddens me to tell you that a large percentage of them simply don’t appear to care about what is important to Jesus.
They will insist they do not “Interpret” the text – they simply read what it clearly says.
So when faced with Jesus question “How do you read it? They treat Jesus’ 2nd question like it is simply to be ignored.
The fact that they are dishonoring Jesus in the process doesn’t seem to bother them at all.
They simply are not going to acknowledge Calvinism has its own unique interpretations of scripture because they would then have to acknowledge vulnerability.
The Calvinist interpretation of scripture functions as part of his Canon.
They plainly read it UNTIL a clearly read verse opposes one of their beliefs. John 3:16, John 1:29, 1 John 2:2, 2 Peter 3:9, just to name a few! All of a sudden the verse isn’t saying what it plainly says and they have to ADD TO the Word of God to make it say what they want it to say. World doesn’t mean world, whole world doesn’t mean everyone and all means “all of the elect”.
But it is funny, because it doesn’t say all of the elect, it just says all. Consistently! Across every verse that talks about it. You can’t plainly read THOSE verses, but MUST plainly read others (which honestly plainly read still don’t even say how they read it).
Yes – its interesting to watch.
We’ve had Calvinists come and go here.
And of course they quote verses.
But I’m always keen to see how they alter the verse in their minds in order to make it fit the doctrine.
Sometimes I point out to them that they’ve removed key words from a text or added things into the text that aren’t there.
They all of a sudden realize they got caught.
They probably tell themselves they won’t get caught again.
And from then on – they’re careful to quote verses verbatim
That way no one can see how they’ve changed the verse in their minds.
A2A
Freedom necessitates the ability to choose between 2 or more options
br.d
Actually – this has been shown to not be the case.
You may want to check out the “Frankfurt Experiment”
What we are talking about here – with 2 or more options – is generally called PAP (Principle of Alternative Possibilities)
The Frankfurt Experiment was a way to show that an Alternative Possibility is not a necessary condition for a free-will act.
However – the standard definition for the term “Choice” does contain a necessary condition for more than one option available to select from. And as you can see from our last conversation with Roland – Determinism eradicates multiple options available to his mind. Thus if it is decreed that the perception in his brain concerning a TRUE/FALSE Bible question is TRUE – then that is the only perception that is granted to his brain.
The perception of the answer to the Bible question be FALSE is not available to his brain – because only one perception can be predestined. Calvin’s god cannot leave it *OPEN* for the Calvinist brain to make a libertarian choice between TRUE and FALSE. Consequently the decree makes it the case that the Calvinist brain is not granted the function of discerning TRUE from FALSE on any matter.
So as a result of the Frankfurt experiment – PAP today is currently acknowledged as not necessary for a free-will act.
Check out the Reasonable Faith web-site article where Dr. Craig answers this question
Titled: #320 Free Will
Not directly related to this post in response but:
Here is another problem I have with Calvinism, especially election.
Imagine a couple. They are both fertile and both decide to have children. They want to have 4. They do all they can to get pregnant. Then the first baby is conceived. They decide, before this baby is ever even born, that they won’t love it in the same way as their next child. Not because of anything they did, they just decide that. Because it will bring them glory. They wouldn’t die for this child, but they will for the next one.
If you take this analogy and say it to ANYONE who has any sort of moral compass they would say this is disgusting and immoral, and that these are terrible parents. It is morally repulsive. Yet, the Calvinist believes this exactly about God.
The non-Calvinist does not have this problem because they believe God loves all of mankind, died for all, wants all to repent and none to perish (like the Bible clearly says). God’s greatest act of love is available as a free gift to all who will receive it.
This, among many other reasons, is why I find Calvinism absolutely repulsive. It paints a very dark and immoral picture of God and diminishes His love to give greater importance to His “sovereignty” (as the Calvinist defines sovereignty).
The non-Calvinist believes God’s love and sovereignty are not mutually exclusive, that He is completely love and completely sovereign (based on the actual definition of the word sovereign)!
Yet Calvinist will claim they have a higher view of God. Yet again, more baffling “logic” from the Calvinists.
br.d
Yes I understand what you say saying for sure!
I’ve seen many Calvinists try to twist that around to make it look like there is some justification in it – for example – by asking the question – does god not have a right to not love those who hate him.
You can see what they are doing.
They are switching it around so that their god is the innocent party subject to the abuse of a human.
Or they might say – who are you to try to judge god – or why can’t you just let god be god.
My response to that is to switch that around and say – why does the Calvinist have to create a good-evil deity – why can’t the Calvinist just let god be who he want’s to be instead of who they want him to be.
Those are great! I would ask:
Does God have a right to lie or author confusion? Or does God not act outside of His character and nature? If lying is unrighteous for a human to do, it would also be unrighteous for God to do. If not loving one of your children is unrighteous for a human, it would be unrighteous for God. Why do you think God is a hypocrite?
But…. A2A…..they whisk all that away by saying:
“But we all deserve hell and torture….and it is gracious of Him to save any at all.”
Did that work for you?
Nah. Sounds kind of silly in light of your analogy.
That is why I say we have to be gracious to them. They have actually convinced themselves that the Bible teaches this immoral, repulsive idea of God….and it is our job to accept it….all the while saying, “However, we know that God ‘is good’ so this must all fit somehow! Mystery!”
A2A
The non-Calvinist does not have this problem because they believe God loves all of mankind, died for all, wants all to repent and none to perish (like the Bible clearly says). God’s greatest act of love is available as a free gift to all who will receive it.
roland
Imagine you a parent watching your children play on a driveway. You are sitting in the garage with the garage door open. Your children are playing in the driveway. They all begin to run towards the street. You begin to shout out to them. “Turn around! There is danger in the street. If you run into the street, you will be stuck by a car and killed!” As the parent, you have the power to stop them. But you don’t because you believe that if you save them their love for you is not genuine. Their turning back from the danger must be done freely, without coercion. Yet you are shouting, “I love you. Turn back from the danger.” You know that if they run into the street your children will be struck by a car and killed. You have the power to stop them. You have the knowledge that they will be struck by a car and killed. Yet your only actions are pleading, begging, and shouting them to turn back. When they don’t. Whey you fail to take action to stop them. They perish.
This is why I find non-calvinism DISGUSTING and IMMORAL. At least in Calvinism God does take action and save His elect. In non-calvinism God does not take action. He saves none. He CAN only wait for His “free creatures” to make a “freewill” decision to turn to Him and live. Which none of His “free creatures” do unless God intervenes.
The Calvinist does not have this problem. The PASSIVE and OBSERVANT God who does nothing but invite. The God of the Bible does much more than invite. He actually saves. In non-calvinism God does not save but only offers to save. In Calvinism, God SAVES!. In non-calvinism God watches sinners die, knows they’re going to die, has the power to save them from eternal punishment yet does nothing but invite or offer to save.
Cap locks for emphasis, not yelling. 🙂
roland
Imagine you a parent watching your children play on a driveway. You are sitting in the garage with the garage door open.
br.d
WHAT??????
That is NOT Calvinism!!!!!
That is about as far from Calvinism as one can get!!!
The Calvnist version of that goes like this:
Imagine a father who has the power to decree whatsoever will come to pass with his children.
And his decree is infallible – which means nothing in creation can countervail it.
He decrees his children to infallibly run in front of an Amtrak high speed rail-train
The children are instantly torn into pieces.
The father is manifested his divine sovereignty over his creation and is thus glorified.
Roland
The God of the Bible does much more than invite. He actually saves.
br.d
Of course you when you say “the god of the bible” you mean Calvin’s god.
Yes Calvin’s god saves.
Firstly – he creates all creatures with a DEATH decree.
The DEATH decree makes creatures IRRESISTIBLY sin and IRRESISTIBLY hate all godliness by infallible decree.
For the *MANY* – the DEATH decree is eternal.
He specifically created/designed these creatures for eternal torment in a lake of fire – for his good pleasure.
But the *FEW* – the DEATH decree is temporary.
These creatures he designed to be saved from his DEATH decree.
br.d I like your answer more than mine, as it cuts to the heart of issue. I’ll give mine later, but it has to do with conflation and why Roland’s argument is not an apples to apples comparison!
I think it would be applicable for me to lovingly call Roland my friendly Arminian-Calvinist. :-]
There are so many representations he makes – which he thinks are Calvinism – but which are not in fact Calvinism at all – but rather Arminianism.
I know he doesn’t find that complimentary.
But it doesn’t benefit anyone – including him – to pretend otherwise.
We know historically – there are Calvinist pastors who do not dare reveal they are Calvinist – for fear of losing the majority of their congregation and being left with a handful of hard-core Calvinists.
The more unflinching Calvinism a pastor teaches – the smaller his congregation is going to be – simply because people will quite naturally find it distasteful.
So it makes perfect sense for Calvinist pastors to strategically remove certain parts of their Calvinism – and quietly replace those parts with Arminianism – in order to create a more benevolent belief system.
I can easily see how most church people in that situation – including Roland – wouldn’t want to know the decree to which their pastors are carefully slipping Arminianism into their representations.
So it is my guess – that is probably Roland’s situation.
Yuk…..
This analogy is wrong on so many levels. I will only show one.
You said the parent “pleads” with the kids. This is were you are fooling yourself. What kind of “pleading” is that if God has willed/ wanted/ planned/ ordained/ decreed all along that the child run in the street. That is just nonsensical.
In Calvinism God NEEDS kids to run into the street for His glory…to fill up His wrath.
We have no human comprehension of a parent who actually WANTS the kind to run in the street.
Even if we could wrap our brains around such an idea we would not say that this parent “IS love” (not loves, but IS love).
Was it you?! I am intrigued! I love testimonies like this!
br.d
It does sound like it could be! :-]
But no – its simply a parable.
My testimony concerning Calvinism – is that I was an evangelical Christian for over 30 years before I bumped into my first Calvinist – who took a job at the company I worked for.
At first I was pleased because he was a professing Christian – and they were few and far between in the work-place. I would get some fellowship “or so I thought” ;-D
But it became a pattern – every Monday he would tell me about the fantastic sermon his pastor gave to his church the day before. His pastor would tell them things like – the majority of churches in the world do not read the Bible correctly. They for example interpret John 3:16 incorrectly. And the list goes on.
I became curious and started to investigate. That’s when I discovered Calvinism.
I eventually discovered all of these verses which all Christians in the world were supposedly reading incorrectly – were simply Calvinist proof-texts – designed to conform to Exhaustive Divine Determinism.
This pastor was being dishonest with his congregation.
He was leading them to believe he was simply teaching them the “Orthodox” interpretation of scripture.
He never once mentioned John Calvin
He never once told them he was teaching them out of a Calvinist hand-book.
I confronted my friend at work and asked him how long his pastor had been teaching Calvinism.
He gave me a “dear in the head-lights” look – and insisted he had never heard of Calvinism.
From there I started referring to scholarship on the subject.
Dr. Gordon Fee and Dr. William Lane Craig were the ones who first shined a spot-light on what Calvinism is all about.
Once I discovered Calvinism is simply a form of Christianity designed to conform to Determinism – I then started learning more about Determinism in the Atheist world – and discovered they share many attributes together – because Determinism is essentially the same in both systems.
The difference between Atheist Determinism a Calvinist Determinism – is the “DETERMINER”
The Atheist does not have a THEOS
So the Determiner is nature
As Atheist Determinist Sean Carroll would say – “The arrangement of the constituents of the cosmos”
The Calvinist has a THEOS
So his Determiner is a THEOS
But what we have is Determinism “Simpliciter” – with a different Determiner.
Since Determinism is the same in both systems – both systems contain the same logical consequences.
This is why William Lane Craig wrote the article “The Calvinist lies down with the Atheist”
My story is similar. My first deep dive was Dr. John Lennox Determined to Believe? which dives deep into atheist and theological determinism, and does an excellent job of explaining all of the “proof texts” especially Romans 9.
Craig is great in his debates with Atheists! So is Lennox! Interesting how some of the greatest minds in defending Christianity who happen to be the most thoroughly credentialed and studied also speak out against Calvinism.
C.S, Lewis also affirmed freewill. Interestingly, Greg Koukl is a Calvinist, even though he refutes Calvinism in his own teachings. His book Tactics, I would still recommend to every Christian as its exhaustive use of rock solid logic and philosophy explained in simple examples is invaluable. It REALLY surprised me to learn he was a calvinist!
br.d
Wonderful!
Yes!
Greg Koukl is a serious anomaly within current day Calvinism.
But when we look at the logical consequences of Determinism – what we find is that all Determinists must live *AS-IF* Determinism is FALSE.
Greg Koukl has decided that he must be logically coherent with his belief system.
So he adopts Libertarian freedom rather than trying to DOUBLE-SPEAK his way around it.
Stephen Hawking
-quote
I believe Determinism is true – but I have come to realize I have to live *AS-IF* Determinism is false (presentation at Oxford – Lady Mitchel hall)
Sean Carroll
-quote
Every person in the world (i.e. Determinists) no matter how Anti-Free-Will they are – speak *AS-IF* people make decisions. (Joe Rogan interview – what is free will)
William Lane Craig
-quote
Nobody can live *AS-IF* all that he thinks and does is determined by causes outside of himself.
Even determinists recognize they have to act *AS-IF* they have option(S) to weigh, and can decide on what course of action to take….. (Determinism is unlivable)
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-IF* nothing were determined about any part.”(Concerning the eternal predestination of God)
————————————
So what we have in as a psychological consequence of Determinism is:
1) Hold [X] as TRUE
2) Treat [X] *AS-IF* it is FALSE
Now that is a consequence of Determinism which the Atheist Determinist is willing to accept because its a simply matter of psychological survival.
However that consequence is devastating to the Calvinist for 2 reasons.
1) His language evolves into a language of DOUBLE-SPEAK which is antithetical to the teaching of scripture
2) Since he holds Determinism as what the Bible teaches – and since he has to treat Determinism *AS-IF* it is FALSE – it follows he has to treat what the Bible teaches *AS-IF* it is FALSE.
And that is why Calvinism is such a contorted belief system
Yes, their determinism is the same as atheistic determinism.
And as I have said….they are also universalists.
They cannot stand the idea of universalism (cuz, perish the thought that God would take everyone! He “needs” some for His wrath!).
But the two philosophies work off the very same premise:
God is gonna take the whole world cuz that’s what He wants to do. They do nothing.
God is gonna take the elect cuz that’s what He wants to do. They do nothing.
The principle is the same as universalism, just a smaller (stingier) number.
I’m not sure how they get upset at universalists (cuz universalists just use verses to claim that their Sovereign God has determined it that way).
A2A
Calvinists NEED contradiction to be ok or acceptable because their doctrine LIVES on contradiction
br.d
Bulls-eye!!!!
You hit it – right square on the bulls-eye A2A!
Every word in that post was wonderfully said!
Thank you!!!
br.d
No that doesn’t follow.
You are simply creating your own definition for “divine”
roland
I’m simply creating my own definition for “divine”? John 4:24 God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.
A spirit is immaterial. Are you telling me that a spirit is “material”?
Roland
God is Spirit,
br.d
And the angel said to Mary: “Behold – the Holy Spirit shall come upon you. And the power of the Most High will overshadow you. And the holy one to be born within you – will be called the Son of God.
And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us.
Did you know – Atomic Physicists when looking at atomic particles – have observed – a given atomic particle can be at a specific physical location. But then suddenly disappear – and instantaneously re-appear in a completely different and un-associated location.
How does an atomic particle – which is material in nature – do that?
Obviously the creator of the universe has the power to create such things.
But does the creator of the universe contradict himself?
Roland this might help:
William Lane Craig is answer an Atheist’s question – because Atheists are taught that the divinity of Jesus is a contradiction.
William Lane Craig
-quote
People who use the expression “fully God/fully man” do not mean to suggest, I’m sure, that Christ is totally God and totally man, but rather that he is truly God and truly man.
The Chalcedonian expression (vere Deus/vere homo) “Truly God/Truly man” is not oxymoronic (i.e. a contradiction).
The framers of the Chalcedon expression affirmed that Christ has two distinct natures, one human and one divine.
In affirming that the incarnate Christ had two natures, the Church Fathers were stating that Christ exemplified all the properties which go to constitute humanity and all the properties which go to make up deity. In that sense, he had two natures and so belonged to two natural kinds, Man and God. Christ was thus truly human, but he was not merely human.
br.d
But does the creator of the universe contradict himself?
roland
No the Creator of the universe does not contradict Himself. In Scripture there are contradictions in appearance. As an example, consider the texts of Scripture which state that God repents and God does not repent. Genesis 6:6 And the Lord was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. Exodus 32:14 So the Lord relented from the harm which He said He would do to His people. Some versions translate relent as repent or changed His mind. Numbers 23:19“God is not a man, that He should lie,
Nor a son of man, that He should repent.
Has He said, and will He not do?
Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?
Are these contradictions? I say no. You probably agree. The difference I am trying to point out is this: I conclude that God does not contradict Himself based on His essence, His nature, and not anything else. The non-calvinists on this website appear to me to conclude that God does not contradict Himself based on reason and logic. I was called a fideist on this website and that there is no point in reasoning with me. I am a fideist. I hold to an epistemology based on God’s revelation to us. God’s revelation is the foundation of all knowledge. God’s revelation is true. Even if something appears contradictory I accept as true because God has revealed it to us. Reason would be the means to discern this but reason is not the measurement to discern the veracity of God’s revelation.
A Brakel fought against the belief that reason was the expositor of Holy Scripture. He argued against this. He wrote this regarding reason and atheism.
“Their objective (atheists) is to distort Scripture by establishing reason as the expositor of Holy Writ, and in doing so remove its divine authority as well as its infallibility.”
“Such a conclusion (addressing atheist’s claims) is the consequence of establishing reason as the expositor of Holy Writ, as well as the arbiter in determining what to believe and what not to believe.”
This seems to be the practice of non-calvinists. If something is true from God’s Word then it must conform to logical and rational standards, if a doctrine does not, then it is not biblical. Reason has become the arbiter of truth and not Holy Writ.
There are many things that are missed here. God gave us a sound mind and called us to reason with Him. Reason and logic are part of God’s essence. They are order and help establish truth. In FACT, in John 1:1 the Greek word used for Word is actually Logos. Guess where the word logic comes from!? God literally IS logic. Just like He IS Good and IS love.
I would like to point out that you said you can’t use reason to explain things of God and then went and listed reasons to explain something about God….let that one sink in.
Finally, you used Atheists misuse and improper application of logic and reason to discredit logic and reason in application to scripture. This is fallacious as someone improperly using a tool doesn’t mean the tool doesn’t work for a task.
To illustrate this is essentially what you are doing here. You are watching a man about to eat a steak. He has a knife and fork. He tries to cut the steak with the DULL SIDE of the knife. It doesn’t work. You then conclude that knives cannot be used to cut steak.
It is funny too, because Atheism can me disproven logically.
A2A
I would like to point out that you said you can’t use reason to explain things of God and then went and listed reasons to explain something about God….let that one sink in.
br.d
YES!
The argument that one cannot use HUMAN REASONING to examine something – is itself HUMAN REASONING.
Total self-contradiction.
What many Calvinists are doing with arguments like that – is they have put the Calvinist handling of scripture on a divine pedestal and they make it equal to scripture itself.
The Calvinist has 2 Canons
1) He has the Canon of scripture – which everyone else has
2) His interpretation of scripture is also Canon
Therefore to subject the Calvinist interpretation of scripture to logical scrutiny is to subject scripture to logical scrutiny.
br.d
Now that we’ve established that God does not contradict himself we need to take it to the next level.
God’s word does not contradict itself.
But then we have the Jehovah’s Witness interpretation of scripture
And we discover many places where his interpretation is self-contradicting.
And we point out to him where his interpretations are self-contradicting.
And he tells us he will not allow us to examine his interpretation – because to do so would be to subject scripture to logic – which he refuses to do.
His interpretation of scripture is from divine revelation – and you are not to question it.
It is funny what is happening here. Roland (and most Calvinists) recognize that there are things in scripture that APPEAR to be contradictions. They even then ADMIT that they ARE NOT contradictions. But here comes the difference between non-calvinists and calvinists:
The Calvinist just takes it on faith that it isn’t a contradiction, and stops there. They don’t know WHY it isn’t a contradiction they just know it isn’t and from there will generally make an appeal to mystery.
The non-Calvinist takes it on faith that it isn’t a contradiction, but then seeks out, partially using logic and reason, WHY it isn’t a contradiction. Turns out, there are valid explanations and interpretations that show why it isn’t a contradiction.
Why does the Calvinist stop where they do? Because using this method would expose the contradiction in their own theology, thus invalidating it. It is a strange form of self-preservation.
Roland,
I was not going to interact with you more here, but you provide a PERFECT example and I pray you can hear it.
You are right to contrast and compare the differing “does not relent/ relents” passages.
My search on Calvinist sites showed me that 100% of the time Calvinists will take the many, many place where it says he relented, repented, changed, “would have,” etc and they start with “It doesnt really mean what it says here…..” They then proceed to explain that the verse you quote (and there is one more, 1 Samuel 15:29) somehow “override” this “change” idea that we see in so, many, many places.
The two verses override the hundreds.
Why? Because they want them to.
Let’s look at the one you quoted:
“Arise, Balak, and listen;
hear me, son of Zippor.
19 God is not human, that he should lie,
not a human being, that he should change his mind.
Does he speak and then not act?
Does he promise and not fulfill?
20 I have received a command to bless;
he has blessed, and I cannot change it.
——————-
This is a prophetic, poetic, Semitic format.
Notice “Arise” (what? Was he sitting?)
Notice “hear me” (what? not listening?)
Notice “son of Zippor” (classic non-western, repetition from the era)
Then the introduction that he is speaking for God, who is X Y Z.
Does God change His mind? There are many verses that say so.
Does He speak and not act? Many times, like Nineveh.
Does He promise and not fulfill? yes…see Jeremiah 17-19.
But this time….I have “received a command to bless… he has blessed, and I cannot change it.”
But this time…. He will not change.
We are not butchering the text to interpret it: If you think that God is a whimsical human, who randomly changes his mind, be assured that He will not change on this matter.
So there is no contradiction for me.
On the other hand…. Calvinist will slaughter many texts where God Himself is speaking and says “I repent” “I relent” “I would have…but now will not” “If you had done what I wanted, I would have done this…” “You did not do what I wanted, so now I will….”
Many, many times.
All of these many passages are dismissed and minimized by Calvinists.
Why? Based on the verse you quoted and the other one (1 Samuel 15:29).
Those two verses (both spoken by prophets in a prophetic, poetic manner) seem to establish a DOCTRINE that then overrides the hundreds of verses where the Lord speaks for Himself.
Why? Because we want the Bible to say what we want it to say.
God changes His plans all throughout Scripture. Calvinists just dont let Him.
[[[Maybe a second post on 1 Samuel 15, if I have time]]]
Reading in my Bible-in-one-year program today….
1 Kings 11: 9 The Lord became angry with Solomon because his heart had turned away from the Lord, the God of Israel, who had appeared to him twice. 10 Although he had forbidden Solomon to follow other gods, Solomon did not keep the Lord’s command. 11 So the Lord said to Solomon, “Since this is your attitude and you have not kept my covenant and my decrees, which I commanded you, I will most certainly tear the kingdom away from you and give it to one of your subordinates.
This is NOT cherry-picking like Calvinists with a verse here and verse there (interpreted their way). This kind os scenario happens all over Scripture!!
Question to Calvinists: Does this mean anything to you?
1. Became angry (did He “change”?)
2. Shows anger (He is not impassible?)
3. Solomon’s heart turned from the Lord, or God willed that Solomon do that?
4. God “forbade” Solomon to do something but he did it. Which was God’s will? Both cannot be God’s will if God is forbidding him to do it.
5. So…. “So” the Lord said …. “Since” this is your attitude…..
6. Since….. you did this…. I (the Lord) will now tear the kingdom from you.
What in the world do a Calvinist do EVERY day when he read these passages?
Exactly FOH! – Calvinists, and those who still believe in the false doctrine of divine impassibility, need to do a word study on the word “provoke”. It is used around 50 times in the OT concerning provoking God to a certain reaction. Many times it is God Himself declaring directly that is what happened. Was He lying! This is one of the greatest harms of Calvinism. It denies that God speaks with clarity and integrity from His own perspective in His own Word.
Here are just 9 of those examples of “provoke” from Deuteronomy alone! Was Moses lying?
Deu 4:25
Deu 9:7
Deu 9:8
Deu 9:18
Deu 9:22
Deu 31:20 (God speaking)
Deu 31:29
Deu 32:16
Deu 32:21 (God speaking)
Brian
This is one of the greatest harms of Calvinism. It denies that God speaks with clarity and integrity from His own perspective in His own Word
br.d
Yes!
John Calvin created a THINKING pattern which all Calvinists follow.
The Calvinist holds [X] to be TRUE – while treating [X] *AS-IF* it is FALSE.
This thinking pattern is super-imposed upon the Calvinist conception of god and also super-imposed upon the Calvinist’s conception of the writers of scripture.
In Calvinism for example:
1) Calvin’s god knows that for every event and every human impulse – his infallible decree establishes only ONE SINGLE PREDESTINED RENDERED-CERTAIN option.
And yet he treats humans *AS-IF* they are granted CONTRARY options.
He knows he decrees every event- and the decree is infallible and immutable.
And yet he treats his events *AS-IF* he did not decree them – and *AS-IF* the decree was not infallible and not immutable.
He knows an infallible decreed event cannot be OTHERWISE than what was infallibly decreed
And yet he treats events *AS-IF* they could be OTHERWISE
He knows he does not grant humans a choice in the matter of that which is infallibly decreed
And yet he treats humans *AS-IF* they have a choice in the matter.
The Calvinist has a certain conception of what the Bible teaches.
For the Calvinist – that conception of what the Bible teaches is TRUE
But following Calvin’s thinking pattern – the Calvinist treats what he holds the Bible teaches *AS-IF* it is FALSE.
Where in scripture – is the believer instructed to treat what the Bible teaches *AS-IF* it is FALSE?
br.d
What in the world do a Calvinist do EVERY day when he read these passages?
roland
First, as a Calvinist, I do hold the immutability of God. God does not change. Scripture is clear on this teaching. There are an abundance of verses that teach the truth that God does not change.
Psalm 102:25-27; see verse 27 the Lord does not change
25 Of old You laid the foundation of the earth,
And the heavens are the work of Your hands.
26 They will perish, but You will endure;
Yes, they will all grow old like a garment;
Like a cloak You will change them,
And they will be changed.
27 But You are the same,
And Your years will have no end.
28 The children of Your servants will continue,
And their descendants will be established before You.”
Malachi 3:6“For I am the Lord, I do not change;
Therefore you are not consumed, O sons of Jacob.
Numbers 23:19 “God is not a man, that He should lie,
Nor a son of man, that He should repent.
Has He said, and will He not do?
Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?
God’s immutability is connected to His Name. He is the Lord, He does not change. This is not cherry picking, this is the plain reading of Scripture. God does not change. As a Calvinist, I firmly hold this biblical revelation. There are many verses that teach God’s immutability.
What do non-calvinists do when they read Scripture that teaches us that God does not change?
Second, when I read verses that do teach us that God changes, as the verses cited by you, I believe that human’s relationship to God changes but God does not.
John 3:36 He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, BUT THE WRATH OF GOD ABIDES ON HIM.”
In relation to God, sinners are either under the wrath of God or under the grace of God. God relates to us as to whether He is angry with us or pleased with us which only happens when we are in Christ.
There’s much more to this, especially within Reformed circles there is a dividing line that has been drawn as to God’s immutability and impassibility.
roland
First, as a Calvinist, I do hold the immutability of God.
br.d
Is the infallible decree immutable (i.e. unchangeable) ?
BTW Roland – do you know how the word “Immutable” came to be attributed to Calvin’s god?
Did you know the divine immutability was a doctrine of Plato.
Its of pagan origins.
Some of Plato’s doctrines were adopted in religious form – especially by a pagan philosopher whose name was Plotinus.
The Platonic teachings of Plotinus – were classified as NeoPlatonism (i.e. the new platonism)
Augustine was an ardent follower of Plotinus.
That is where Calvinism gets the term “immutable” from.
Yes I know that. I understand, read, and have studied how Christian theologians have appropriated Plato’s and Aristotle’s philosophy. I’ve read some of Aquinas’s Summa Theologica regarding the law and God’s immutability. I know that Reformed theologians have been influenced by Greek philosophy.
brd
Augustine was an ardent follower of Plotinus.
roland
Really? Augustine was an “ardent follower of Plotinus?” What would make you come to such a conclusion? I’ve never read of Augustine being an “ardent follower of Plotinus.” Is there a reference to this that I could read? If so, I would appreciate if you could provide something for me to investigate. Thanks for reading!
brd
Augustine was an ardent follower of Plotinus.
roland
Really? Augustine was an “ardent follower of Plotinus?” What would make you come to such a conclusion?
br.d
All Augustinian scholarship acknowledges that as a historical fact.
Letters written by Augustine to a close friend “Nebredius” detail his admiration for the teachings of Plotinus. He meditates on the sayings of Plotinus. It is recorded that he recited certain sayings of Plotinus on his death bead.
A part of the teachings of Plotinus included a form of meditation – that was supposed to bring the NeoPlatonist believer closer to “THE ONE”.
The term “THE ONE” was a part of the teachings of Plato addopted by Plotinus.
Plotinus emphasized the transcendent character of the “Primordial One”
Author, Stephen MacKenna in his work “The Influence Of Plotinus Traced In Augustine” observes within Augustine’s confessions, evidences of at least two mystical meditation experiences, which clearly follow the Neoplatonic model.
Author Anthony Buzzard in his work “Augustine and Neo-Platonism” writes
-quote
The phenomenon of an explicit Platonist influence in Augustine is widely recognized.
Augustine is considered the leading influence in mixing NeoPlatonism into Christian doctrine.
Yes, God’s decree is infallible. When God says He declares the beginning from the end. His declaration is infallible.
Isaiah 46:10
Declaring the end from the beginning,
And from ancient times things that are not yet done,
Saying, ‘My counsel shall stand,
And I will do all My pleasure,’
Roland
Yes, God’s decree is infallible.
br.d
Does Calvin’s god decree just some things?
Or is Calvinist Robert R. McLaughlin correct when he says:
-quote
“God merely programmed into the divine decrees all our thoughts, motives, and actions”
(The Doctrine of Divine Decree pg 4)
Roland, if God does not change in any way, the incarnation is not true. The Word was God and the Word became flesh. The word “became” indicates some kind of change.
Each of the verses you pointed to for immutability only have to do with aspects of God’s nature that do not change. His love, truth, righteousness, and life are immutable. But changes take place all the time in His thoughts, emotions, and actions.
Num 23:19 – God does not change in telling the truth.
Mal 3:6 – God does not change in keeping His promises.
Ps 102:27 – God does not change in growing old, or wearing out.
None of those verses mean God cannot change in anyway. One member of the Godhead took on flesh and the other members did not. That was a definite change in their experience and description of their nature with one person now being united forever to flesh and the others not.
Thank you for your response Brian. I agree with you that God’s essence or nature does not change. I also believe that the Bible teaches that God went through changes in Christ’s Incarnation. It was a real Incarnation. I further agree that God’s love, truth, righteousness, and life are immutable.
However, I have not come to a conclusion as to whether or not God changes His thoughts, emotions, and actions. Scriptures teaches us that He does. But why and how He does so I am still trying to understand. So, I have not come to conclusion regarding this issue. This is the beauty of the LORD. He is inexhaustible when it comes to knowing Him. I will say that I tend to lean towards God being passible yet without sinful passions. I believe this is what WCF means when it says God is “without … passions.” That is sinful passions.
I also tend to lean towards an explanation of God’s condescension towards us with anthropological language to help us understand Him better.
I’m working on a response to your reading of Ephesians 1:11. I have not forgotten nor put it aside but it’s taking me a little homework to seek a better understanding of Ephesians 1. It is a wonderful passage! Thanks for reading.
Thanks Roland for your response. The WCF didn’t mean without just sinful passions. And God speaks truth about Himself in His Word. An anthropomorphic term never means to be without the characteristic the term points to. Did you see my comment to FOH about the 50 plus verses that speak of provoking God to react emotionally?
Brian
Did you see my comment to FOH about the 50 plus verses that speak of provoking God to react emotionally?
roland
No i have not read your comment to FOH. I’ll read it. Check it out. Consider it.
Brian
The WCF didn’t mean without just sinful passions.
Roland
I’m not sure about this. I’ve read that there are arguments that present both sides of the argument. No passions versus sinful passions. I’m still working through this.
Brian
And God speaks truth about Himself in His Word.
roland
Amen to that Brian! God’s truth about Himself is in His Word. It is why I am currently leaning towards God changes in HIs emotions, thoughts, and actions with creation but I buffer it with God communicating to us in anthropological language so as we can understand Him better or more intimately. Still working through and I appreciate you sharing your thoughts with me regarding this truth about God.
Brian
An anthropomorphic term never means to be without the characteristic the term points to.
Roland
Agree. I think if the anthropomorphic term does not mean what it intends to mean, then there would be deception in God. I reject that God is deceptive. However, statements in Scripture about God never changing leash me or pull me back when I read about God becoming angry or repenting of creation or choosing Saul to be king etc. I have a tension within myself regarding God’s immutable nature and His thoughts, emotions, and actions towards creation changing.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts and experience with me regarding this issue. Your insights have helped me as I struggle with God’s immutable essence or nature and His changing emotions, thoughts and actions in relation to us sinners. God bless.
The question was asked:
What do non-calvinists do when they read Scripture that teaches us that God does not change? ((giving HALF of one verse, Malachi 3:6))
Answer: We read the verse in the context. Chapter 3 of Malachi is addressing God’s position on their sin….not a huge doctrine of His “immutability.” But if a person wants to do what the JW’s do, and isolate it from the context, they can prove anything.
Another comment was made in that response:
“Second, when I read verses that do teach us that God changes, as the verses cited by you, I believe that human’s relationship to God changes but God does not.”
What? That is very libertine of anyone to say that God’s simple statements about being provoked, angered, saddened, disappointed….or the ones about relenting, repenting, and regretting…. are all just ipso facto (cuz we know better!) “really about man’s relationship.”
Wow….what a man-centered theology!!
Let’s let the Lord speak for Himself!
I told ya!
Why waste the time? God-does-all-evil affirming Calvinists are working with a different paradigm. Even though scripture says “in Him there is no darkness at all” they insist that there is!
The state of Tennessee can execute people guilty of murder. But we dont say the Tennessee govt “kills people” or “murders people”.
Many parents in Tennessee use careful corporal discipline. But we dont say “they beat their kids.” “Did you know he hits his kids?”
Quoting verses where God brings about calamity in a context (I know context is hard for Calvinists) of judgment is not the same as James White’s “God decrees all the rapes of all 3-year-old girls for His glory.”
The story of Jonah alone can disprove the wobbly, verses-out-of-context God-does-all-evil idea being presented here.
Sure, God is declaring calamity (judgment) through Jonah. If He wipes out a city it would be “killing” …. but again in the form of judgment.
Ironically ….even though He would be justified to judge Nineveh (with Godly calamity), He changes His mind. Let me quote from the Calvinist ESV:
3:10 When God saw what they did, how they turned from their evil way, God relented of the disaster that he had said he would do to them, and he did not do it.
Do verses of the Bible tell how God brings about calamity in judgment? Yes.
Is that the same as the rape of a small child, or the evil of abortion? No.
For many years my wife and I have gone 2 times a week to the front of an abortion clinic to offer women one last chance for help before they go in there.
Is this what a Calvinist would say?
“Please dont go in there and harm your child. But if you do, be assured that you did God’s secret will for His glory and He decreed it.”
Perhaps the woman’s boyfriend going in with her might quote back to us as they go in, “Hey, dude, my Calvinist pastor (and Guillaume Bignon) said last Sunday ‘I make well-being and I create calamity, I am the LORD who does all these things.’ So God decreed what we are doing.”
And certainly the boyfriend can say as they come out with the deed done….. “We aborted our child, but it surely was God’s will….cuz that is what my Calvinist pastor teaches.”
Roland
For many years my wife and I have gone 2 times a week to the front of an abortion clinic to offer women one last chance for help before they go in there.
FOH
Is this what a Calvinist would say?
br.d
Let’s see what R.C. Sproul would say:
R.C. Sproul
-quote
God WILLS all things that come to pass. … god DESIRED for man to fall into sin. (Almighty Over All Page 54).
Therefore if the girl goes into an abortion clinic and gets an abortion – Calvin’s god WILLED that girl to go into an abortion clinic and get an abortion – and DESIRED her to perform that act.
If Calvin’s god WILLS the girl go into an abortion clinic and get an abortion – that the impulse in her brain to do that was PREDESTINED
And no ALTERNATIVE to that which is PREDESTINED is granted existence
Therefore – no ALTERNATIVE impulse was granted existence within her brain.
John Calvin
-quote
Men can deliberately do NOTHING unless he INSPIRE it. (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God pg 171–172)
Roland – what is the Calvinist interpretation of Genesis 6:6 where it says:
“And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart” ?
br.d. The Calvinist interpretation of Gen 6:6 is that God’s Word does not mean what it says there! 😉
Genesis 6:6 NKJV — And the LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart.
God grieves, God’s prophet Moses said… but Calvin and Gill say – no. They show that they are both more loyal to their systematic theology than to Scripture.
Calvin – “The repentance which is here ascribed to God does not properly belong to him…. The same reasoning, and remark, applies to what follows, that God was affected with grief. Certainly God is not sorrowful or sad; but remains forever like himself in his celestial and happy repose….”
Gill – “…and it grieved him at his heart; this is to be understood by the same figure as before, for there can, no more be any uneasiness in his mind than a change in it; for God is a simple Being, uncompounded, and not subject to any passions and affections.”
There is some debate in reformed circles with some rejecting divine impassibility – “God without passions”… others just reject seeing the clear biblical evidence of change in divine emotions with circumstances.
But as far as changeable passions, there is clearly the repeated OT phrase that God Himself often says about being “provoked to wrath”, by various things, showing clearly that change in His emotions takes place caused by what others do.
And then there is this next verse after Gen 6:6 that clearly has God responding with a decision because of an event and His emotional response to it. It would be illogical and unscriptural to say that God was eternally “sorry” that He made man. Right?
Genesis 6:7 NKJV — So the LORD said, “I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man and beast, creeping thing and birds of the air, 👉for I am sorry👈 that I have made them.”
Brian
The Calvinist interpretation of Gen 6:6 is that God’s Word does not mean what it says there!
br.d
Exactly!
Because – to read that verse literally – would be a contradiction of the doctrine of decrees.
My point to Roland – was in reference to the Calvinist interpretation of Proverbs 16:4 where it says “The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil”
The NON-Calvinist does not presuppose the Calvinist doctrine of decrees.
Therefore he does not interpret that verse as saying that specific people are specifically created as wicked and specifically created for the day of evil.
Brian – I have a question for you.
It is my very frequent experience – when in dialog with a Calvinist over scripture – the Calvinist will not acknowledge what he has is an INTERPRETATION of the text.
I am consistently getting a response from Calvinists that goes somewhat like the following:
“I don’t INTERPRET the text., I just read what the text says. And the text clearly says [Insert Calvinist doctrine here]
I suspect you get that response a great deal as well?
Yes, BrD, I get that response sometimes … but mostly from those who, like Calvin, think they are always right about everything the Scripture says, but really don’t know how to prove their interpretations from using normal rules of grammar and context. They just quote party line interpretation without question or personal research. And they reject even considering the arguments posed from grammar and context, because the already assume our scholarship is deficient.
Brian,
With all due respect to you Brian, my personal opinion only, I think the grammar lessons sometimes miss the mark. It misses the spiritual interpretation, while only focusing on the carnal moment. There are a lot of Greek grammar experts out there that can’t even agree on certain things. It just all depends on the denomination that one is educated from.
Case in point…Original Sin. What’s the grammar there?
Grammar is only one tool in a SET of tools to come to the best conclusions and meaning of scripture. One cannot build a house with only a nail gun. You need screws, wiring, adhesives, scaffolding, ducts, insulation, a foundation etc….at the same time you can’t build the house WITHOUT the nail gun (or some sort of equivalent to it). To properly understand scripture, it has to run through a number of OBJECTIVE filters. To name a few, words have meanings, so we have to know the intended meanings of the words. Context, literary style, and use of logic (for example if 2 verses contradict each other the scripture isn’t contradicting, it is the interpretation that needs correcting) are some of the filters that Scripture should be analyzed with.
So, the house that Jesus builds. Does it require nails? I know it requires paint, cuz Jesus said, “re-paint, and thin no more”.
King Solomon was the son of David who built the house of God.
In this case, throw out the grammar, because this isn’t about Solomon at all. In the carnal moment, yes, but not in the bigger picture. It’s about David, playing the role of God, the father, and Solomon, the son of David, playing the role of the Jesus, the son of God, building the house of God without hands.
You can see the spiritual in the carnal moment.
Where’s the grammar needed here?
I’d just say that the account was written in words, in a structured sentence, and each word has meaning and the structure of the sentence is meant to organize the words into an idea. That is what grammar is. So the very conclusion you came to unavoidably had to include the use of grammar.
I’m not discussing “basic” grammar. Take for example the famous Eph 1:4, where the calvinists put a period after the word “us”. The sentence structure reveals that God doesn’t choose anyone, but he chose that we…, the words to the right of that we is what was chosen. I get it, sentence structure and grammar. However, that isn’t what I’m discussing.
I’d just say that just because you don’t need the nail gun during electrical wiring doesn’t mean it isn’t a needed tool in the big picture of building the house. For some tasks it is appropriate, for others it isn’t needed. Just because there are times it isn’t needed doesn’t make it invalid as a useful tool.
I would agree more with Brian’s response to your question than I would with Calvin or Gill. I’m very familiar with the controversy within Reformed circles regarding Divine impassibility or passibility, whichever one prefers. Rob Lister’s book has been the most helpful for me regarding this issue. I reject the Thomistic understanding of God’s nature or essence and would seek to follow a more biblical understanding of God’s essence than a philosophical, or would I believe Scripture would call a natural understanding of God.
I believe when WCF 2:1 God “without body, parts, or passions,” I believe the word passions should be understood as sinful passions or emotions. God does not have sinful emotions but I believe He does have emotions because the Bible reveals to us that He has emotions. I’m cautious to use this language because I believe emotions imply change, change implies imperfection, and God is perfect in being. My personal interpretation is that God did feel sorry but not in a sinful way.
The mistake in your thinking is ASSERTING that change implies imperfection. This would be true in determinism but is NOT true with freewill. Change can be in response to something outside of one’s direction. For example a parent can do everything right with their child, and their child STILL does wrong, and the parent, STILL ACTING as a good parent and doing only right, changes in response to what the child is doing. They weren’t imperfect in their original strategy, and they aren’t wrong to change to a different one to illicit change in the child in response. Indeed, God does this very thing with Israel!
Isaiah 5:4 What could have been done more to my vineyard, that I have not done in it? wherefore, when I looked that it should bring forth grapes, brought it forth wild grapes?
Isaiah 5:5 And now go to; I will tell you what I will do to my vineyard: I will take away the hedge thereof, and it shall be eaten up; and break down the wall thereof, and it shall be trodden down:
Isaiah 5:6 And I will lay it waste: it shall not be pruned, nor digged; but there shall come up briers and thorns: I will also command the clouds that they rain no rain upon it.
Isaiah 5:7 For the vineyard of the LORD of hosts is the house of Israel, and the men of Judah his pleasant plant: and he looked for judgment, but behold oppression; for righteousness, but behold a cry.
Notice, He Himself says He did everything He could do, BUT THEY didn’t bring forth what He wanted from them. So He changed what He was doing. This doesn’t make Him imperfect. Notice He did EVERYTHING He COULD do. Surely it is in His power to just FORCE and CONTROL them to bring forth what He wanted, but He didn’t? Why? Because it is WRONG to force free creatures and override their will, and God CANNOT be unrighteous and go against His own character. This makes perfect sense with freewill, but makes NO SENSE with determinism.
“Because it is WRONG to force free creatures and override their will, and God CANNOT be unrighteous and go against His own character.”
Roland
Proverbs 21:1The king’s heart is in the hand of the Lord,
Like the rivers of water;
He turns it wherever He wishes.
Roland
Because it is WRONG to force free creatures and override their will.
br.d
John Calvin has something to say to you
John Calvin
-quote
The devil, and the whole train of the ungodly……can neither conceive any mischief, nor plan what they have conceived, nor how they may have planned, move a single finger to perpetrate, unless in so far as he….COMMANDS. They are not only bound by His fetters but are even FORCED to do him service.” (Institutes I, 17, 11)
Secondly – it is logically impossible for Calvin’s god to “override” something he meticulously determines.
And in Calvinism – humans have no control over their will – because their will is determined by antecedent factors which are totally outside of their control. In Calvinism’s case – the antecedent factor is an infallible decree.
Thirdly – in order to MAKE people be and do what he wants them to be and do – does not require force.
All Calvin’s god has to do – is for every human event – and every human impulse – grant ONE SINGLE PREDESTINED RENDERED-CERTAIN option – in which man is granted NO CHOICE in the matter of.
I don’t have to force you to murder someone.
All I have to do is decree the impulse to infallibly come to pass within your brain.
And that decree does not permit any ALTERNATIVE impulse to come to pass within your brain.
You have NO CHOICE in the matter – because you have NO CHOICE in the matter of the impulses I decree to come to pass in your brain.
“So He changed what He was doing. This doesn’t make Him imperfect.”
roland
No but it implies imperfection. Any thing that is becoming implies it is imperfect. In the text you cited, IS God the perfect vineyard keeper? Or is He BECOMING the perfect vineyard keeper?
Herman Bavinck discussing God’s immutability wrote this:
“Absolute being is because it is. The idea of God itself implies immutability. Neither increase nor diminution is conceivable with respect to God. He cannot change for better or worse, for he is the absolute, the complete, the true being. Becoming is an attribute of creatures, a form of change in space and time. But God is who he is, eternally transcendent over space and time and far exalted above every creature. He rests within himself and is for that very reason the ultimate goal and resting place of all creatures, the Rock of their salvation, whose work is complete. This who predicate any change whatsoever of God, whether with respect to his essence, knowledge, or will, diminish all his attributes: independence, simplicity, eternity, omniscience, and omnipotence. This robs of God of his divine nature, and religion of its firm foundation and assured comfort.”
Bavinck Reformed Dogmatics: God and Creation Vol. 2, 158.
I might add, atheists do a similar thing with materialism to explain their world view. They a priori rule out any supernatural or non-material causes before analyzing data and coming to conclusions about claims, and thus run into a ton of problems with their conclusions. Similarly, Calvinists a priori rule out freewill as a possibility and come to various flawed conclusions in their theology. If atheists plugged God into their equations their problems disappear, and if Calvinists just plugged in freewill to their equation all the problems in their theology would disappear.
A2A
“if Calvinists just plugged in freewill to their equation all the problems in their theology would disappear.”
roland
Then you distort God’s character by making DEPENDENT on freewill creatures to act. Under libertarian freewill theology God is DEPENDENT and REACTIONARY to the choices of creaturely freewill. He’s no longer the Biblical God.
roland
Then you distort God’s character by making DEPENDENT on freewill creatures to act
br.d
So YOUR brain is not granted the function of discerning whether any matter is TRUE or FALSE
Because in such case your brain would be performing a freewill act.
In other words – your brain would be performing an act which Calvin’s god did not decree.
br.d
So YOUR brain is not granted the function of discerning whether any matter is TRUE or FALSE
Because in such case your brain would be performing a freewill act.
roland
God commands us to discern true matters from false matters. We don’t do so freely, without any constraint of our human nature. Since you believe human nature is good, you conclude that men have libertarian freewill without any constraint from our human nature. I believe what the Bible says about human nature, we are not good, therefore, our “freewill” is constrained by our fallen human nature.
God has granted us this notion but we can truly never please God in our fallen state. That is why Christ came to free us from the slavery and bondage of sin. We are beginning this discussion from two different presuppositions. You presuppose human nature as good, free. I presuppose human nature as it is revealed in Scripture, sinful, in bondage, in need of redemption, in darkness, in need of illumination, etc.
roland
God commands us to discern true matters from false matters
br,d
AH! But in Calvinism that command is Calvin’s god ENUNCIATED will only.
Calvin’s god also commands you not to sin after he has SECRETLY decreed that you will infallibly sin.
It is not his command that determines what will come to pass within YOUR brain
It is his infallible decree which determines what will come to pass within YOUR brain
His SECRET will doesn’t permit YOUR brain do discern TRUE from FALSE – because that would be granting YOUR brain a LIBERTARIAN function.
Remember – in Calvinism – NOTHING HAPPENS that is not knowingly and willingly decreed.
So lets say someone asks you a question about the Bible
And Calvin’s god decrees the your brain will PERCEIVE the answer to the question as TRUE – when it is actually FALSE
Did Calvin’s god grant your brain the function of discerning TRUE from FALSE in that circumstance?
br.d
“Remember – in Calvinism – NOTHING HAPPENS that is not knowingly and willingly decreed.”
roland
The problem all non-calvinists have is this: they press God’s decree, God’s use of means to accomplish His ends, and His interaction with creation into one thing. When the non-calvinists hears that God decreed a particular event, in this case a person discerning truth from false, it is one step. Decree to action. That is not how the Bible has revealed to us how God’s has decreed or declared the beginning to the end, or as Paul put in Ephesians 1, God works all things after the counsel of His own will. Yes, I believe God works “all things.”
The manner in which God’s decree is manifested in creation is analogical to God speaking to us. Hebrews 1:1 God, who at VARIOUS TIMES and in VARIOUS WAYS spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets,
Under your belief of how God spoke to humanity, you seems to be saying that God cannot speak to us in this manner, various times and various ways. God must speak directly to us. God could have done this and at times He has. But He also used events, dreams, angels, prophets, apostles, disciples, and most importantly according to Hebrews 1:1, His Son.
Analogically, God’s decree is accomplished by various means. At times it is direct, other times He uses secondary causes, our nature, etc. This is why non-calvinists say things like, in Calvinism we are just robots. We have no freewill, etc. The prophets were not just microphones for God to speak to us. God used their situations in life, their characters, their education, their historical context, etc. all times and all ways to communicate His Word to us.
Roland… Please consider this interpretation as legitimate for Eph 1:11 based on grammar and context.
Ephesians 1:11 NKJV — In Him also we have obtained [when we were placed in Him through faith] an inheritance, being predestined [for that inheritance at that same moment we were placed in Him through faith] according to the purpose [with its conditional and unconditional parts] of Him who works [right now in the present] all things [that is, works with all things, not causing all things personally, because He doesn’t cause sin] according to the counsel [His plan with its conditional and unconditional parts] of His will [His desire… which includes wanting all to be saved and coming to a knowledge of the truth but not irresistibly caused].
Think of it as being “in” the will. The inheritance is yours once you’re “in” the will. Even before you receive it personally, you are predestined for it once you are made a legitimate heir.
A will/purpose can be written before any specific children are even born or adopted into the family, prescribing that all children born or adopted will be predestined for the inheritance in their future “after” they are born or adopted into the family but before the benefits are distributed. Once born or adopted, then they are “in” the will. That’s what corporate election means and being predestined to receive the inheritance.
So the child can say once they are “in” the family – “I have obtained an inheritance that was predestined for me (generally speaking but now individually applied) in a will/purpose decided long ago for all those added to this family after they are added.
The words “counsel of His will” mean God is not locked in and limited to a predestined plan with no conditions or possibilities, but that He can now still freely choose between possibilities, and permit man to choose between possibilities, as He “works” it all to demonstrate His love, truth, and righteousness.
Brian
and permit man to choose between possibilities,
br.d
There is is Roland!
The function of choosing between possibilities (such as TRUE vs FALSE concerning a Bible question) – is what Jon Edwards called “THE LIBERTY OF INDIFFERENCE”
Jon Edwards
-quote
Such a property of the human will really amounts to the LIBERTY OF INDIFFERENCE.
For if the will be in a condition, by which it is fitted or liable to turn EITHER WAY then ***it cannot be already inclined by a preponderating bias in one direction***
Jon Edwards
-quote
According to this scheme [i.e. the human mind’s ability to choose between TRUE and FALSE] it must be in a state of EQUIPOISE OR INDIFFERENCE. Then ***most clearly the will is NOT DETERMINED either way by anything without or within.
In other words – the process of YOUR brain discerning between TRUE and FALSE – INDEPENDENT of Calvin’s god decreeing what your perception would be – would constitute a situation in which YOUR will is NOT DETERMINED either way
Calvinist A.A. Hodge agrees and says
-quote
If LIBERTY OF INDIFFERENCE be the true theory of the will, god could not execute his decree without violating the liberty of the agent……(Outlines of Theology – pg 210)
Calvinist Robert L. Reymond – also agrees and calls the process “Free Contingency” .
-quote
such ‘free contingencies’ do not and cannot even exist – because they do not exist in god’s mind as an aspect of the universe – WHOSE EVERY EVENT HE CERTAINLY DECREED – creatively caused and completely and providentially governs.” (A New Systematic Theology Of The Christian Faith p. 189
The Oxford Handbook on Free-Will says it this way
-quote
In a deterministic universe, one can never truthfully utter the sentence: I COULD HAVE DONE OTHERWISE
In such a universes, one can never really take credit
Since in fact ***ALL*** events have been predetermined.
Therefore it follows – the Calvinist brain is not granted the function of discerning TRUE from FALSE on any matter – because that would constitute a LIBERTARIAN function – which does not exist in Calvinism.
Brian, thank you for your response. I did consider your interpretation based on grammar and context. I have noticed this often with non-Calvinists and interpretation. I used to do this myself as an adult Sunday School teacher when I used to believe that God gave us LFW. Your interpretation, to me, seems to explain away the simple reading of Ephesians 1:11. All the words you put in brackets, as I understand, change the original meaning of Paul’s text. When non-calvinists do this, when I used to do this, I would often ask myself whether God has spoken clearly enough in Scripture or does God need our interpretations to communicate clearly to humans?
Do interpretations of Scripture stand as intermediaries and its hearers?
If so, does this mean that God has failed to clearly communicate His message to His creatures?
Thank you for reading.
Roland, Unfortunately your response did not point out any specific thing in my comments which I put in parentheses which went against the grammar and context of that verse. I contend that what I added supported the “simple reading” of the text.
I’m guessing you can’t give any “simple reading” of your own without adding parenthetical comments also. Take away what I put in parentheses, and both of us still say we believe exactly what the verse says! Right?
Yes, some verses of Paul “are hard too understand”, as Peter clearly said in 2Pet 3:16. So all things are not clear in Scripture, but normal rules of grammar and context, and other clear verses help with interpreting difficult verses. Right?
Brian, still considering your comments about Ephesians 1:11. Musing through them. One disadvantage I have, and an advantage you have, is that I don’t read Greek. I would have to consult commentaries or some other source to get a better understanding of the grammar and context. Which means it is really not my reading of the original language that I would be bringing to the discussion but someone who reads the original language and I agree with their commentary.
Brian
“I’m guessing you can’t give any “simple reading” of your own without adding parenthetical comments also.”
Roland
Agree.
Brian
Take away what I put in parentheses, and both of us still say we believe exactly what the verse says! Right?
Roland
Agree as well. I don’t believe anything I say regarding a text will change what you believe Ephesians 1:11 says.
Brian
So all things are not clear in Scripture, but normal rules of grammar and context, and other clear verses help with interpreting difficult verses. Right?
roland
Agree with you as well. Clearer verses help to interpret more difficult verses. The difference we have is that we cannot agree on what verses are “clear” and “difficult.”
Thanks for reading, good day!
So, Roland, because of the terms in Eph 1:11, like predestined, inheritance, purpose, counsel, and will are stated without much definition, would you agree that this verse is not really one of the clear ones, except to say those in Christ are predestined for an inheritance by God who is presently working in/with, not causing, all things according to His purpose, counsel, and will? You would agree that working all things would not include causing sin, right, but would include working with the sins caused by others to only cause or permit the opportunity for good?
So if you know how to use a concordance or even how to find all verses that use the same Greek word for each of those other terms, do you think you could figure out, without commentaries, if God’s purpose, counsel, or will are ever with conditional elements that sometimes go unfulfilled or get changed?
And thank you for reading what I have written and for responding directly! 🤓
I disagree. I believe Ephesians 1:1-14 is one of the clearest declarations of God working in us to bring about His will for the salvation of the elect. The word predestine is clearly defined. Believers are the object of God’s predestination and election. To predestine means to predetermine preordain, to mark out before hand. Non-calvinsts believe the means or the goals, as you wrote in your commentary on Ephesians 1:11, the inheritance, are predestined. But in Ephesians 1 the predestinating work of God is believers. ‘He chose us’ verse 4. ‘Having predestined us’ verse 5. ‘He made us’ verses 6,8,9. I believe it is clear.
I agree God is not the cause of sin.
Brian:
if God’s purpose, counsel, or will are ever with conditional elements that sometimes go unfulfilled or get changed?
roland:
I don’t know. I’m reluctant to attribute change or it going unfulfilled to God’s will. This makes God out to be a failure. I don’t think either of us would attribute failure to God. If God can fail at any point in His desires, wishes, will, plan, etc. than what certainty would we have of God? Could we have certainty of God? If God can fail, is He faithful? If God can fail, can we trust Him? Thanks for reading, hopefully I provided some substance to which you were expecting. If not, please mark out where you believe I have not provided answers to your questions. I’ll try to answer them as best as I can.
Roland
To predestine means to predetermine preordain, to mark out before hand
br.d
Roland – I have a question for you.
In your version of Calvinism – what percentage of whatsoever comes to pass is predestined?
Thank you Roland for your thoughtful response. I think Calvinists read too much into Eph 1 as pointing to individual election and predestination of blessings to individuals without thinking it through logically or looking more closely at the grammar and context. But first let me say that defining “failure” is important. God will never fail in fulfilling unconditional promises, but He will and has allowed His expectations to “fail” so that He could succeed in creating a covenant love relationship that requires free will decisions.
Here’s my take on – Eph 1, 4&5 – Individual Election was not before creation!
Determinists have always tried to read too much into these verses that Paul wrote in a context about blessings we now have, now that we are in Christ. Some of those blessings were given to Him (the only Elect one) before creation, to be shared with all who would later be joined to Him and become one of the elect in Him. The ones in verses 4 and 5 are such blessings… Verse four is not about being chosen in Christ, but chosen in Christ “to be” holy and blameless.
The pronoun “us” is being used in both verses, 4&5, in a general reference, anachronistic sense, like me saying – “The Native Americans were chased by us before the Revolution so that they would live west of the Appalachian Mtn range.”
Another similar example would be the Levites in David’s day who were chosen to carry the ark. David said, as recorded in 1Chr 15:2 – “No one but the Levites may carry the ark of God, because the Lord chose them to carry the ark of the Lord and to minister before him forever.”
Any Levite that day could have said to another Levite – “God chose us in Aaron, before Israel entered the promised land, that we should carry the ark of the Lord and to minister before him forever.” Of course, he would not have had the thought that God had his name written down in a book during Aaron’s time, along with the names of all future Levites. He would not think that he individually or physically would be ministering before the Lord forever in this special task as a priest. He would just be using the “us” as a pronoun of reference with a corporate connection because of the promise made to Aaron, and because of his being added into Aaron’s lineage by physical birth.
We say, with Paul, we have the same privileges/blessings granted to the Son of God before creation that would go to any in His lineage. This is just like a written will grants privileges to children not yet conceived or even thought about, the privileges granted to Jesus before creation were made available then to all who would be born again through personal faith. Those inheritance privileges are now ours individually, since we are now individually joined to Him by spiritual birth through our personal faith. We now have the blessing to stand holy and blameless before God as one of God’s chosen in the Chosen One – Christ, and we are now predestined for the inheritance that all sons receive.
********
Questions to ask a determinist:
When God supposedly “chose” you before creation, were you unchosen at some point and then chosen, according to the normal meaning of that word? What did God see when He supposedly chose you… just your name, your life up to some point where He decided He wanted to get involved noticeably to you, or your whole life forever and all His involvement in it already? In other words, what does “you” mean when He chose “you” back then before you even existed? Trying to answer these questions will hopefully help a determinist see they are being dogmatic about a premise – determinism – that Paul wasn’t even trying to teach about in this passage, and which is illogical when using the words “chose… before the foundation of the world”, if no actual choice of any individuals, who didn’t even exist back then, was made.
Here’s a good 10min video discussion in support of this! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FxHfnqLBmg
Brian
Determinists have always tried to read too much into these verses
br.d
Correct me if I’m wrong – but I believe in Biblical scholarship this is called:
Having a Canon within a Canon
The Calvinist mind is conditioned to embrace Determinism as Canon.
With his mind conditioned this way – the Canon of scripture must conform to Calvinism’s Canon of Determinism.
So when the Calvinist says he is comparing scripture with scripture – what he is doing is using Determinism as a kind of plum-line – which scripture is required to line up to – in order to be rightly understood.
The Non-Calvinist mind has not been conditioned to embrace Determinism as Canon.
So he doe not read Determinism INTO the text of Ephesians the way the Calvinist mind is conditioned to do.
Br.D My understanding of Canon within the Canon (as Luther coined the phrase, I think) is usually seen as making some books of the Bible or sections of the Bible the rule/canon by which to judge other books or sections. I don’t think it means reading theology into the canon of Scripture. Actually the determinist, imo, whether he knows it or not, has adopted the canons of neo-platonism, Augustinian theology, and the WCF by which to judge the canon/authority and teaching of Scripture.
Yes
Thanks for the correct on where the “Canon within Canon” came from.
And yes I agree – Determinism (as found within NeoPlatonism) functions as a form of Canon for the Calvinist.
Neoplatonism and Christianity (Wikipedia – free encyclopedia)
-quote
Neoplatonism was a major influence on Christian theology throughout Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages in the West. This was due to St. Augustine of Hippo…
Brian, here’s my best interpretation of Ephesians 1:11. My comments are in brackets.
11 In Him also we have obtained an inheritance [I would agree with you that being placed in Christ does require faith on the believer’s part, however, I would also add that faith is a gift given to the elect. While this portion doesn’t specifically refer to God’s work in bringing us to Christ. Colossians 1:12 does so by God qualifying us to be partakers. The word to qualify means to make sufficient, render fit, qualify. It is God who makes us fit and sufficient to be partakers of God’s inheritance. I believe Colossians 1:12 is a parallel passage of God’s inheritance for the believer and sheds more light on Ephesians 1:11.]
being predestined [I would agree that part of God’s purpose is the inheritance but the subject of predestination is the elect, believers. I would add that the “we” is the same as the group “being predestined.”
according to the purpose [the plan, the setting forth, proposal of God. You wrote that God is not “locked in and limited.” I would reject your word choice. If God promises a blessing to someone, is He “locked in and limited” by His promise? I would say no because He freely chose to promise. Your choice of words carries with it a pejorative sentiment. “Locked in and limited” sounds to me like someone who is forced or coerced into doing something. As if God made decisions He was not pleased to make and is now “locked in and limited” to those unpleasant decisions.]
of Him who works all things [Agree with you regarding God not being the cause of sin as WCF 3.1 states. He is active in all things. Even good or evil Zeph. 1:12].
according to the counsel [the deliberate wisdom of God] of His will [disagree with God wishing or desiring all to be saved. I believe this raises too many issues as the purpose of God’s saving plan, His omnipotence and omniscience. If God has perfect knowledge of all those who will be saved, why would He will, desire, or wish for something He knows cannot happen? If God is omnipotent, and He wants all to be saved, then why doesn’t He exercise His power to save all? I know how I answered these questions when I used to teach youth group as a proponent of LFW. This creates analogies for God that make Him out to seem unloving.]
Thanks for reading, have a blessed day!
Calvinists cannot even hear themselves. No one thinks this way but them.
“[I would agree with you that being placed in Christ does require faith on the believer’s part, however, I would also add that faith is a gift given to the elect.”
So, “faith” is given to someone….but we dont have that as a reality anywhere in life. Children have faith the parent will put food in front of them or pick them up from school. Animals have faith that an owner will…… I have faith in my wife. Nobody ever “gives faith” to someone. that is the fundamental definition of the word! So silly!
But what’s even crazier is that, per Calvinism, once a person is allegedly given this faith—– he cannot NOT use it. His decision is forced on him in every way.
Cant have faith unless God gives it, and MUST use faith once he has it. We see that exactly nowhere.
That concept makes a mockery of Hebrews 11 where it appears that God’s intention is to call out the personal faith of many in order to encourage faith in us.
Exactly FOH – And Calvinists don’t know what to do with the shallow and thorny soils, who evidence positive faith reactions to God’s Word in their hearts, when as unregenerate they are supposed to be unable to believe and are to be totally opposed to God’s Word until they get a regenerated will. But even the devil knows the hard soil is able to believe and be saved (Luke 8:12)! It seems to me those hearts in that parable only need to break up the hardness, let a deep root of faith commitment be formed, and repent of the cares that keep them from fully trusting what the Word is calling them to trust, for them to become good soil!
FOH
So, “faith” is given to someone….but we dont have that as a reality anywhere in life. Children have faith the parent will put food in front of them or pick them up from school. Animals have faith that an owner will…… I have faith in my wife. Nobody ever “gives faith” to someone. that is the fundamental definition of the word! So silly!
roland
In the context of the conversation I mean faith in Christ. Faith in Christ, when we believe in Christ for the forgiveness of sins and eternal life, is a gift from God. Ephesians 2:8-9
Does God give faith to everyone ever born? If so, then why do some exercise or put it in Christ and others don’t? What is the distinction between the one who believes and the one who doesn’t?
FOH
Cant have faith unless God gives it, and MUST use faith once he has it. We see that exactly nowhere.
roland
It is not we MUST use faith. It is we WANT to use faith. You said you were a former Calvinist. As a former Calvinist you should know that in Calvinism regeneration precedes faith. This is why I doubt a lot of former “Calvinists” especially Dr. Flowers. It seems from the way they speak and write that they misunderstood it. This is an example I believe of former calvinists not understanding it. This is basic in Reformed soteriology regeneration precedes faith.
FOH
That concept makes a mockery of Hebrews 11 where it appears that God’s intention is to call out the personal faith of many in order to encourage faith in us.
roland
Hebrews 11 is about believers. It is a letter, more likely a sermon preserved, written to Jewish believers.
Do you believe Hebrews 11 is about everyone or believers?
I dont have time to properly respond (sermons to write). I need to be done now. Sorry if I have been ungracious in any way.
The word faith …..in any context…. is defined by all people the same way. But somehow Calvinists impose the authority to tease out “faith in Christ” from the definition of the word faith. Of course Eph 2:8-9 does not say faith is a gift (Greek grammar) and searching —-even Calvinist scholar sites—- will show that. But it just keeps being said.
Another repeated phrase “you just did not understand Calvinism” If I had a nickel!! Of course I understood “regeneration precedes faith” I just could not find biblical support for what I had been instructed to believe! No more cheap shots at us please saying we were not Calvinists or did not understand it.
Hebrews is not all “believers” as you want to make it be. Included in that group is Rahab who was NOT part of God’s CHOSEN people, but became part of God’s CHOSEN through faith.
I wish you could at least one time say, “I see your point.” The Scripture is saying that harlot, pagan Rahab had faith — (exercised faith!!) and became part of God’s CHOSEN people (and the line of Christ!). There is no mention there or anywhere in Scripture that her faith (or any like it) was some special gift of God.
You can see that if you will allow yourself.
I pray that you will make the choice to see that.
FOH
Of course I understood “regeneration precedes faith” I just could not find biblical support for what I had been instructed to believe! No more cheap shots at us please saying we were not Calvinists or did not understand it.
roland
I believe I wrote that I am SUSPICIOUS of former Calvinists ever being Calvinists. I do not believe that I can tell someone, “you were never a Calvinist.” I didn’t know you then. I can only discern from the statements made on this website. When I read former Calvinists say certain things about Calvinism, and they sound completely off, then I get suspicious of how they understood Calvinism or if they really ever believed it. Not trying to take cheap shots at anybody.
Thanks Roland for your thoughtful interaction. Yes the issue is whether the future was a locked in and limited set of events in God’s mind which He had to decree (even that decreeing was something He had to do) according to the Reformed worldview, because it would be impossible for Him to decree something less “perfect” in their thinking, and they think one set future of events that work out only one way is what is “perfect”. So there really are no possibilities in God’s omniscience that God could have done, not even the possibility of not creating anything, for God could not avoid what is the so-called “perfect”.
But I see His Word clearly teaching a future in His mind that is partly open still with possibilities, including that no one is born without the possibility of exercising faith to be able to seek God and His mercy when He gives them light to do so, which He gives to everyone. That is according to His desires, and according to His purpose which has open elements in it! Thanks for the conversation. I have nothing more to add, unless you wish for Scriptural evidence that shows God’s mind in univocally tied to His Word which clearly portrays a future that is still partly undetermined, and that God is still making freewill decisions in it.
Brian
I have nothing more to add, unless you wish for Scriptural evidence that shows God’s mind in univocally tied to His Word which clearly portrays a future that is still partly undetermined, and that God is still making freewill decisions in it.
roland
I think you’ve shared with me some Scriptural evidence regarding God’s mind such as learning what Adam would name the animals and a few others. I do have one more question. I may have asked you this before but I can’t remember.
Would your position regarding the future being partly undetermined be Molinism or open theism?
If neither of these terms is proper to your position, then be free (sorry, as a determinist I do use this word occasionally) to express your position. I would appreciate it. Thanks for your kind responses, I often feel ridiculed here (here’s when the comments about being a victim come in) but I enjoy the dialogue. You’ve been gracious, hopefully I have been, and I wish all Christians would be gracious with believer and non-believer alike. Thanks again!
I’ve only felt you as being gracious, Roland, in our discussions. As for identifying as an Open Theist and not a Molinist –
Well, imo, there are many errant definitions of open theism out there, and many open theists that do not believe in inerrancy, like I believe in it. Inerrancy is not foundational to the definition of open theism, but the rejection of it by many of them has given it a bad rep.
The ETS (Evangelical Theological Society) accepts open theist members who hold to inerrancy, and many good theologians (like Erickson and Smith) see it as welcome to the biblical/theological discussion of God’s nature.
The encyclopedia of philosophy gives it this definition – “Open Theism is the thesis that, because God loves us and desires that we freely choose to reciprocate His love, He has made His knowledge of, and plans for, the future conditional upon our actions. Though omniscient, God does not know what we will freely do in the future.”
If that is what you were thinking when you thought I was an “open theist”, then you are correct, if limited to that definition. I like the term “dynamic omniscience” better. I would even add some words to that last sentence – “Though omniscient, God does not know *the outcome of* what we will freely do in the future, *but He knows all the possible outcomes that He and we will have to choose between in the future*.”
Here’s a good short video that might help. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3qgsT1ud3g&list=PLbwaafqKD0KtakaDyg-b4BFzfbfvQPRMz&index=1
Last question, thanks for the video, I did watch it. Here’s your quote
“Though omniscient, God does not know *the outcome of* what we will freely do in the future, *but He knows all the possible outcomes that He and we will have to choose between in the future*.”
This seems similar to the Calvinist’s dilemma of God decreeing all things yet not being the author of sin. The accusation is that this statement is not logical nor biblical etc. I find it difficult to escape the accusation.
Your statement above that God is omniscient (knows all things) yet does not know “the outcome of” the future seems like the Calvinist’s dilemma.
How do you answer the charge the it is illogical or unbiblical for God to be omniscient (know all things) yet not know some things?
If there is a resource that you can point me to, that would help. Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions.
Thank you Roland for your “last question”, though feel free to contact me directly – brianwagner@vbc.edu – if you wish to discuss further this topic. The issue indeed is how to define “all things” and “future”. If the future is defined as partly open with possibilities and partly closed with some predeterminations, then the “all things” about that future can not also include knowing only one set of outcomes working out only one way, for that would be knowing contradictory things simultaneously.
Yes, it would be similar to the real contradiction of the WCF, if knowing all things meant knowing both all things predetermined or set to work out only one way and knowing some things not predetermined or set to work out only one way. In the WCF God decrees all things including sin but the WCF wants the word decree not to include “authoring” sin. But if God’s decree “writes” the future to turn out only one way, then how is God not the author of every part of that future, including sins, unless something else forced Him to decree something about the future that someone else before creation wrote/authored, which we know cannot be true.
But God the all things that God knows is not contradictory, for it is illogical to know both a future defined as one set of outcomes and a future with partly unset outcomes, known only as possibilities. And that knowledge of the future is dynamic, and keeps changing in God’s mind, as God determines among the still open possibilities what to cause and what to allow.
The article all these comments are in response to is about conflation. It is simple. Calvinists conflate foreknowledge with causation. Knowing something doesn’t cause it. Me knowing if I drop an egg on the floor it will break doesn’t cause it to break, me dropping the egg on the floor causes it. My knowledge of what would happen did not have any affect on the outcome.
Someone can tell me the outcome of a sports game I haven’t yet watched. Does me knowing the result of the game mean I was on the field, playing it?
Knowing does not equal causing. They are 2 different words, with 2 different meanings.
A2A
Calvinists conflate foreknowledge with causation. Knowing something doesn’t cause it.
roland
I would be surprised if you could find a quote from a prominent Reformed theologian who conflates foreknowledge with causation. The article doesn’t supply one quote from a prominent Reformed theologian, pastor, professor, who says what the author of the article says we do.
quote from the article: “With this background in mind, it is no wonder that many in the Reformed camp have no problem with conflating arguments.”
The author of the article just committed the logical fallacy of the undistributed middle. Just because the Reformers committed this mistake of conflating state and church, it doesn’t follow that they conflate everything else.
quote from the article: “They have a long history of doing so. Though the Reformed do not conflate the magistrate and the clergy per se, they do conflate a number of things that the Bible assumes are separate.”
If we have such a long history, then the author should have provided us with a long list of examples! Where are they I ask? These are general statements about Reformed Christians without any basis the author is claiming he has. No basis. However, when non-Reformed Christians read statements such as these, they will whole-heartedly agree without any proof.
quote from the article: They combine man’s choice to repent and God’s choice to save all those who repent into a single action and call it salvation. That is conflation. (That is then followed by building a strawman of man’s so-called sovereignty).
How do we do so? Again, an example of this from a prominent Reformed pastor, theologian, professor would have been helpful.
quote from the article: This conflation comes at the expense of scriptural veracity. The Bible assumes man has a genuine choice in salvation, the Reformed reject it. The Bible assumes people can find favor with God prior to being saved, the Reformed reject it.
Scriptural veracity is threatened when we bring ASSUMPTIONS to the text of Scripture. “The Bible assumes…” how does the author know this assumption? He can’t know it from the Bible. He must have learned from outside the Bible. Because he says it is assumed. Yes, as a Reformed confessional Christian I would reject assumptions brought to Scripture in order to interpret Scripture.
Roland
The problem all non-calvinists have is this: they press God’s decree, God’s use of means to accomplish His ends, and His interaction with creation into one thing. When the non-calvinists hears that God decreed a particular event, in this case a person discerning truth from false, it is one step. Decree to action.
br.d
This tactic is simply an attempt to evade the issue.
As an evasion strategy – your strategy here is called QUESTION BEGGING
Your statement here PRESUPPOSES Calvin’s god grants YOUR brain the function of discerning TRUE from FALSE
I’ve already shown that such a function would constitute a LIBERTARIAN function
And you’ve acknowledged that in your belief system a LIBERTARIAN function is not Biblical and does not exist.
You stated that a LIBERTARIAN act or impulse or perception would be one which is -quote INDEPENDENT of god.
Which means INDEPENDENT of god’s determination.
So the current example we are not discussing is just exactly that:
Someone asks you a question about the Bible
Is your brain permitted to PERCEIVE an answer to that question – that is INDEPENDENT of Calvin’s god’s determination?
You’ve already correctly stated that cannot be the case in Calvinism – so the answer is NO
So in this example – the PERCEPTION in your brain – is NOT INDEPENDENT of Calvin’s god’s determination.
Accordingly – Calvin’s god determined your brain would PERCEIVE the answer to the question as TRUE – when the answer is actually FALSE
So here is the last question – which you need to answer
Did Calvin’s god grant your brain the function of discerning TRUE from FALSE in that circumstance?
br.d
Did Calvin’s god grant your brain the function of discerning TRUE from FALSE in that circumstance?
roland
No. By using the word “grant,” you are assuming that my brain is WILLING or SEEKING to discern true from false and that God either GRANTS me my desire or DENIES me my desire to discern. I would reject your use of the word “grant, ” as it implies too much in sinful fallen creatures. God created us with the ability to discern true from false. He decreed by various means that I would determine true from false but He did not grant me permission to do so because that implies that I am attempting to do so.
God decreed the laws of nature. I known by nature that 1 + 1 = 2. God decreed the law, God created me with the ability to discern true from false mathematical problems. He decreed in eternity past that the moment that the problem 1 + 1 = 2 presented itself before that I would discern that the answer is 2.
br.d
Did Calvin’s god grant your brain the function of discerning TRUE from FALSE in that circumstance?
roland
No.
br.d
Correct!
Because Calvin’s god does not grant a function which – as you stated – would make Calvin’s god DEPENDENT upon your freewill – and REACTIONARY to a choice your brain would make.
And you making a choice between TRUE and FALSE – would be what every serious Calvinist calls “CONTRARY CHOICE” – and what Jon Edwards called “THE LIBERTY OF INDIFFERENCE”
Jon Edwards
-quote
Such a property of the human will really amounts to the LIBERTY OF INDIFERENCE.
For if the will be in a condition, by which it is fitted or liable to turn EITHER WAY then it cannot be already inclined by a preponderating bias in one direction.
-quote
According to this scheme [i.e. Roland’s brain being granted the function of choosing TRUE and FALSE] it [i.e. Roland’s brain] must be in a state of equipoise or indifference. Then most clearly the will is NOT DETERMINED either way by anything without or within. (The freedom of the will – Chapter 11 – On the Power of Contrary Choice – pg 255)
br.d
Therefore – in order for your brain to discern TRUE from FALSE on a Bible question – requires your brain make a CHOICE between whether the answer to that question is TRUE or FALSE.
And that function is not granted to your brain – because that function would be an AUTONOMOUS LIBERTARIAN function – which as you claim – does not exist.
Roland
By using the word “grant,” you are assuming that my brain is WILLING or SEEKING to discern true from false and that God either GRANTS me my desire or DENIES me my desire to discern.
br.d
No – in Calvinism – your brain cannot have an impulse that is not determined by an infallible decree.
So whatever your brain is WILLING or SEEKING – is what Calvin’s god decreed it to WILL and SEEK.
And Calvin’s god only GRANTS what he decrees come to pass.
Roland
He decreed by various means that I would determine true from false
br.d
How easy it is for a Calvinist to deny his own doctrine.
When you were looking at the Bible – question – the PERCEPTION of the answer which came to pass within your brain was NOT DECREED by Calvin’s god?
I don’t think so! 😀
The Arminian view of divine foreknowledge – is called “SIMPLE” foreknowledge – where the theos foreknows by OBSERVATION
Calvin’s god foreknows – what PERCEPTION will to come to pass within your brain – concerning the Bible question – because he DECREED what PERCEPTION would come to pass within your brain – concerning the Bible question.
And in this case – he decreed your PERCEPTION to be a FALSE PERCEPTION.
Therefore – he did not grant you the function of discerning TRUE from FALSE in this circumstance.
Roland
God decreed the laws of nature. I know by nature that 1 + 1 = 2. God decreed the law,
br.d
Once again – you are back-pedaling the doctrine of decrees – appealing to an Arminian view of divine sovereignty.
Calvin’s god decrees WHATSOEVER COMES TO PASS
That WHATSOEVER includes every PERCEPTION which comes to pass within your brain.
Roland
God created me with the ability to discern true from false mathematical problems.
br.d
It is impossible for your brain to have a FALSE PERCEPTION of a math problem?
I don’t think so! :-]
And in such case – Calvin’s god decreed that FALSE PERCEPTION to come to pass.
And in the process – did not grant your brain the function of discerning TRUE from FALSE
It becomes obvious – your trying to have it both ways.
Your trying to claim there is no such thing as a function – in which Calvin’s god is DEPENDENT upon your freewill – and REACTIONARY to a choice you make.
But when it comes to you making a choice between TRUE and FALSE – you totally contradict yourself – and claim the opposite.
And we thank you for providing another example of how Calvinism is self-refuting! ;-D
Calvinist Jonathan Edwards is over-rated!
He was a slave holding, slavery-defending, infant-baptizing, John Locke loving, Calvinist who wrote:
“The God that holds you over the pit of hell, much as one holds a spider, or some loathsome insect over the fire, abhors you, and is dreadfully provoked: his wrath towards you burns like fire; he looks upon you as worthy of nothing else, but to be cast into the fire; he is of purer eyes than to bear to have you in his sight; you are ten thousand times more abominable in his eyes, than the most hateful venomous serpent is in ours.”
Yum.
Why he is revered by Calvinists is beyond me.
br.d
Yes!
But what he is describing – is logically consistent with EXHAUSTIVE DIVINE DETERMINISM (aka Calvinism)
Roland – and all Calvinists – are happy to agree with that statement UNLESS that statement is staring them in the face.
When that happens – they jump off the Calvinist podium and over to the NON-Calvinist podium.
Once the coast is clear – and the specter of the doctrine is no longer staring them in the face – they jump back over to the Calvinist posistion and continue making their bold declarations.
Its CALVINISM’S TAP-DANCE routine.
Just as long as the doctrine is not staring him the face – he comfortable making big bold declarations.
But the micro-second the doctrine is staring him in the face – he’s singing the opposite tune. ;-D
Roland
I’m cautious to use this language because I believe emotions imply change, change implies imperfection, and God is perfect in being.
br.d
Plato’s doctrine of divine immutability was very influential within the Catholic church of Augustine’s day.
Catholic priests called Plato the “Great Master”
Catholic priests would ring the church bells – on Plato’s birthday.
Plotinus was a teacher of Neo-Platonism (i.e The new Platonism)
He essentially turned some of Plato’s doctrines into religious form.
Augustine fell in love with the doctrines of Plotinus.
Since those doctrines were predicated on Platonic concepts – Augustine by synchronizing Neo-Platonism into Catholic doctrine – produces what we know today as Augustinian/Calvinism.
Academically known as EXHAUSTIVE DIVINE DETERMINISM
Roland – Proverbs 16:4 NKJV — The LORD has made all for Himself, Yes, even the wicked for the day of doom.
Calvinistic leaning translations don’t clarify what “for Himself” really means.
It literally means – God makes everything to literally – לַֽמַּעֲנֵ֑הו – “to answer to Him”. This is especially true for the wicked who will answer to God in a day of doom with which He will judge them. See Job 21:30, Jer 17:18. But the verse doesn’t teach they were made/born wicked to be destroyed later. The word “has made” is – פָּעַל – “works”. It has to do with working with something already made. It is not about creating something, and especially not inferring ordaining something before creation.
The LXX has this as verse 9 and translates it this way – “All of the works of the Lord [are done] with righteousness; and the ungodly [man] is kept for the evil day.”
The NIV has the right idea – [Pro 16:4 NIV] The LORD works out everything to its proper end–even the wicked for a day of disaster.
br.d
It pays to know the original language! :-]
br.d
Fair enough :-]
Hello Atheist2Apologist,
You said “If they truly weren’t hiding anything, they could just say we believe in the teachings of Calvin and all 5 points of TULIP. Plainly stated. They didn’t, and it tricked me.”
In order for Calvinism to spread, Calvinists have to rely on trickery and on softening/disguising what’s at the heart of Calvinism. (We watched the trickery and manipulation first-hand when our church got taken over by a stealthy Calvinist pastor.) Because if they came right out and said what Calvinism really believes at the heart of it (if they even thought that far, and most don’t, most are content with terrible contradictions and cognitive dissonance), many people would be so alarmed they would rebel or leave. And if they identified themselves clearly as Calvinists, people could research it online for themselves to see what’s it’s all about, which would blow their cover. They disguise/soften things to have time to suck people in and brainwash them.
And hello again Roland. You said “I wonder where John Calvin would get the idea that God created the wicked for the day of doom (evil)? Proverbs 16:4 4 The Lord has made all for Himself, Yes, even the wicked for the day of doom.”
In the Hebrews here, wicked is not a noun and does not mean anything like “non-elect” or “those predestined to hell.” It’s an adjective which basically describes one who is guilty of a crime or sin. That would be all of us. So if we take this verse as theologically literal as possible, it would mean all of us are held for a day of doom.
But I do not believe Proverbs is always meant to be so literal, such hard-core, “bottom-line” theology. If it was, then we could say that every plan we make and commit to the Lord would succeed, verse 3. And that every king detests wrongdoing, verse 12. Has there ever been a king who delighted in doing things that were wrong? And since verse 2 says that all of our ways seem innocent to us, it must mean that we all think abuse, murder, rape, stealing, cheating, etc. is innocent if we do it. Be careful about using poetic Proverbs as hard-core theology.
And here’s a question: Does Proverbs 16:4 say God caused/created them to be wicked? Or could it just be that He decided that the wicked will face a day of doom?
It’s one thing to believe that God will punish the wicked (biblical), but it’s another to believe that God created/caused them to be wicked (un-biblical).
Roland, you used Proverbs 21:1The king’s heart is in the hand of the Lord, Like the rivers of water; He turns it wherever He wishes.”
What is your interpretation of “He turns it wherever He wishes”? Do you think this means God controls/causes our thoughts and decisions and actions? (And if you are using Proverbs as hard-core theological truth, then notice that it says the KING’S heart is in God’s hands, not people in general.)
If so, what about Psalm 33:10 which says “The Lord nullifies the counsel of the nations; He frustrates the plans of the peoples.” If, as Calvinists believe, God controls all men’s wills, even down to the things we think and say and plan, then how can we have any “counsel” or “plans” that contradict God, to the point that He needs to nullify or frustrate them? Aren’t all “counsels” and “plans” from Him (according to Calvinism), if He causes all things and controls all men? Is He not then nullifying His own counsel and frustrating His own plans?
And Job 38:10-11 says that God “fixed the limits for [the sea] and set its doors and bars in place, then I said ‘This far you may come and no farther; here is where your proud waves halt.'” Why “fix limits” for the sea if He controls every wave of the sea anyway? Limits are only needed when there is freedom to move within those limits.
Roland: “Then you distort God’s character by making DEPENDENT on freewill creatures to act. ”
To me, this sounds like strategic wording, to say that free-will makes God DEPENDENT. Why can’t it just be that God Himself voluntarily chose to give people free-will because He wanted to, that He chose to allow us to make choices and He’d respond to us according to those choices?
It’s Calvinists, not Calvinists, who have decided that free-will equals a dependent God. It’s a strawman argument.
Correction: “It’s Calvinists, not NON-Calvinists, who have decided that free-will equals a dependent God.”
Roland: “Your interpretation, to me, seems to explain away the simple reading of Ephesians 1:11.”
I would say that Brian is right. A simple reading of Ephesians 1:11 in the KJV shows that the inheritance that believers get is what was predestined, not that the salvation of certain people was predestined.
And so the question is: what is the believer’s inheritance?
Whatever it is, I do not believe it can be predestined salvation – that certain elect people are prechosen to be saved, that they are saved before they believe and given the Holy Spirit in order to make them believe, as Calvinism teaches – because Ephesians 1:13 tells us that first we believe and then we get the Holy Spirit, the deposit who guarantees our inheritance, until our redemption. Inheritance is predestined, not who gets saved and who doesn’t.
Roland: “If so, does this mean that God has failed to clearly communicate His message to His creatures?”
I would turn that question back on Calvinists. If God says “Seek Me” but really means (according to Calvinists) “You can’t seek Me” … if He said He loves the world but only means a few people … if He said Jesus died for all men, to take away the sins of the world, when He really means the sins of just a few people … if He says He shows His love by sending Jesus to die for sinners but really means that He has two different kinds of love based on whether you are elect or not … if He commands obedience and belief but makes it impossible for most to obey and believe … if He told Adam and Eve to not eat the fruit when He really wanted/willed them to eat the fruit … if He requires justice, righteousness, obedience for His glory when He is really equally glorified by sin, injustice, unrighteousness, disobedience … etc. (I could go on and on) … doesn’t this mean that He failed to clearly communicate His message to His creatures?
Heather,
You are spot on as usual. But it means more than He miscommunicated. It means He intended to deceive.
Jesus proclaimed to a large crowd on a hillside, “Seek first the kingdom of God” (wink, wink, if you get empowered to do so…as for the rest of you….. well my words are only to taunt you).
The Bible says man can and should seek many times. But the Calvinist annuls all that by his interpretation of the poetry in Romans 3. They do not take the rest of that passage to mean what it says….only the once yank-out phrase that fits their position.
Fromoverhere: “But it means more than He miscommunicated. It means He intended to deceive.”
Good point! And what kind of a God would that make Him then? Certainly not one who is trustworthy or just or righteous.
In fact, the Bible tells us who “the deceiver” is, the father of lies and confusion: Satan.
I’m gonna jump in here and reply to some things Roland says (and you know I like you, Roland):
(This is gonna be long …)
Roland: “I would guess you are making the argument that God, either by His decree or permission or will, etc., does not bring any evil at all into creation…. God’s revelation is clear, God brings about evil in at least some ways. He wills, He wounds, He creates darkness, He creates calamity, etc.”
Heather: I think what we need to do here first is define evil. The thing is, those verses you quoted about God causing darkness, wounds, calamity, disaster, etc., are far different than the Calvinist idea that God preplans/causes humans to sin. But Calvinists have lumped moral sin/evil in with disasters, calamities, illness, etc. And then they claim that since God says He causes things like disasters, illness, etc., it must also mean He causes people to sin. But causing disasters, illness, etc. is nowhere near the same thing as God causing people to commit sins He told them not to commit. God can cause disasters/illness without being guilty of sin, but He cannot preplan/force/cause people to sin without being responsible for it.
And God can allow people to choose to be wicked/sinful and can work their sinful choices into His plans and still not be responsible for their sins – because He let them make their own choices first and then just incorporated their choices into His plans. And there is nothing wrong with Him making the most of their bad choices. But He cannot preplan/cause/control them to be wicked and to sin, giving them no choice to do anything differently, and yet not be responsible for it.
God does not preplan/cause/force someone to be sinful or to sin, but He can and does put us in situations that might force us to make our decision, to expose what’s already in our hearts, and He can and does work our self-chosen sins/wickedness into His plans.
Examples: God allowed Assyria to be the wicked people they wanted to be and He worked their wickedness into His plans to discipline Israel, but nowhere does it say that God caused them to be wicked. God allowed Pharoah to harden his heart (notice that for the first several plagues, Pharaoh hardened his own heart, and then God made Pharaoh’s choice permanent) and then God worked Pharaoh’s choice (God already knew what he would choose) into His plans to free the people in a dramatic way, but nowhere does it say that God preplanned/caused/forced Pharaoh to choose to resist Him. (God did harden Pharaoh’s heart after Pharaoh made his decision, solidifying Pharaoh’s decision, but Pharaoh chose first.) God knew the Jews would reject Jesus and so He planned a way to incorporate their wicked choices into His plans for the crucifixion, but the Bible does not say that God forced/caused them to be wicked or to reject Jesus.
Roland: “I would agree with Calvin, evil events cannot happen without God’s decree…. It is not Calvinism you are arguing against, it is Scripture.”
Heather: This is confusing/misleading because of the Calvinist definitions of “evil” and “decree.” Once again, Calvinists lump moral evils/sins in with calamities, disasters, illness, etc., and then say that since God causes disasters and illness, it must mean He causes sin too (and that if we disagree then we are questioning God’s sovereignty and denying Scripture). But disasters and illness and calamities and moral sins and moral evil, etc. do not all belong under the same one heading of “evil,” especially when it comes to causation. And Calvinists use the word “decrees,” which could sound to some people like “God knew it would happen and allowed it to happen anyway,” when what Calvinists really mean is that God preplanned, controlled, caused, forced it to happen and that nothing different could have happened (but they will deny that they mean “caused/forced”, even though there is no way around it in Calvinism). And so, no, it is not Scripture we are arguing against, but the Calvinist misinterpretation/twisting of Scripture, such as when they lump sin in with illness and call it all “evil,” saying God causes it all.
Roland: “God gave pharaoh a command through Moses that God made sure pharaoh would not be ABLE to obey! According to the non-calvinists understanding of this text, God would not have done such a thing. He would not have MADE sure that pharaoh would disobey Him. He would have only FOUND out that pharaoh disobeyed Him.”
Heather: Where in the Bible does it say that Pharaoh was unable, at first, to obey the command? God only hardened Pharaoh’s heart after Pharaoh hardened his own heart the first several plagues, making Pharaoh’s choice permanent. Calvinists have decided, though, that since God hardened Pharaoh’s heart in the later plagues, it must mean Pharaoh never had the ability to obey or to decide otherwise in the earlier plagues.
Also, it’s not quite fair (a strawman argument) to claim that non-Calvinists believe God just “found out” Pharaoh disobeyed Him, as if we must think God didn’t know what would happen or was taken by surprise and then had to scramble to figure out what to do about it. (This is like Calvinist tactic of presenting an absurd option alongside a Calvinist option, as if those are the only two options there are, thereby forcing people to accept the Calvinist option.) God knew what Pharaoh would choose all along (which is why He knew that He would eventually harden Pharaoh’s heart) and so He already had a plan for how He would work Pharaoh’s choice into His plans.
Roland: “And pharaoh is held accountable for his disobedience when he refused to let God’s people go. But God MADE sure that pharaoh would not let His people go.”
Heather: Yes, AFTER Pharaoh made his own decision to resist God! God did not force/cause Pharaoh to resist Him, He just made Pharaoh’s self-chosen resistance permanent at some point. And because it was self-chosen by Pharaoh, God could justly hold Pharaoh accountable for it.
Roland: “I’m so happy to be a Calvinist as we would rather adhere to God’s revelation than some man made logical and philosophical suppositions regarding God’s character and will. I’m much rather agree with what Scripture CLEARLY reveals about God’s actions in Scripture than to subject God’s actions to men’s standards.”
Heather: Calvinists do not adhere to the clear teaching of Scripture, but they start with their own definitions of things like “sovereign” and “election” and “predestination,” etc., and then they have to add “yes, but” to Scripture to make it fit their views:
“Yes, the Bible says God loves the world … but He meant all kinds of people, not all individual people. And He has two different kinds of love, a save-your-soul one for the elect and a give-you-food-and-sunshine one for the non-elect.”
“Yes, the Bible says God calls to all people … but He has two different kinds of calls, one for the elect that they have to respond to and one for the non-elect that they can never respond to.”
“Yes, God tells us to seek Him, to repent … but He didn’t mean we can seek Him or repent. He has to make the elect seek Him and repent, but the non-elect can never seek Him nor repent.”
“Yes, the Bible says God wants all men to be saved, that He wants no one to perish … but God has two different wills, you see. A revealed one where He says He wants everyone to be saved and no one to perish, and a secret one which contradicts His revealed one where He really does want most people to go to hell. God can want one thing while causing the opposite, for His glory and mysterious plans.”
“Yes, the Bible says Jesus died for all sins and all people … but it means the sins of all kinds of people, from all races. Because Jesus wouldn’t die for those who are predestined to reject Him. That would be a waste of His blood and make His death ineffectual.”
Did God really intend “Yes … but” to be added to and to contradict/complicate/confuse everything He clearly, plainly said? Is He a God who doesn’t mean what He says or say what He means? (If He is a God who says one thing but means another, how can you ever trust Him then about anything?)
If you have to add “Yes … but …” to everything God says then you can be sure that your theology is WRONG!
The gospel is clear, easily-understood, makes sense, and is for all people. God doesn’t hide His Truth under layers of contradictions and double word-meanings and word games. When read plainly and simply, the Bible clearly says that Jesus died for all, that we are all sinners, that salvation is available to all, that we can believe in Him, and that we are responsible for whether we accept Jesus as Lord and Savior or not.
But it’s the Calvinists who do all sorts of Scripture-twisting, smoke-and-mirrors, double-layering, song-and-dances, running-in-theological-circles in order to make the Bible fit their theology, to make it say the exact opposite of what the Bible clearly says.
Calvinists cannot find verses that clearly say what they believe, such as “God does not love all sinners equally” … “Jesus died only for the elect” … “God has two Wills that contradict each other, one that wants all to be saved and one that predestines most people for hell” … “God has two different kinds of love for people, one that saves some people and one that just gives food and sunshine to the rest” … “God has two different kinds of calls He gives people, one that is irresistible and one that is resistible” … or … “God causes people to sin but punishes them for it,” etc.
They can’t find verses that clearly teach their theology. And this is why they have to take verses out of context, apply multiple layers to verses, mash other verses together, change the meanings of words, shame and manipulate people into not questioning them, and make up truths based on what a verse doesn’t say (such as if a verse says Jesus died for His sheep, they say it must mean that He didn’t die for anyone else but His sheep), etc.
Calvinism does not take Scripture at face value. And this should be evident in the fact that it takes months of study with Calvinist pastors and Calvinist indoctrination books to figure out what God supposedly meant to say underneath what He actually said. And even then, Calvinists have to resort to things like “who are you to question God?” and “We can’t understand it, so we just have to accept it” to try to explain away the contradictions they cannot resolve.
I like you Roland. But you are trapped. Ask God to soften your heart to His truth, to remove the blinders, to protect you from demonic interference, and to help you see clearly. This is a huge spiritual battle, and it will not be easy. If we’re ensnared by demonic deception, they won’t let us go easily. I’ll say a prayer for you.
Correction: “This is a huge spiritual battle, and it WON’T be easy.”
Maybe the moderator can fix that for me, please?
Done :-]
Fromoverhere: “I told ya! Why waste the time? God-does-all-evil affirming Calvinists are working with a different paradigm….”
Your whole comment was well-written and well-said!
And it makes me wonder, Calvinists talk about evil and sin, but how do they define it without contradicting Calvinism?
If they say “Sin is doing what God doesn’t want,” it contradicts their belief that God predestines whatever He wants to have happen.
If they say “Sin is doing what doesn’t please God,” it contradicts their belief that God causes everything that happens for His pleasure, even sin.
If they say “Sin is doing something that’s unglorifying to God”, it contradicts their belief that God causes everything that happens for His glory, good and evil alike.
If they say “Sin is going against what God commands,” it contradicts their belief that God has a spoken command (what He SAYS He wants us to do) and an unspoken “command” that we HAVE TO obey because He causes us to, in violation of what He SAID we need to do. And so disobedience is really just obedience on a different level.
How can a Calvinist define evil/sin without contradicting Calvinism or making a mockery of God and Scripture?
Heather
And it makes me wonder, Calvinists talk about evil and sin, but how do they define it without contradicting Calvinism?
br.d
Solipsism – is a belief system – which has a similar problem as Calvinism does.
Take for example – the man who insists on being coherent with his belief in Solipsism – and treats his wife as a figment of his imagination.
Is she going to see that as a compliment in their intimate moments?
He’s having intimacy with a figment of his imagination – rather than having intimacy with her.
Or – while insisting on being coherent with his belief system – he treats his supervisor or boss at work as a figment of his imagination.
Is his supervisor/boss going to consider that a compliment?
There will be consequences!
All believers in Solipsism understand the reality of those consequences.
And in order to avoid them – the Solipsist simply treats people *AS-IF* they are real.
So on the one hand – the Solipsist will defiantly assert his belief system is TRUE
At the same time he automatically treats his belief system *AS-IF* it is false in order to avoid consequences.
The reason for this – is because of the radical nature of the belief system
The Calvinist is in the same exact situation
The foundational core of Calvinism is EXHAUSTIVE DIVINE DETERMINISM.
So here is where you and I observe the Calvinist – just like the Solipsist defiantly asserting his belief system. While automatically treating his belief system *AS-IF* it is FALSE
Here is an example:
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-IF* nothing were determined about any part.”
Here Calvin knows this as a direct contradiction to the doctrine – which stipulates that EVERYTHING is determined in EVERY part.
Yet he is instructing believers to treat the doctrine *AS-IF* it is FALSE
Roland does the same thing – asserting LIBERTARIAN choice does not exist – because it would require Calvin’s god to be DEPENDENT and REACTIVE to a choice which a person made.
Then we apply Roland’s assertion to Calvin’s god permitting Roland’s brain to make a choice about whether a Bible question is TRUE or FALSE – the consequence of Roland’s assertion is more than Roland can endure.
When it comes to a real-live situation which personally affects himself – he treats his defiant assertion *AS-IF* it is FALSE – and simply says Calvin’s god can decree his brain to have a perception which Calvin’s god did not determine – thus making Calvin’s god DEPENDENT and REACTIVE to a choice Roland’s brain would make.
Determinism – like Solipsism – is simply too radical for the believer to live coherently with.
Thanks, Brdmod, for fixing that for me! 🙂
Br.d: “So here is where you and I observe the Calvinist – just like the Solipsist defiantly asserting his belief system. While automatically treating his belief system *AS-IF* it is FALSE”
You’d think that having to play the “as if” game would set off some alarm bells for the Calvinist, make them question Calvinism a little more.
But I guess not.
It’s amazing the level of self-deception and cognitive dissonance people can live with to keep from having to question something they hold dear.
Yes!
Well said!
That alerts us to the reason why Calvinist language is a COSMETIC language – designed to create FACADES of things which don’t really exist within the belief system.
Take for example the word “Permission”.
Calvin’s god certainly does not “Permit” anything to come to pass which he does not *MAKE* come to pass by infallible decree.
Many Calvinists do not want to say Calvin’s god *MAKES* everything come to pass by infallible decree.
So 99% of the time – the Calvinist uses “Permission” language – his statements are carefully designed to draw a picture of events coming to pass which Calvin’s god did not intend.
And of course – that picture is COSMETIC.
Calvinist language – is all about creating word-pictures of things which do not exist in his belief system.
Roland, Maybe you already answered this somewhere, but I am wondering (as I read the debate about the Ephesians verses) …
When were you – one of the Calvinist elect, preselected before the foundation of the world – first “in Christ”?
Roland: “Imagine you a parent watching your children play on a driveway…. They all begin to run towards the street… You know that if they run into the street your children will be struck by a car and killed. You have the power to stop them. You have the knowledge that they will be struck by a car and killed. Yet your only actions are pleading, begging, and shouting them to turn back. When they don’t. Whey you fail to take action to stop them. They perish. This is why I find non-calvinism DISGUSTING and IMMORAL. At least in Calvinism God does take action and save His elect.”
Heather: So you’d rather have a God who caused most of his children to irresistibly desire to run into traffic and be killed, giving them no ability/chance to do otherwise … a God who created them specifically for that end because He takes pleasure in it and is glorified by it and because it shows the “elect” ones how much more loved they are by comparison … a God who only pretends to care about the non-elect children, who “warns” them about the dangers of running into traffic and commands them to not run into traffic but who ultimately programmed them to run into traffic, and then He blames them for not listening to His warnings, punishing them for it eternally, even though they couldn’t choose anything else?
But hey, never mind about the damned ones. At least a few of us were chosen to be saved. A few of us were given by Calvi-god the ability/desire to obey Him when He said to not run into traffic. Isn’t Calvi-god good, gracious, loving, and just! (Just don’t think about those predestined to hell!) Who are we to understand Him anyway or to talk back to Him?
(The sarcasm is to emphasize my disgust with Calvinism, not to be hard on you, Roland.)
Roland: “In non-calvinism God does not take action. He saves none. He CAN only wait for His “free creatures” to make a “freewill” decision to turn to Him and live…. In non-calvinism God does not save but only offers to save.”
Heather: Actually, in non-calvinism, God did indeed take action and do something to save people, something much more than just begging and pleading: He died on the cross in our place to save us all from hell. And then He spent years getting the gospel written down to spread the message of salvation. And He put evidence of Himself in nature and in our hearts to call us all to Him. He reaches out to all people to tell them that He loves them and that they can be saved. He did everything, except make our decision for us.
To go back to your illustration, Roland (and remember all illustrations fall short at some point): Biblically, God doesn’t just sit and watch His kids run into the street, merely pleading that they stop. No! He has consistently and repeatedly told us all about the dangers of running into the road (through prophets and Scripture), commands us to not run into the road, has made a way to safety and shown us the way to safety, has put up warning signs and roadblocks, etc. And then even when we keep running to the road, by our own choice, He tries to pull us back over and over again. (But He has given us the right to make the decide to listen to Him or not.) And on top of all that, God also threw Himself in front of the cars to get hit Himself, to take the “punishment” so that no one else had to get hit (eternally). No one has to run into the road and get killed. And yet in spite of all that, many of us choose to ignore Him and His warnings, to reject His sacrifice, and we willingly plunge headlong into traffic ourselves. Because we don’t want God telling us what to do.
And yet you, Roland, would blame God for that, for us not listening, accusing Him of not doing enough to save us?
Roland: “In Calvinism, God SAVES!.”
Heather: Yes, a few people. While destroying so many more.
Roland: “In non-calvinism God watches sinners die, knows they’re going to die, has the power to save them from eternal punishment yet does nothing but invite or offer to save.”
Heather: And yet you have no problem with the fact that, in Calvinism, God doesn’t just watch sinners die but He causes/creates most sinners to die, predestining them to hell – even though He has the power to predestine no one to hell – giving them no chance/ability to be saved because Calvi-Jesus never died for them anyway,
At least the non-Calvinist Jesus died to make salvation available to all and the non-Calvinist God truly offers real salvation to all. (And like I said, the non-Calvinist God does much more than just invite or offer.)
Roland, try thinking a little less about how “good” the Calvinist god is to save just a few people, and think a little more about how wretched he is to create most people to burn for eternity in hell (when he has the ability to predestine no one to hell), how disgusting it is that he is glorified by that and ultimately takes pleasure in it, how wrong he is to tell people to repent and believe while preventing them from repenting and believing, how unjust he is to command people to not sin but then he causes them to sin and punishes them for it, etc.
If you are this backwards/warped/deluded in your ideas of what the non-Calvinist God is like and what the Calvinist God is like then I’m worried for you, Roland. I really am. I suggest that you pray and ask God to take off any blinders Satan may have put on you. Tell God you want to know the truth, even if it means realizing/admitting you were wrong all along. (Are you willing to do this? If not – if you’re so worried about finding out you might be wrong that you can’t pray this – then that is telling.)
What is the probability that Roland knows fully well that both of these statements are outright lies.
Roland:
In non-calvinism God watches sinners die, knows they’re going to die, has the power to save them from eternal punishment yet does nothing but invite or offer to save.”
Roland
In non-calvinism God does not save but only offers to save.
I love how the Lord has provided SOT101
It is a place where curious readers can come to see real-life examples – of how Calvinism trains Calvinists to be dishonest.
The Lord works all things for the good! :-]
FOH, I like your comment starting with:
“‘God is not the author of sin but it has come to pass by His decree’ (Roland’s quote). What in the world does this even mean? If God is “sovereign” in the way Calvinists say …”
You said some of the things I was thinking too. 🙂
br.d
Welcome to Calvinist logic 101:
Where Calvin’s god is the author of all closed 2-dimensional shapes with 3 sides.
But not in such a way as he is the author of triangles! ;-D
Roland, you said “This is why I find non-calvinism DISGUSTING and IMMORAL.”
Is it not the least bit weird to you that Calvi-god “ordained” you to find non-Calvinism disgusting and immoral … for his glory, but that he “ordained” us to find Calvinism disgusting and immoral … for his glory? That he gets as much glory from both? Is that not strange and meaningless?
And how about the fact that Calvi-god gets as much glory and pleasure from predestining a few people to heaven as he does from predestining many more to hell? That he gets as much glory and pleasure from ordaining child rape as he does from ordaining that people fight against child rape? That he commands belief and repentance but predestined/causes the non-elect to NOT do those things, and then punishes them for it? That he commands that we don’t sin but then he causes sin? (How can you trust that a god like that is good and righteous and just and holy and loving and faithful? What are your definitions of those things? What is the definition of sin/evil/disobedience, especially if sin and evil and disobedience is Calvi-god’s Will and plan and ultimately caused by him for his glory and pleasure?)
Does it not bother you that our souls are basically interchangeable to him, that he randomly picks a few people to save while damning the rest, before we ever even took our first breath or made any decisions? That he could have easily chosen just one person to punish in hell (if, as Calvinists say, he needed sinners so that he could show off his justice/wrath by punishing sin, in order to exercise his full attributes and be fully glorified – as if he was somehow lacking in glory or God-ness before sinners came along) but that instead he chose to predestine multitudes upon multitudes to hell? (So punishing Jesus on the cross wasn’t enough? He needed to punish millions, billions of people too? Jesus’s death was not enough?)
How God-honoring is a Calvinist really, when the wicked bring Calvi-god as much glory as the Calvinist does? How meaningful are your life, choices, thoughts, prayers, spiritual disciplines, etc. anyway, when it’s all planned/caused by Calvi-god? How special and loved can a Calvinist feel when you were chosen basically by lottery, random chance, but he could have just as easily swapped you out for another person? Is Calvinism comforting to you, when you really think about it? Or is it only comforting if you ignore the unpleasant, unavoidable, undeniable conclusions of Calvinism?
Think about it. REALLY think about it. God’s name and character and the gospel and people’s souls and the condition of your eternity are at stake here.
br.d
Well said!
And to top it off per Calvinist doctrine – Roland is granted NO CERTAINTY that he is elect.
Within Calvinism the preponderance of the Calvinist population are created and designed to be CHAFF.
And the process of making them CHAFF entails making them live minute by minute having infallibly decreed FALSE PERCEPTIONS of salvation.
Calvin’s god is not obligated to decree an impulse of disgust to come to pass within the Calvinist brain concerning being specifically created for eternal torment in a lake of fire for the divine good pleasure.
Calvin’s god – in his divine sovereignty – can be very selective about what things he wants his CHAFF Calvinists to feel disgust about! ;-D
Br.d.: “Welcome to Calvinist logic 101: Where Calvin’s god is the author of all closed 2-dimensional shapes with 3 sides.
But not in such a way as he is the author of triangles! ;-D”
Yep! I was thinking earlier about how reasoning with a Calvinist would be kinda like this:
Me: Oh, I see you’re losing your hair and going bald.
Calvinist: No, I’m not. I’m not losing my hair and going bald. I’m simply gaining more forehead space.
Me: But that’s the same thing. You’re trying to make it sound better than it is, but I am just calling it like it is: You’re going bald.
Calvinist: No, I’m not. I don’t call it bald. The men’s health magazine that I read calls it ‘gaining more forehead.’
Me: But it’s the same thing.
Calvinist: No, it’s not.
And round and round we go!
yes it is hilarious!
Like we are not really in a recession right now because the definition of recession is always magically changing! 😀
Here is something I haven’t seen brought up in any Biblical argument against Calvinism.
Before I was more versed in the Bible and study of this topic, a Calvinist told me “freewill is not taught anywhere in the Bible.” At the time, I argued it was implied in words like if, whosoever etc…. But it turns out the actual WORD “freewill” is used 17 times in the Bible (KJV). I never see non-Calvinist use these as proof. I wonder why?
Conversely, in the KJV, the word Sovereign and Sovereignty is not used even once. God’s sovereignty is implied, but not specifically mentioned (and I mean the actual definition of sovereignty). Even IF the Calvinist definition IS implied, it is still IMPLIED and by what that Calvinist told me, you can’t go off of things that are implied. So if freewill is implied (even though it is EXPLICITLY mentioned repeatedly) we can’t rely on implication, but if sovereignty is implied, it is GOSPEL TRUTH!
Now, I’m sure they will just say freewill doesn’t mean freewill, because Calvinists apparently have the authority to define any word to mean anything they want it to be, but still, the Bible LITERALLY teaches freewill.
ATHEIST2APOLOGIST
a Calvinist told me “freewill is not taught anywhere in the Bible
br.d
This is very common.
What we need to understand about Calvinist language – is that it is language of OMISSION.
In other words – it is a language designed ALLOW you to interpret words and phrases – as they are commonly understood.
When the Calvinist has INSIDER meanings for those terms and phrases.
The phrase “Free-Will” is one very prevalent example.
The Calvinist Westminster confession – which is one of the premier confessions for Calvinism describes what Calvinist call
“IRRESISTIBLE” grace.
However – what they are OMITTING is the fact that in Calvinism – every impulse that comes to pass within the human brain – comes to pass “IRRESISTIBLY” – by virtue of the fact that every impulse is decreed to infallibly come to pass.
Here is a part of a segment from that confession:
-quote
His almighty power, determining them….yet so, as they come most freely…..
So you can see – there is a KIND of “Free-Will” in Calvinism – which every Calvinist is familiar with.
So when a Calvinist tells you “there is no such thing as “Free-Will” in scripture – what he is referring too is a DIFFERENT definition of “Free-Will”.
The “Free-Will” he will claim is not in scripture – is classified as “LIBERTARIAN” freedom.
For the Calvinist – “LIBERTARIAN” freedom – is freedom from the infallible decree
And freedom from the infallible decree is a contradiction of the Calvinist doctrine of decrees.
So its quite natural – the Calvinist is going to insist LIBERTARIAN freedom is not in scripture.
HOWEVER
The question to ask a Calvinist as this point – is “Is your brain FREE to discern TRUE from FALSE on any matter?”
And of course – the Calvinist is going to say YES.
So the next question is – “But if your brain is NOT FREE from the infallible decree – then is YOUR brain having the freedom to discern TRUE from FALSE – not LIBERTARIAN freedom?
They cannot answer that question with any rational answer at all.
Because their doctrine of decrees stipulates that WHATSOEVER COMES TO PASS within the human brain – is determined by infallible decree.
So if a Calvinist brain is required to answer a TRUE/FALSE question – then the PERCEPTION which comes to pass within their brain is determined by Calvin’s god – and not by their brain.
In other words – the doctrine of decrees – LOGICALLY EXCLUDES their brain from having the Freedom to discern TRUE from FALSE.
So when a Calvinist claims LIBERTARIAN Freedom is not in scripture – he is telling you – his brain is not granted the freedom of discerning TRUE from FALSE
This is further explained by the following Christian philosopher Dr. John Searle:
Dr. John Searle
-quote
All rational activity logically presupposes Libertarian choice. This becomes obvious when one realizes that rationality is possible only where one has a CHOICE among various rational as well as irrational options.” (Rationality in Action)
Where Determinism is TRUE – the human brain does not CHOOSE between TRUE and FALSE – because all perceptions and activites within the human brain are solely and exclusively determined by a divine external mind – and not by the human brain.
Well said. They play language games. I was caught very off-guard by this Calvinist. All our previous conversations were very solid, biblical and Christ-Centered. While I didn’t know much about Calvinism, I knew the doctrine of Divine Causal Determinism and thought it was so obviously stupid, illogical and counter-intuitive to our personal experiences that very few believed in it. So I both hadn’t heard the “proof texts” or had done much research to know more about it and refute it (I now understand it much better!).
I made the mistake of using basic logical examples to disprove it. The Calvinist QUICKLY belittled my reasoning by saying it wasn’t from scripture. Then when I tried to find scripture to support my claim, I was belittled for not knowing scripture well enough and not being “spiritually mature”. It was hostile, belittling, demeaning, and unloving…all things I didn’t find to be very Christian behavior.
Of course he threw “how can a dead man respond to anything”, a Calvinist eisegesis of Romans 9, and then (of course) The Who are you to question God!? All things I didn’t get from reading it on my own before, and my first time hearing these absurd interpretations. I was woefully unprepared and equipped to deal with such a dishonest argument, and admittedly lost the debate (because they were playing by different debate rules, and I was shocked at being treated that way!). It was sad to see a Christian behave this way, but also pointed to a red flag in the theology. Not good fruit!
Atheist2Apologist,
Agree with you completely. However, now comes the investigations. We must ask the WHY questions as to what do they base their claims on. You say Romans 9. That is only part of it.
There are a couple more, where they think that David was a sinner from the womb, and another that “they are ‘estranged’ from the womb”, and that since Adam’s sin was “imputed” to humanity, then everyone is a dead man/woman, when conceived in the womb.
So, now, one must debunk all of those.
It’s easy to say that the prodigal son was indeed alive before leaving home. But that’s not the doctrine that is central to the discussion.
My suggestion would be to study out David’s mother, not mentioned in the bible at all.
But more so, the doctrine central to all of this is the doctrine of “original sin”. That tells us that everyone is INFECTED with Adam’s sin, therefore, born dead.
My question would be…”Are you really born spiritually dead”? If the answer is yes, then Calvin might have a point. If the answer is no, why?
Does the doctrine of original sin have merit? Does it hold water? Or does it fail? Are we born spiritually alive, or born spiritually dead?
If we are born spiritually dead, then when do we die spiritually, and what is the exact reason for that death? Is it because we sinned, or is it because we got knowledge that we sinned?
Lot’s of What, When, Why, Where, and How questions to ask and research.
Personally, I don’t believe in Original Sin, and since I don’t, I don’t consider Calvinism or Armenianism, to be right. Now, I don’t know everything that Palagian believed, as I’ve only skimmed his stuff, but just in what I skimmed, he was closer to being right than Catholics, and all the reforms put together, and the reason? He rejected Original Sin, as do I.
But why do I reject it? Ahhhhh….that’s the question to research!
Ed Chapman
Atheist2Apologist,
By the way, both Calvin’s “Irresistible Grace”, and Armenian’s “Prevenient Grace” is tied into the doctrine of Original Sin.
In other words, Original Sin is a prerequisite of both doctrines of Grace. Each of those doctrines of Grace tells you that you are INCAPABLE of approaching God…all because you are a dead man from Original Sin. But…are you really spiritually dead from the womb/birth?
Ed Chapman
While there is a lot of evidence and study that can be done to disprove original sin, I honestly don’t think one needs to go farther than Ezekiel 18. Will that convince a Calvinist? No. But neither will the whole body of evidence, because they can change the meaning of any word they want to at any time. I take the “dead” they are talking about to mean “doomed, or condemned” based on contextual use of it.
Atheist2Apologist,
Always keep in mind that Calvinists have backups to your Ezekiel 18. Such as:
Exodus 20:5
Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
Exodus 34:7
Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children’s children, unto the third and to the fourth generation.
Numbers 14:18
The Lord is longsuffering, and of great mercy, forgiving iniquity and transgression, and by no means clearing the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation.
Deuteronomy 5:9
Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me,
So, actually, it would behoove you to discredit the ORIGIN of Original Sin Doctrine, the Nucleus, or, the Genesis, if you will of their WHOLE doctrine.
Without Original Sin, the WHOLE THING falls apart. Every bit of it.
The reason that they are “doomed”, etc., is because of SPIRITUAL DEATH. But when does one spiritually die. If you can prove that no one is spiritually dead at birth/conception in the womb…then CHECKMATE! You don’t need Ezekiel 18 anymore.
The Calvinists strong suit – is always going to be language manipulation.
And that is why he defers to scripture
Scripture is language.
The rules of language are very loose – and language is easy to manipulate – and that is the *REAL* reason the Calvinist always goes to scripture.
Most Calvinists have 2 Canons
They have the Canon of scripture – which every theology has.
But the Calvinistic interpretation of scripture – also functions as a Canon for most Calvinists.
You will notice – when most Calvinists appeal to scripture – they will evade the fact that what they have is an INTERPRETATION of scripture. They will treat scripture *AS-IF* they are not applying a Calvinistic interpretation of it.
When Jesus is tempted by the lawyer – Jesus asks the lawyer 2 questions:
1) What does the text say?
2) How do YOU read it?.
Clearly Jesus places a critical distinction between these two questions.
The 2nd question is just as critical as the 1st question.
The lawyer had no problem answering Jesus’ 1st question – he quoted the text verbatim.
But he evaded Jesus’ 2nd question
He evaded it because it shined a spot-light on something that made him vulnerable.
The HUMAN element of Interpretation.
Scripture cannot be wrong.
But a HUMAN Interpretation of the scripture can be.wrong.
Most Calvinists will evade Jesus’ 2nd question – just like the lawyer did
They don’t want you to put the Calvinist interpretation under examination because you’ll recognize how self-contradicting it is.
The scripture is not self-contradicting.
But an interpretation of scripture can be self-contradicting.
And the Calvinist does not want you to scrutinize the Calvinist interpretation – because you’ll discover how self-contradicting it is.
The rules which govern the use of language are very loose – which means language easy to manipulate.
But the rules which govern Logic have STANDARDIZED.
And when a Calvinist tries to get away with something that is irrational – he gets caught.
If you understand the underlying DETERMINISM – and you scrutinize his statements you find Calvinists are full of INFERENTIAL denials of their belief system
So what the Calvinist can get away with – by manipulating language – he cannot get away with – trying to evade logic
Br.d.: “In other words – it is a language designed ALLOW you to interpret words and phrases – as they are commonly understood.
When the Calvinist has INSIDER meanings for those terms and phrases.”
And BINGO was his name-o!
They will let you believe (and want you to believe), for as long as possible, that you are both saying the same things, using words the same way – while all along they have hidden definitions and double layers to words/concepts. But by letting you think they are on the same page as you are, they buy time to reel you in bit by bit.
Such as they start by getting you to agree with them that God is sovereign and man is depraved and “you believe in grace, don’t you?”
And so since you think they are saying the same thing you are, you let your guard down, listen to them more, and let them pull you deeper and deeper into their Calvinist theology.
But if, at the very beginning, they clearly said “Well, we believe that sovereign means God controls/preplans/causes all things, even your thoughts, decisions, and sins … and we believe that man is so totally depraved that he is such a wicked, rebellious, God-hating being that he can’t even want God or think about God or seek God unless God makes him do it (and He will only cause the elect to do it but He prevents the non-elect from doing it, even though He still commands them to do it and will punish them for not doing it) … and we believe in grace, but only grace for the elect while everyone else gets kindness from God in the form of food and sunshine while they are alive on earth before being sent to hell for all of eternity for being the God-haters that God predestined them to be and gave them no choice about” then there’d be a lot less people who would bend their ears to them.
Calvinism needs the deceptive wording because without it Calvinism would not thrive or spread.
Heather
Calvinism needs the deceptive wording because without it Calvinism would not thrive or spread.
br.d
Dr. Jerry Walls
-quote
If Calvinist’s didn’t rely on misleading rhetoric – Calvinism would loose all credibility within two years.
Ex-Calvinist Daniel Gracely
-quote
“Calvinist and Non-Calvinist do not share the same meaning of words….. Remember, Calvinism is merely the invoking of associative meaning, not real meaning. By ‘not real’ I mean that the meaning is destroyed in the overall thought of the clause or sentence. For, of course, at one level the Calvinist understands the general meaning of words. But he strings them together in such a way that it forms an idea that is false according to his belief system.
…
This is what I used to do as a Calvinist. I liken these non-sense statements, or propositions, to the riding of a rocking horse….. Thus, I would go back and forth in seesaw motion, lest on the one hand I find myself accusing God of insufficient sovereignty, or on the other hand find myself accusing God of authoring sin. All the while, there remained an illusion of movement towards truth, when in fact there was no real movement at all. At length I would allow the springs of dialectical tension to rest the rocking horse in the center, and then I would declare as harmonious propositions, which in fact, were totally contradictory to each other.
A2A: “Here is something I haven’t seen brought up in any Biblical argument against Calvinism…”
Great observation. And very true. I have found that Calvinism is all about denying what the Bible clearly, plainly says and replacing it with things it doesn’t clearly, plainly say, ultimately contradicting what it does clearly, plainly say.
Basically, they have replaced God’s truth with what they THINK God must have meant to say, based on their own ideas of how a “sovereign” God must be and act. The first rule of Calvinist Club: Conform Scripture to the Calvinist definition of “sovereign.”
You are correct. This is why they always appeal to “mystery”, to evade logic. But “mystery” only exists when there truly is a lack of information, and no other information can be plugged in to create a solution. x+5=y is a mystery. But if you find a value for either x or y the problem is solvable. There ARE mysteries of God. Like what our new bodies will be like and what material they will be composed of. The Bible simply doesn’t provide enough information to rationally solve the equation. But for Calvinist doctrine, the information DOES exist and actually provides a rational equation. But they refer to it as mystery while ignoring the solution that is provided by non-Calvinists.
br.d
“The Calvinists strong suit – is always going to be language manipulation.
And that is why he defers to scripture
Scripture is language.”
roland
Calvinists defer to Scripture because it is the presuppositions from which we operate. We begin with Scripture unlike the non-calvinists who begins his interpretation of Scripture with assumptions such as libertarian freewill.
I will explain the misunderstanding you are having. It is not that non-Calvinists do not defer to scripture. They do, as is evidenced by the many scriptures used by non-Calvinists in this very thread. What we are questioning is not the Scripture itself, but rather the Calvinists INTERPRETATION, of the Scriptures they use. Both are using Scripture, but both are applying an interpretation to the scripture.
The non-Calvinist isn’t applying a non-Biblical Elena of freewill, but a Biblical one. The Bible uses the word freewill 17 times. You argue over what that word means, but that is simply where Calvinists and non-Calvinists disagree.
“You argue over what that word means, but that is simply where Calvinists and non-Calvinists disagree.”
roland
Agree, There is a simple disagreement over the definition of the word freewill. However, the disagreement is further demonstrated when Calvinists and non-Calvinists consider the nature of man. Calvinists believe in total depravity. Non-Calvinists reject it. As a necessary consequence, non-Calvinists believe man has libertarian freewill.
One of the reasons i rejected my former freewill convictions was due to Scriptures clear revelation that man is totally depraved. Many times in the Scriptures is man described as being slaves to sin, in bondage, etc. Jesus said He came to set man free. Free from what? Our own free freewill?If we are free to obey, free to choose, free to believe, then from what is Christ setting us free?
Roland
However, the disagreement is further demonstrated when Calvinists and non-Calvinists consider the nature of man. Calvinists believe in total depravity.
br.d
Do you remember – ATHEIST2APOLOGIST – how I told you that Calvinist statements are lies of OMISSION?
There is an excellent example
The current “T” in Calvinism’s TULIP functions as a lie of OMISSION.
A lie of OMISSION is a statement designed to mislead – by virtue of omitting critical facts – which if NOT OMITTED do NOT mislead.
In this case – the critical fact which is OMITTED – is the fact that what we *REALLY* have in Calvinism – is
TOTALLY PREDESTINED NATURE
In Calvinism – Nature – including man’s nature – at every instance in time – is 100% meticulously predestined.
And man has NO SAY and NO CHOICE in the matter of anything that is predestined.
So in Calvinism – what man’s will is NOT FREE from – is the infallible decree.
As John Calvin explains:
-quote
The creatures…are so governed by the secret counsel of god, that NOTHING HAPPENS but what he has knowingly and willingly
decreed. (Institutes, 1, Chp 16, Par. 3)
Thus in Calvinism – NOT ONE IMPULSE HAPPENS within man’s brain – that has not been knowingly and willingly decreed.
Total Depravity – functions as a way for Calvinists to place FALSE ATTRIBUTION of man’s destiny and man’s ability – onto man’s nature.
When the TRUTH is – man’s nature – at every nano-second in time – is not ATTRIBUTED to man – but rather to an infallible decree which man is powerless to resist or alter.
Thank you again Roland – for providing an example of how lies of omission work for Calvinism! :-]
br.d
Do you remember – ATHEIST2APOLOGIST – how I told you that Calvinist statements are lies of OMISSION?
roland
So the standard that br.d has set me is that I am not permitted nor can I be allowed to omit anything. I must in each post that I write everything, include everything. I’m sorry br.d but that is a standard too high for me because I am a fallible sinful creature. There’s no possible way for me to include everything when I write a response. Things will be omitted, therefore it necessarily follows that I AM A LIAR!
Roland
So the standard that br.d has set me is that I am not permitted nor can I be allowed to omit anything.
br.d
I was mentioning to ATHEIST2APOLOGIST that many Calvinist statements are designed to mislead by strategic OMISSIONS
You can along at the perfect time – to provide an example!
The Lord worked it out for the good! :-]
By saying that I am using STRATEGIC OMISSIONS, you are calling me a liar. I am STRATEGICALLY OMITTING information is basically saying that I am planning omissions, I am lying.
It will be easy for you to point out my omissions, sorry strategic omissions, as I wrote earlier because I am fallible, sinful, and finite.
Roland
By saying that I am using STRATEGIC OMISSIONS, you are calling me a liar.
br.d
The fact that Calvinists statements are often characterized as STRATEGIC OMISSIONS – tells the story all by itself.
Roland
We begin with Scripture
Unlike the non-calvinists who begins his interpretation of Scripture with assumptions such as libertarian freewill.
br.d
There it is!
You don’t being with an INTERPRETATION – you begin with scripture.
Thus – there is no HUMAN element involved for the Calvinist – like there is for the Non-Calvinist
Exactly what I meant – when I said the Calvinist INTERPRETATION functions a his 2nd Canon
Thank you for manifesting my point! . :-]
First off, nowhere in the Bible does it say we are TOTALLY depraved. We have a sin nature. It means we are drawn to sin, and everyone at some point will sin. It does not mean that every single thing everyone does is sinful. Unregenerate people, for example, get tempted to do things that are sinful and choose to resist that temptation. A man might be tempted to cheat on his wife, but being convicted in his conscience, decides not to do it. Is it NOT pleasing to God when someone flees from temptation?
On the same note, an unregenerate man might show great acts of kindness and of loving their neighbor, simply because they felt it was the right thing to do. Is that not pleasing to God? If total depravity were true, then these things wouldn’t happen.
Cornelius feared God before he was regenerate. Was that not pleasing to God?
Total Depravity also stems from Divine Causal Determinism. Calvinists believe that EVERY single thought, action, event was predetermined and came to pass because God willed it. If that is true, explain this.
If true, God preordained that I would be writing this right now. So….I will state this. Calvinism is not true. If Calvinism IS true, then God just made me write a lie. Since He did it, and He authored that I would write that, that means He lied. But in His word, God cannot lie. So if Calvinism is true, then God is a liar.
If Calvinism is false, then I simply wrote something that was true (Saying Calvinism is not true) of my own freewill, because I have properly divided and understood the Word of God.
Which is more likely? That God is the Father of lies which is unavoidable if He caused me to lie, or that Calvinism is simply false?
As a Calvinists I agree with you that an unregenerate person can resist temptation and not sin. However, just because they resisted the temptation and did not sin, it does not follow that their actions pleased God.
An example is I ask two of my children to wash the dishes after dinner, One, impatiently responds with an attitude, I will do it. My child obeyed me. Should I be pleased just by her obedience? Should I not take into consideration her attitude in regards to her obedience? Does God not do the same with us? Can unregenerate sinners please God by merely resisting temptation without taking into consideration the end of their resistance?
For your second point regarding God willing lies. I would point you to Westminster Confession of Faith chapter 3 paragraphs 1 and 2. Along with the Scripture references under those paragraphs. Read Isaiah 45 where God says He creates light and darkness, He brings prosperity and disaster. He is the Lord who does all these things.
If Scripture attributes acts to God that appear sinful to humans, such as bringing disaster and darkness, I will take what Scripture reveals about God any day over man’s interpretation that God is sinful or the author of sin?
Roland
As a Calvinists I agree with you that an unregenerate person can resist temptation and not sin.
br.d
One the caveat that Calvin’s god puts that impulse into his brain!
But notice how I have to tell the WHOLE TRUTH – where the Calvinist will not. :-]
It’s simple really. You interpret that verse to mean God creates ALL evil, darkness and events. I don’t interpret that verse that way. Sometimes God brings about calamity in righteous judgement in reaction to the evil MAN caused. He didn’t make them do what He then judged them for. It is an important distinction. God CAN and DOES intervene as He sees fit and needs to to bring about His goal and will, but doesn’t cause everything.
Acts 4:27-28
27 For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together,
28 For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done.
God determined before what Herod, Pontius Pilate, the Gentiles, and the people of Israel would to do Jesus. He did this by His hand and His counsel determined before to be done. Is God going to judge the people who killed Jesus? Does the text say that God’s hand and counsel determined this before to be done.
You should read Isaiah 10 and how God sends the king of Assyria to destroy and then punishment the king of Assyria for the very act God caused him to commit.
Roland,
This is what I’ve been saying all along, that this is about the Jews. Jesus was prophesied to die on a cross. What do you think Passover was all about? It certainly was not about food and drink. All those things associated with Passover was about Jesus.
The main mission of Jesus was that cross. Satan INTERFERED several times to stop the birth of Jesus. One pertained to the daughter-in-law of Judah, whose husbands (plural) didn’t want kids, so God killed them. She ends up pretending to be a prostitute and Judah slept with her, hence prophesy coming true that Jesus would be from the line of Judah.
Satan interfered.
And again, when it was ordered that babies be killed 2 years old and under. Just like Moses, the “redeemer”.
The whole Bible is about Jesus, and the Jews (blind). For they were supposed to charge Jesus with false charges in order to get him to that cross.
And the judgment of Assyria, that is not the afterlife judgment. It is the “here and now” judgment. Those people are Gentiles, not Jews. They are not under the law of Moses as the Jews are. And Gentiles are handled differently than that of the Jews.
Romans 2:14-16.
Besides, Romans 9 shows that God [in the afterlife] gives mercy to those who are fitted for destruction [the here and now] (Pharaoh).
The Jews have a story to tell, because the physical land of Israel is for the Jews, not the Gentiles, as that is what the covenant of circumcision is all about, and that must be spiritually interpreted as Christians promised eternal life in heaven.
So, the Jews get judged in the here and now for disobeying God’s Law of Moses, and he uses another nation to judge them, and then he judges the nation that he used.
Spiritualize that. Remember, God promised Abraham that his descendants would INHERIT that land, and it is not based on the good or bad behavior of his descendants, either. It was all based on Abraham. And Gentiles have nothing to do with that. But the Gentiles who wish to destroy Israel…yes, they will get punished, in the here and now.
Everything in the Torah, Prophets, and Writings is about Jesus, not you or I, nor Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob, or Noah, or Jonah, etc. It’s a story about God told thru the lives of those people.
Gentiles is a whole different conversation to have.
Ed Chapman
Atheist2Apologist
God CAN and DOES intervene as He sees fit
br.d
AH! Divine intervention
Now there is another thing that does not exist in Calvinism – but which Calvinists insist does.
Since the doctrine of decrees stipulates -quote NOTHING HAPPENS that is not knowingly and willingly decreed – it is LOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for Calvin’s god to intervene.
To intervene in an event – means to alter or prevent something which WOULD OTHERWISE HAPPEN.
And since NOTHING can happen – that is not knowingly and willingly decreed – then there is no such thing as events which WOULD OTHERWISE HAPPEN without intervention.
The Calvinist claim of divine intervention functions as a FACADE
This FACADE is designed to produce a FALSE APPEARANCE of divine intervention – in order to hide that fact that NO evil event can happen – without that event being FIRST CONCIEVED in the mind of Calvin’s god – and then knowingly and willingly decreed.
Roland: “If Scripture attributes acts to God that appear sinful to humans, such as bringing disaster and darkness,…”
Heather: Causing disaster and darkness is not in the same boat as causing sin. Sin is going against what God commanded. But for God to cause, say, a natural disaster is not breaking any command He gave us. Calvinists wrongly mesh together disaster and sin, saying that since He causes one then it must mean He causes the other.
Roland: “God determined before what Herod, Pontius Pilate, the Gentiles, and the people of Israel would to do Jesus.”
Heather: God determined how He would use their wickedness, the choices He knew they would make, working it into His plans to have Jesus crucified. But where does it say that God caused them to be wicked?
If undercover cops pose as drug buyers and make “friends” with one druggie to lead them to the drug sellers, does that mean the cops caused the druggie to be a druggie, that the cops are responsible for the criminals being criminals – because they made a plan that incorporated the criminal’s behavior/choices to lead them to the drug seller? No. Of course not. God can incorporate our self-chosen decisions into His plans without preplanning/causing our decisions. Just because He works our decisions into His plans does not mean He preplans/causes what we decide. It’s only Calvinists who make this error.
None of this backs up causing EVERYTHING coming to pass, but are examples of specific things He intervened in to accomplish His will. I believe God CAN and DOES do as He pleases. Also of note is how these people mentioned are similar to Pharaoh. He was already a hardened man who was doing wicked things and he HARDENED HIS OWN HEART several times (Not God hardening it, but Pharaoh, according to what the Bible says, which suggests Pharaoh had his own will) before God gave him over to his own desires and hardened his heart.
I also noticed you dodged the question about lying. If God made me lie, that puts the responsibility and authorship of the lie on Him. Just like if a man hired a hit man to kill his wife, he would be charged with and convicted of murder. This is self evident, but you HAVE TO deny or twist it to make your theology work. I hold that God is separate from sin, there is no unrighteousness in Him, and He CANNOT lie.
I am not sure why you guy bother!!
We see this kind of statement from Roland and Reformed-Theology-first people:
“Then you distort God’s character by making DEPENDENT on freewill creatures to act. Under libertarian freewill theology God is DEPENDENT and REACTIONARY to the choices of creaturely freewill. He’s no longer the Biblical God.”
Somehow they just snap their fingers and make hundreds of verses in the Bible says something different than what they clearly say.
Literally hundreds of verses say
“If you do…I will do”
“If you had… I would have”
“If you do not…I will not….”
“If I pronounce judgement on a people and they repent, I will not carry through the the judgement”
“If I pronounce good to my people and they do not obey me, I will not do that good I said.”
“I expect fruit and got bitter grapes…”
“If you call…I will answer..”
“They did not do what I had commanded them to do…”
“Then the people did what was evil so the Lord sent judgement…”
“Then they repented and the Lord sent deliverance…” (repeat, repeat, repeat).
“What they did was not what I commanded nor did it even enter my mind” (How much more clear could He be!!)
But noooooo. Quoting these verses about what God says about Himself….means “we no longer have a Biblical God.”
Read the Bible simply. He says clearly that He did not want Israel to have a king but gave in to their plea….but be warned…. this was not My plan and you will now have a king that does this and that.
What in the world can all that possibly mean to a reformed guy? Nothing. We know one thing for sure. Because of a Proverb about turn the heart of a king, they begin the interpretation of every one of these hundreds of passages with “It doesnt really mean what it says, cuz we know better…..”
Roland
Then you distort God’s character by making DEPENDENT on freewill creatures to act. Under libertarian freewill theology God is DEPENDENT and REACTIONARY to the choices of creaturely freewill.
br.d
But then we put Roland’s claim to the test – and watch him to complete about turn – and totally contradict himself!
What happens – when Roland is asked a TRUE/FALSE question about the Bible – and Calvin’s god decrees Roland’s brain to perceive the answer as TRUE – when in fact the correct answer was FALSE
We asked Roland – in that circumstance – did Calvin’s god grant his brain the function of discerning TRUE from FALSE?
Of course the answer is NO!
But Roland – can’t acknowledge that – because it shows the LOGICAL CONSEQUENCE to his bold claim.
For Calvin’s god to let Roland’s brain discern TRUE from FALSE – would be the very circumstance which Roland claims – would make Calvin’s god DEPENDENT upon Roland’s freewill. Making it the case that Calvin’s god is DEPENDENT and REACTIONARY to the choice that Roland’s brain made.
Thus – we PROVED LOGICALLY – that if Roland’s claim is true – then his brain is not granted the function of discerning TRUE from FALSE – because that would be a LIBERTARIAN function.
When faced with that fact – what does Roland do?
He does a complete about face – and claims Calvin’s god can decree him to perform a LIBERTARIAN function.
Thus once again – we’ve shown – that Calvinism is a SELF-REFUTING belief system. ;-D
Fromoverhere: “What in the world can all that possibly mean to a reformed guy? Nothing. We know one thing for sure. Because of a Proverb about turn the heart of a king, they begin the interpretation of every one of these hundreds of passages with “It doesnt really mean what it says, cuz we know better…..”
Love this part! So true!
off topic question, these comments were at the top of a list of “In Christ” verses compiled by Matt Slick, given to me by a brother in Christ.
So my question is, what does Matt Slick mean when he says,
“Theologically, the phrase (in Christ) is a sign of federal headship. This means that Christ is our representative”. Then he quotes 1Cor. 15:22, (ESV) to say, “as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will remain alive”. He goes on to say, “Adam was our federal head in the sense that he represented all of man kind. On the other hand, Jesus is our federal head in the sense that he represented his people on the cross”.
I get when MS says “all will remain alive”, and “his people on the cross”, plus the double “all” meaning. This is clear esv-calvy speak. I get that, no need to re-hash these errors.
But “federal headship” and “representative”, really? Am I missing something here? This sounds wrong. Almost as if he saying that Christ is a step down from the God-Head.
I would like the provisionalist input on this.
Welcome Shawn, Sorry for the delay in approving your post. Yes, the federal headship idea was a necessary theological construct to try to make Reformed Theology work. But it is a denial of the meaning “in Christ” in certain verses to mean the real spiritual body formed by the HS by adding members to it through faith. It is an attempt to suggest there is already a closed group of individuals eternally existing in God’s mind of which the Son was its head. And they are there not through personal faith, since they don’t even exist yet before creation as individuals who can exercise faith, but they are guaranteed to exist, be saved, and glorified because Christ was eternally their head through the election of God.
br.d
I think Dr. Jerry Walls hits the bulls-eye when he likens Calvinists to Pharaoh’s Magicians
Calvinism’s most critical weakness is the degree to which it is self-refuting.
Calvinism is essentially – a system of smoke & mirrors designed to produce illusions of Biblical associations.
Sociologically – Calvinism is a “Totem-Pole” system of respected persons.
Youth are significantly vulnerable to a system of respected persons – because they will quite naturally lust after the dream of being one recognized within the ranks of respected persons.
The art of SEMANTIC MAGICIANRY is the skill of the master.
The more real one can make Calvinist smoke & mirrors appear Biblical – the more one is respected.
The more smooth-talking DOUBLE-SPEAK one can produce – the more one is respected.
Thank you BW, very helpful! No worries on delay of my post.
God knows and has always known everything because He is God. Because He is inherently, exhaustively omniscient. And as if that wasn’t sufficient reason in itself, He foreknows because He is omnitemporal – simultaneously present at all points in time. He foreknows the things He has predetermined. He foreknows the things He will do by His own direct action. That is the scope of Isaiah 46. It is clear from the context He is talking about a SPECIFIC ACTION that He has determined to do.
But God ALSO foreknows the things He has NOT predetermined, that creatures will choose to do. He is so omniscient that He is able to know these things. He even knows every counterfactual – things that don’t actually happen, but would have happened given a different set of circumstances. If God only knew things would happen because He predetermined them, as Calvin claimed, He would not know counterfactuals with any certainty. He would be guessing.
God is so omniscient, He doesn’t NEED to predetermine something in order to foreknow it. If God ONLY knew what He had predetermined, His foreknowledge would be DEPENDENT UPON and CONSEQUENT TO His decree. Thus before He made that decree, He would not have foreknown that thing. There would have been a point in time when God did not foreknow that thing, making Him less than omniscient. In this way, Calvinists deny God’s exhaustive omniscience.
Pastor Loz: “If God ONLY knew what He had predetermined, His foreknowledge would be DEPENDENT UPON and CONSEQUENT TO His decree. Thus before He made that decree, He would not have foreknown that thing. There would have been a point in time when God did not foreknow that thing, making Him less than omniscient. In this way, Calvinists deny God’s exhaustive omniscience.”
Interesting and good point. I never put that together. Just one more way that Calvinism actually denies the things it says it upholds.
br.d
Yes!
Here are some statements to that affect
John Calvin
-quote
He foresees future events *ONLY* in consequence of his decree (Institutes Vol ii. p. 169.)
“A.W. Pink
-quote
God foreknows what will be because he decrees what will be. (The attributes of god)”
“Paul Helms
-quote
His foreknowledge is simply his knowledge of what he has decreed. (Divine Foreknowledge – Four Views pg 12)”
So we can state it as follows:
Calvin’s god – does not have foreknowledge of what [X] will be – prior to the decree of what [X] will be.
Therefore divine omniscience in Calvinism – cannot be classified as an “Essential” attribute – because an “Essential” attribute – is an attribute that is never lacking. And as we can see – in Calvinism – prior to the decree of what [X] will be – divine knowledge of what [X] will be is lacking.
Debating atheists has convinced me even more that Calvinism is mistaken. I’d essentially have to agree with their reasoning and how they falsely characterize God and the problem of evil if I were a Calvinists. Atheists, just like me, reject Calvi-God and I agree with their reasons.
DW
Yes that is so true Kurt!
As a matter of fact – William Lane Craig was debating an Atheist
And the Atheist developed an argument concerning God being evil.
Dr. Craig asked him to produce the argument.
It was in fact an argument based on Calvinism.
Dr. Craig laughed – and said – that argument is easy to refute
Your argument is a refutation of Calvinism.
And I’m not a Calvinist! 😀
Another well known argument for Christianity – was made by Dr. Alvin Plantinga.
It is called “The free-will defense”
It is considered a fully sound argument.
But the force of that argument is found in how it presupposes “Libertarian” free-will.
And that makes it an argument for God – that the Calvinist cannot use.
On a personal note, when I was an atheist, I was rejecting the God of the Bible because I thought the God of the Bible WAS the Calvinist God. Then I heard other explanations, based in free will, and I understood the truth and my whole picture of God changed, to one I could accept and worship due to His amazing love and kindness. The truth set me free, and that truth was NOT Calvinism!
br.d
That is a wonderful testimony Kurt!
My testimony is very similar.
The Lord set me free in a supernatural and miraculous way that I could not possibly deny.
During my younger years in the Lord – there were a couple of other miracles.
There was one instance in which as a young man I was driving a very old pickup truck home from work.
I was coming up on a very steep hill and an audible voice commanded me to slow down.
It was so loud and real that I did slow down
As I slowed down to the top of that hill – there was a woman on a horse in the middle of the road – and the horse was rearing its front legs up and she was trying to stay on it and get it under control.
If I had not slowed down – i would have never seen her and that horse until I was right on top of them.
With the other event – I was still a young man – working in a factory
I was pushing a stainless steel cart with 2 other men and it had jacked edges and we were pushing it in slippery water.
I lost my balance and my wrist grazed one of the jagged edges and I was bleeding holding my wrist trying to stop the blood. I kept saying Jesus Jesus Jesus.
The other men came over to me and saw me saying that
They must have thought I was crazy.
Just then my wrist stopped bleeding
I took my hand away and it healed in front of them.
It was black-and-blue around the area – and that all cleared up and became normal
One of them started to become a believer after that.
So I know the Lord has been with me all of my life
And I know I am totally unworthy of his love!!!
Wow! Praise the Lord! That is quite a testimony! How do atheists respond to that one?!
br.d
I think the Atheist stuck in his belief system – is going to say I just imagined those things.
Because as far as he is concerned – the God of scripture is man made.
br.d
I think the Atheist stuck in his belief system – is going to say I just imagined those things.
Because as far as he is concerned – the God of scripture is man made.
roland
Do you believe atheists have libertarian freewill? If so, how is the Atheist stuck in his belief system? Do you believe that he could freely choose to become unstuck and believe your testimony?
br.d
So we can state it as follows:
Calvin’s god – does not have foreknowledge of what [X] will be – prior to the decree of what [X] will be.
Therefore divine omniscience in Calvinism – cannot be classified as an “Essential” attribute – because an “Essential” attribute – is an attribute that is never lacking. And as we can see – in Calvinism – prior to the decree of what [X] will be – divine knowledge of what [X] will be is lacking.
roland
Not a true statement of Calvinism. There are many Calvinists who believe that God’s foreknowledge is an essential attribute. Calvin himself wrote this:
“When we attribute foreknowledge to God, we mean that everything has always been, and forever remains, in his full view, so that in terms of his knowledge there is nothing which is either future or past. Instead, all things are present to him – so present indeed that he does not see them, as it were, as mental images, as we do who need imagination to make more or less visible the things preserved in our memory. God observes and beholds them just as they are, as if they were actually before him. We affirm that this foreknowledge covers the whole wide world and with it every creature.”
In Calvinism God does not learn from His decree. As Calvin wrote, “…we mean that everything has ALWAYS been, and FOREVER remains, in his full view…” God’s knowledge is never lacking. It is neither future nor past. You can find this in the writings of Dutch Reformed theologians such as A Brakel and Van Mastricht, puritans like Stephen Charnock, and modern Calvinists such as John Frame.
Roland
Not a true statement of Calvinism. There are many Calvinists who believe that God’s foreknowledge is an essential attribute.
br.d
Hello Roland
There are many Calvinists who are LOGICALLY INCONSISTENT with the belief system.
And that is the case on this issue.
John Calvin – was NOT LOGICALLY INCONSISTENT on this issue
And all reformed scholars are in agreement with him.
John Calvin
-quote
He foresees future events *ONLY* in consequence of his decree (Institutes Vol ii. p. 169.)
“A.W. Pink
-quote
God foreknows what will be because he decrees what will be. (The attributes of god)”
“Paul Helms
-quote
His foreknowledge is simply his knowledge of what he has decreed. (Divine Foreknowledge – Four Views pg 12)
Your failure in this issue – is the same failure you have with your version of divine permission – which is also LOGICALLY INCONSISTENT with the doctrine of decrees.
Sorry dude!
When a Calvinist’s belief is a mixture of elements from Calvinism and elements from Arminianism – that Calvinist does not really represent TRUE Calvinism.
br.d
Here is something interesting for you to ponder Roland
1) IF Calvin’s god has foreknowledge of what [X] will be – prior to the decree of what [X] will be – then he does not have a choice about what he will decree [X] to be
2) This is because the decree in this case – cannot be CONTRARY to what he foreknows.
3) In such case – the decree does not determine what [X] will be – because the decree itself is determined by foreknowledge – and cannot be CONTRARY to foreknowledge.
4) So making his foreknowledge the DETERMINER of what [X] will be – rather than the decree – produces another consequence.
5) That consequence is – Calvin’s god’s foreknowledge does not grant him the ability to choose what [X] will be.
br.d
…prior to the decree of what [X]
Roland
There is no prior to the decree. As I quoted to you what Calvin wrote about divine foreknowledge:
“When we attribute foreknowledge to God, we mean that everything has always been, and forever remains, in his full view, so that in terms of his knowledge there is nothing which is either future or past.”
Roland
There is no prior to the decree
br.d
So what you are saying then – is creation does not have a beginning either?
Creation has a beginning.
Roland
Creation has a beginning
br.d
Ok so [X] is part of what has been created
And since [X] has a beginning – of necessity – there must be a point that is “prior” to [X]
Which means – there has to be a point in which [X] could be one thing- or [X] could be another
Which means he has not yet determined whether [X] will be one or the other.
However:
If Calvin’s god ALWAYS knows that [X] will be TRUE
Then Calvin’s god doesn’t have any choice – about whether [X] will be TRUE or not
His foreknowledge ALWAYS new that [X] would be TRUE – and [X] cannot be OTHERWISE
So he doesn’t have any choice in the matter.
Similarly:
If Calvin’s god ALWAYS knows that [X] will be FALSE
Then Calvin’s god doesn’t have any choice – about whether [X] will be FALSE or not
His foreknowledge ALWAYS new that [X] would be FALSE – and [X] cannot be OTHERWISE
So he doesn’t have any choice in the matter.
So foreknowledge that has ALWAYS been of what [X] will be – does not give Calvin’s god any choice in the matter of what [X] be – because what [X] will be has ALWAYS been foreknown
So foreknowledge in this case – eliminates the function of Calvin’s god having choice
If however you want to give Calvin’s god the function of choice
Then there has to be point “prior” to that choice where [X] can be TRUE and [X] can be FALSE – and it has not yet been determined which will be the case.
Prior to the point of choice – Calvin’s god has not yet made up his mind.
Foreknowledge of what [X] will be – cannot exist at this point – because it would exclude any choice in the matter
We cannot have BOTH foreknowledge of what [X] will be – and a choice about what [X] will be – because one excludes the other.
So you still are left with conundrum.
If you grant Calvin’s god to ALWAYS have knowledge of what [X] will be – then that removes any option of choice.
if you grant Calvin’s god the option of choice – then you cannot have foreknowledge because it excludes choice
However!
One can always say Calvin’s god is MAGICAL!
He can chose [X] to be OTHERWISE from what he knows [X] will be ;-D
br.d
However!
One can always say Calvin’s god is MAGICAL!
He can chose [X] to be OTHERWISE from what he knows [X] will be ;-D
roland
I would never say God is MAGICAL! I would not affirm your last premise.
But whatever is what it is, is due to God’s choice. I am not a proponent of middle knowledge as if God is looking at all the choices available to Him and His decree. He decrees what He chooses and pleases to decree. He created how He chose and pleased to create. He wasn’t handed a bunch of stuff and then had to make a choice about what do to with this stuff. He wasn’t given a bunch of possible worlds and chose from those worlds.
Your argument puts God between choosing what He foreknows to be false or good, then if He always knows that something would be false or good, He is bound by His foreknowledge to decree. I reject your whole argument. It sounds like you are arguing from a middle knowledge position. For a better understanding of a Reformed position I hold to I would direct you to Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, Vol. 1, pp. 220-229.
I was going to say, this sounds like Molinism! Reformed can’t stand William Lane Craig though!
Roland
But whatever is what it is, is due to God’s choice.
br.d
MIddle-knowledge doesn’t enter into the picture in this case.
When you stop to think about it – its pretty simple:
1) In order for there to be a “choice” about [X] being one thing or another – necessitates that [X] has not yet been determined – because a “choice” entails [X] being one thing or another.
2) Where foreknowledge of what [X] will be is ALWAYS the case – then it is impossible for [X] to be one way or another – because [X] cannot be OTHER than what it has ALWAYS been foreknown to be.
3) Therefore the existence of foreknowledge of [X] which is ALWAYS the case – excludes any choice in the matter of what [X] will be.
Simply put – one excludes the other.
And in this case – one INFALLIBLY excludes the other
Since one INFALLIBLY excludes the other – we can’t have both.
Unless we have a MAGICAL god:
A MAGICAL god can choose to make [X] be OTHER than what he ALWAYS foreknows [X] will be – simply cuz he’s MAGICAL. :-]
Kurt: “I was rejecting the God of the Bible because I thought the God of the Bible WAS the Calvinist God.”
This is one of my biggest concerns about Calvinism, that it will make more atheists than believers, and that it will hurt the faith of genuine believers because of how it portrays God. If I thought the Calvinist god was the God of the Bible, I’d be an atheist too. Because how can we have any faith in, trust in, or love for a god who ordains/causes sin and deliberately creates most people for hell, a god who causes them to be the way they are (to commit the sins he says not to commit) but who then punishes them for it, when they never had a choice?
It breaks my heart to see the damage Calvinism does to God’s character, Jesus’s sacrifice and people’s faith. This is why I keep speaking out against it as much as I do. Calvinism is spreading stealthily and unchecked, because very few know what it’s really teaching and how it sneaks in. And this is why it’s even more crucial that those of us who do know speak out against it whenever we can.
Kurt: “Then I heard other explanations, based in free will, and I understood the truth and my whole picture of God changed, to one I could accept and worship due to His amazing love and kindness. The truth set me free, and that truth was NOT Calvinism!”
Amen! And God bless!
Great testimony, Br.d.
And amen to this: “One of them started to become a believer after that. So I know the Lord has been with me all of my life. And I know I am totally unworthy of his love!!!”
Roland: “There are many Calvinists who believe that God’s foreknowledge is an essential attribute.”
Sure, but that doesn’t address that it’s his foreknowledge about what he decrees. In Calvinism, can God foreknow something He doesn’t decree? If Calvi-god didn’t decree it to happen, it won’t happen, and so how could he foreknow it would happen if it was never scheduled to happen?
And this makes me wonder, then, if Calvinists can adequately (and without inconsistency) explain the fact that in the Bible God foreknew things that didn’t happen, such as He foreknew that the people in a certain city would hand David over to Saul if David stayed there, and so David left. This means that something God foreknew/decreed (that David would be handed over to Saul) didn’t happen. How does that work in Calvinism?
And then there’s Nineveh, where God said that in 40 days it would be destroyed. But then He didn’t destroy them. Did God mean what He said about destroying them? If He never planned/intended to destroy them, then He was lying. But if He meant what He said that He would destroy them, then the thing He foreknew/decreed didn’t happen. How does that work in Calvinism, where God decrees everything that happens and where everything that happens is because He decreed it?
Most Calvinists try to get out of this by saying “Well, God can decree to change His decree, to cause the opposite of what He decreed”.
So then which one was His real decree: the first decree or the second (opposing) decree? The thing He foreknew (David would be handed over to Saul) or the thing that happened (David fled)? The thing He said (“I will destroy Nineveh”) or the thing that happened (Nineveh didn’t get destroyed)? Did God not want Adam to eat the fruit (the command He gave) or did He want him to eat the fruit (what Calvi-god supposedly caused because he decreed it)?
What a mess! And what an attack on God’s character and trustworthiness! (No wonder people are leaving the Church in great numbers! Of course, there are other reasons, but I think Calvinism is a part of it too. I think it’s Satan’s way of destroying the more faithful, evangelical churches from the inside out.)
If you, Roland, want to believe in a God who doesn’t say what He means or mean what He says, who says one thing but causes the opposite, who causes people to commit the sins He commands them not to do but then punishes them for it, that’s up to you. I’ll say a prayer for you. May God help you remove the Calvinist blinders from your eyes.
Oh, yes, the nonsense 2 wills of God. His prescriptive will and his permissive will. If one has to jump through hoops backwards to make their theology work, it probably is a false theology. Instead of just accepting Hod gave man a will independent of His own, which explains everything easily, they cram another Will into God, making Him a God with dissociative personality disorder.
What is so bad about people having free-will? I really don’t get the hang up. I don’t even get how it damages God’s sovereignty, I think it makes Him MORE sovereign.
There is something deeper psychologically going on with the person who accepts Calvinism. Not taking responsibility? Fear of commitment? Associates love with abusive behavior? Really needs attention and to feel special? Feels “tough” for accepting a “hard truth” others should just “deal with”?
br.d
Good point!
And when an invention like that backfires it becomes instructive.
For example – with Calvinism’s 2 wills idea
1) The SECRET will – is DETERMINATIVE.
It is what Determines whatsoever will come to pass
2) The ENUNCIATED will is NON-DETERMINATIVE
3) The ENUNCIATED will in most cases is 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
Now accordingly – for the Calvinist – all of the promises within scripture to the “elect” fall under the category of being the ENUNCIATED will of Calvin’s god.
Consequently – the Calvinist when reading any promises in scripture to the “elect” has NO CERTAINTY of whether any of those promises are the opposite of the SECRET will.
Thus – when the Calvinist reads “you are beloved” – he has no way of knowing if Calvin’s god’s SECRET will is the opposite
Thus the SECRET will would be:
“You are HATED and created specifically to be CHAFF – and for eternal torment in a lake of fire – for my good pleasure”
So every time the Calvinist creates a new invention – to get the doctrine out of some kind of trouble – he ends up created one more conundrum for himself – just as bad as the first one.
Kurt:
Oh, yes, the nonsense 2 wills of God.
roland
I believe the nonsense of 2 wills of God is seen in God’s command to Moses to command pharaoh to let God’s people go. God tells Moses to do this yet behind the scenes, unbeknownst to pharaoh, God is going to harden pharaoh’s heart so that he will not let God’s people go.
I find it interesting that Moses never questions God’s actions regarding pharaoh’s heart. Moses never says, “But why should I tell pharaoh to let Israel go while you are going to hardened his heart so that he will not let Israel go?” Moses doesn’t question God’s words or actions but Moses does question his qualifications to go before pharaoh. That is what I call submission to God’s commands.
You miss the order of events. First, Pharaoh already had a hard heart. The next 3 times Pharaoh HARDENED HIS OWN HEART (not God, but Pharaoh himself) then God hardened Pharaohs heart. Then Pharaoh hardened his own heart again. Then God gave him up to his own desires and hardened him again. Calvinists always use Pharaoh as an example, but it actually really works against them.
Why would it make the distinction that Pharaoh hardened his own heart if it was actually God who did it every time?
God tells Moses in Exodus 4:21 these words: 21 And the Lord said to Moses, “When you go back to Egypt, see that you do all those wonders before Pharaoh which I have put in your hand. But I will harden his heart, so that he will not let the people go.
God hardens pharaoh’s heart first, before Moses speaks the words, so that pharaoh will not let the people go. Moses’s first encounter with pharaoh doesn’t occur until Exodus 5. I’m not missing the order.
Nope. Earlier than that.
Exodus 3:19 And I am sure that the king of Egypt will not let you go, no, not by a mighty hand.
Exodus 3:20 And I will stretch out my hand, and smite Egypt with all my wonders which I will do in the midst thereof: and after that he will let you go.
Then, you have to go by order of the meetings
Exodus 7:13 And he hardened Pharaoh’s heart, that he hearkened not unto them; as the LORD had said.
Exodus 7:14 And the LORD said unto Moses, Pharaoh’s heart is hardened, he refuseth to let the people go.
Pharaoh hardens his own heart
Exodus 8:15 But when Pharaoh saw that there was respite, he hardened his heart, and hearkened not unto them; as the LORD had said.
Pharaoh hardened his heart
Exodus 8:19 Then the magicians said unto Pharaoh, This is the finger of God: and Pharaoh’s heart was hardened, and he hearkened not unto them; as the LORD had said.
Pharaoh hardened his heart
Exodus 8:32 And Pharaoh hardened his heart at this time also, neither would he let the people go.
Pharaoh hardened his heart
Exodus 9:7 And Pharaoh sent, and, behold, there was not one of the cattle of the Israelites dead. And the heart of Pharaoh was hardened, and he did not let the people go.
Pharaoh hardened his heart
Exodus 9:12 And the LORD hardened the heart of Pharaoh, and he hearkened not unto them; as the LORD had spoken unto Moses.
Very distinctly, the LORD hardened Pharaoh’s heart for the first time
Exodus 9:34 And when Pharaoh saw that the rain and the hail and the thunders were ceased, he sinned yet more, and hardened his heart, he and his servants.
After the Lord hardened Pharaohs heart, Pharaoh once again hardens his own heart.
Then 10:1, 10:20, 10:27 and 11:10 God hardens Pharaohs heart.
You will notice this fits with the order Paul describes in Romans 1
Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
Romans 1:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Romans 1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Romans 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
Romans 1:23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
Romans 1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
Romans 1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
Romans 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
Notice it was men doing this to themselves, then FOR THAT CAUSE God gives them up to vile affections. Later
Romans 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
Romans 1:29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
Romans 1:30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
THEY did not like to retain God in their knowledge so he gives them over to a reprobate mind. They BECOME haters of God, not BORN haters of God as Calvinists say.
Exactly. God hardened pharaoh’s heart first as you pointed out in Exodus 7:13. Then pharaoh hardened his own heart. There is no inconsistency between God’s dealings with pharaoh and the Reformed position. All we are doing is affirming what Scripture teaches. That God does as He pleases with His creation.
It does not say God hardened Pharaohs heart. Even if it did, Pharaoh still hardened his own heart which is impossible under Reformed theology.
Kurt:
Even if it did, Pharaoh still hardened his own heart which is impossible under Reformed theology.
br.d
That is correct
In Calvinism – per the doctrine of decrees – 100% of whatsoever comes to pass is solely and exclusively *UP TO* Calvin’s god – who leaves ZERO% UN-determined – and thus ZERO% *UP TO* the creature.
Also Determinism (aka Calvinism) entails the thesis – that whatsoever comes to pass – is determined by antecedent factors outside of human control
Therefore in Calvinism – every impulse that came to pass within Pharaoh’s brain – was determined by antecedent factors outside of Pharaoh’s brain’s control.
So
1) ZERO% of Pharaoh’s hear is *UP TO* Pharaoh to determine.
and
2) Pharaoh is not granted any control over any impulse that will comes to pass within his brain.
So he wouldn’t have the control necessary to make a choice in the matter of anything.
And now you know why Calvinism is so DOUBLE-MINDED :-]
It isn’t scriptural. It says Pharaoh hardened his heart. It also says the Lord hardened Pharaoh’s heart. This is a distinction. If God wanted to communicate to us that God hardened Pharaoh’s heart on every occasion, He would have worded it that way on every occasion. He didn’t. If He did this deliberately, He would be authoring confusion, and God isn’t the author of confusion.
It is confusing under Calvinism. It isn’t under free-will.
br.d
YUP!
That’s why Calvinist language is known as a language of DOUBLE-SPEAK
You watch Dr. Flower’s videos on youtube – where he is showing a video clip of John MacArthur or John Piper
And they are making matter of fact statements which are complete and total denials of their own doctrine.
Their minds are so conditioned to automatically flip back and forth from one self-contradiction to the other – they simply cannot discern the degree to which it is a system full of DOUBLE-SPEAK.
Heather:
In Calvinism, can God foreknow something He doesn’t decree?
roland
Yes, God can know what would or could happen. But the fact that whatever would or could have happened never happened just shows that God did not decree that event to happen. I don’t deny that God has knowledge of hypotheticals. I just don’t see the point of hypotheticals. A world of possibilities is no world at all.
Heather:
If Calvi-god didn’t decree it to happen, it won’t happen, and so how could he foreknow it would happen if it was never scheduled to happen?
roland
This is funny. I watched Leighton’s video the other day, his response to being called heterodox, and he complains about how mean and snarky Calvinists are. Yet he never mentions how snarky people on his blog are. Comments such as “Calvi-god” and Stockholm syndrome are part of the snark of Leighton’s followers.
Heather:
This means that something God foreknew/decreed (that David would be handed over to Saul) didn’t happen. How does that work in Calvinism?
roland
It just shows that it was never decreed. It never happened but it was never decreed it would happen. Not that complicated.
Here is a big problem with your theology. You are telling me my testimony is wrong.
If Calvinism is true, God decreed that I would hear the truth (Calvinism) and reject the truth. He then decreed that I would hear a lie, and believe that lie, which made me accept Christ (Romans 10:9, which I did after hearing that lie). So I became free in Christ by believing a lie, but Jesus said the truth will set you free.
Also, why would God decree one of His children to reject the truth and believe a lie, when that child is aware of the truth? By your theology, God wants people to believe lies. I’m pretty sure it is Satan who wants people to believe lies, which is why He blinds them to the truth. By your theology, it is God making me believe a lie, not Satan, even though I believe that Jesus is Lord and raised from the dead.
If Calvinism is true, God is making me believe a lie. If Calvinism is false, it simply means you are deceived and I believe the truth based on discernment. If Calvinism is true, I can’t do anything to change the lie I believe. If it is false, you can know the truth but refuse to.
Kurt
By your theology, God wants people to believe lies
br.d
MAKES their brains perceive lies – and doesn’t grant their brains any ALTERNATIVE perceptions
And that for Calvinists also.
For the Calvinists – he MAKES them perceive a moment by moment stream of infallibly decreed FALSE PERCEPTIONS
FALSE PERCEPTIONS of having multiple options available from which to choose
FALSE PERCEPTIONS of having the function of choice.
1 Timothy 2:3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;
1 Timothy 2:4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
God wants all men to be saved and have knowledge of the truth. But by Calvinism, he only wants some to be saved and makes people believe lies.
On the flip side of Calvinism (except for calvinist universalist) universalists use this text to support all being saved, and they are just as out of context as the Calvinists are with elect.
Kurt:
1 Timothy 2:4 Who will have all men to be saved
br.d
In Calvinism – because “ALL MEN” is defined to mean “Jews and Gentiles” it logically follows
1) Calvin’s god wants Jews and Gentiles saved
2) Calvin’s god wants Jews and Gentiles dammed.
Because:
1) Calvin’s god wants “ALL MEN” (which means some Jews and some gentiles) saved
and
2) Calvin’s god wants “ALL MEN” (which means some Jews and some gentiles) dammed.
For the Calvinist- the Holy Spirit made a mistake in that verse because he neglected to tell the WHOLE TRUTH ;-D
Even that explanation doesn’t make sense. If I go into a class and say the boys and the girls are going on a field trip, that still means everyone in the class. If you aren’t a Jew you are a gentile.
Notice all means all when ALL have sinned and come short of the glory of God. Or Romans 5:18
Romans 5:18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
All men are guilty of condemnation and in the same verse the second all means some?
br.d
Yes – they have a spider web of exegetical arguments to get around those as well
When a people need the Bible to say what they need it to say – they will jump through whatever hoops it takes to get it to say what they need it to say :-]
The best rebuttal to the Calvinist explanation of John 3:16 is located in the very next verse. They say world means world of the elect. Since the elect are by definition those who will not face condemnation the next verse doesn’t make sense with their definition of world.
John 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
For one, nobody believes the elect would be condemned. They were chosen before the foundation of the world to NOT be condemned. Then, the word MIGHT be saved. There is no question that the elect will not be saved as they will be no matter what. World can’t mean “world of the elect” (adding to the Word of God anyone?) in this context.
Plug in free will theology and these verses make perfect sense!
Heather:
If you, Roland, want to believe in a God who doesn’t say what He means or mean what He says, who says one thing but causes the opposite, who causes people to commit the sins He commands them not to do but then punishes them for it, that’s up to you.
roland
Did God “mean” it when He told Moses to tell pharaoh to let Israel go?
Or did God not “mean” it because unbeknownst to pharaoh God was going to hardened his heart so that he would not obey Moses’s command to let Israel go?
Kurt: “What is so bad about people having free-will? I really don’t get the hang up. I don’t even get how it damages God’s sovereignty, I think it makes Him MORE sovereign.”
And I also think it makes Him more loving, gracious, righteous, compassionate, etc. All of God’s attributes are elevated by the fact that He loves everyone, died for everyone, calls everyone, and gives every sinner the chance to believe in Him, allowing them to decide for themselves and then allowing them to have the consequences of their choice.
To believe that the God of the universe loves everyone so much that He would die for them and try to draw each person to Him, patiently pursuing them over many years, yet allowing them to reject Him if that’s what they want, makes me even more in awe of Him and more humbled by His great love, making me love Him even more and want to live for Him and His glory.
Kurt: “Associates love with abusive behavior?”
I was just thinking today about how Calvinism is almost like a form of Stockholm Syndrome, where the captives develop a bond with their captors and basically learn to “love” their captors and “desire” to work for them. Or it’s like the little toadies of the playground bully who pledge allegiance to the bully because at least he’s not picking on them. It’s sad.
I don’t get how more Christians aren’t seeing what’s wrong with Calvinism. (We were one of the only people to leave our church after it was taken over by Calvinism. Everyone else sucked it up and is encouraging its spread, with little to no qualms.)
I mean, I KIND OF get it. When a Pastor uses proof texting and gives an in depth explanation of scriptures that people didn’t notice before, it can be convincing, especially if you haven’t heard alternative explanations.
Love your blog, by the way!
I should clarify that when I say Calvinism is like a form of Stockholm syndrome, I mean that the “captives” are the Calvinists and the “captor” is Calvi-god, not the Calvinist pastors. If Calvinism is true, then God is like a captor who captures the elect, and they are essentially forced into loving and serving Him, which they “willingly” do because … at least they were one of the lucky ones not predestined to hell.
I would guess that, deep down, many Calvinists might love Calvi-god more out of fear than out of genuine love for him and for his so-called love, kindness, graciousness, etc. They’ve seen what he does to the non-elect, and they don’t want it happening to them. Kinda like why the toadies are committed to the playground bully … because at least they’re not the ones being picked on then.
And I agree with you, Kurt, I can see how people get sucked into Calvinism. Calvinists pastors are very skilled at first telling people what they will find in the Bible and then leading them to the proof-texts that supposedly “prove” it. They are good at making people feel like they are learning something new and secret and deeper, taking them to the “next level” of faith, and at making them feel like they are more humble – and therefore more honoring/glorifying to God – for believing it.
And the thing is, I don’t think a lot of these Calvinists pastors are trying to spread bad theology or to deceive people. They truly believe it themselves and want others to believe it too. They are sincere. Unfortunately, that’s part of what makes Calvinism so persuasive, and it causes people to trust it, to not doubt it. After all, these pastors are highly-educated, good “godly” men with high standards who value the Bible and want to honor God. Who wouldn’t be tempted to put their faith in them, to trust them?
I just find it sad that once the sugar-coating came off at our church – once the pastor started saying things like “God doesn’t love everyone… God ordained childhood abuse, for His glory and for your good and to keep you humble… God decreed that Adam and Eve would eat the fruit, even though He commanded them not to… You’re like a dead body who can’t even seek God unless He causes you to … Only those who repent go to heaven and NO ONE gets a free pass, not even babies who die, etc.” – that no one else was alarmed enough to question it or to even look into it deeper. They were all so brainwashed ahead of time that they didn’t (couldn’t, wouldn’t) notice anything wrong with it or how it damaged God’s character and contradicted His Word.
We thought for sure once we left our church that at least a couple friends would ask us why and would seriously contemplate what we told them about Calvinism. But almost none did. It’s sad. And it’s just gotten more and more Calvinist since then.
And thank you for your kind words about my blog. (I’m assuming you are addressing that to me, right? If not, then I’m embarrassing myself.) I put it out there but have no idea who’s reading it or if it’s doing any good. So thank you. And God bless. 🙂
It was addressed to you and I learned much from your efforts! God bless you and continue to use you for His truth!
Roland: “Did God “mean” it when He told Moses to tell pharaoh to let Israel go?
Or did God not “mean” it because unbeknownst to pharaoh God was going to hardened his heart so that he would not obey Moses’s command to let Israel go?”
Not sure what your point is here, because those are not mutually exclusive and because Pharaoh did eventually let the people go.
God meant it that Moses was to tell Pharoah to let the people go, because He wanted the people to be let go. But God foreknew that Pharaoh himself would choose to refuse to let the people go in those first several plagues. And so He decided to work Pharaoh’s OWN DECISION into His plans, to use it for His glory, by locking Pharaoh into his decision in later plagues so that not only would the people be let go after the 10th plague, but God could do some amazing things to gain glory for Himself through it.
In the Bible, God knows how to work our decisions – good or evil, obedience or disobedience – into His plans to make things work out.
But in Calvinism, Calvi-god preplans, controls, causes our decisions – good and evil, obedience and disobedience. He commands us to do or not do things, causes us to do the opposite, but then punishes us for doing what he caused us to do, for something we basically had no real choice about. This makes Calvi-god unrighteous, unjust, and untrustworthy.
In Calvinism, Pharaoh didn’t get a choice about how he responded to Calvi-god’s command to let the people go because Calvi-god preplanned, caused, controlled what Pharaoh decided and did. First, Calvi-god predestined that Pharaoh wouldn’t let the people go … then He commands Pharaoh to do what He made impossible for Pharaoh to do … then He causes Pharaoh to disobey His spoken commands (just like He planned), while acting like Pharaoh had a choice when he didn’t … and then, to top it all off, Calvi-god punishes Pharaoh for not doing what He commanded him to do, which is really just punishing him for doing what Calvi-god caused him to do.
Is that a just, righteous god? The kind you can trust?
Calvi-god is not the God of the Bible.
Heather
But in Calvinism, Calvi-god preplans, controls, causes our decisions
br.d
What is logically impossible would tell us that Calvin’s god doesn’t grant the function of making decision or a choice to the creature. So per the doctrine of decrees – there is no such thing as a human making a decision or having a choice.
The standard definition for “Choice” has a necessary condition of the availability of more than one option from which to select – in order to constitute what people understand as a “Choice”.
In Calvinism – Calvin’s god is the only being who has multiple options from which he may select – in the process of making a decision or choice about something.
In Calvinism – for every human event – and every human impulse – there is never granted more than ONE SINGLE PREDESTINED RENDERED-CERTAIN option.
Therefore – the necessary condition for “Choice” does not exist for humans.
Every impulse that will come to pass within the human brain has been FIXED by infallible decree
And the Calvinist is granted NO CHOICE in the matter of what impulse will infallibly come to pass in his brain
The Calvinist is not even aware of what impulse will come to pass within his brain – until after it does so.
Calvinist have a desperate need to convince themselves they have the function of choice.
Because to not have choice – is to not have what others have
Thank you, Kurt. I really do appreciate the kind words. 🙂
God bless you too!
Br.d: “So per the doctrine of decrees – there is no such thing as a human making a decision or having a choice.”
Right. And I know you know this already, but they talk out of both sides of their mouth, trying to make you think they aren’t saying what they are saying (if they even realize it themselves).
They’ll say things like “We freely choose what God predestined us to choose.” Or “We do freely make our own decisions … according to the desires of our nature.” [But what they leave out, what they hide, is that Calvi-god predetermined which nature we get, and those natures come with certain built-in desires – also determined by Calvi-god – that we HAVE TO obey. There’s no option or ability to choose differently. (Having no options means it’s not a real choice.)
Essentially, Calvi-god gives you the desires (and only those desires) to do the things he predestined you to do … but because you “desired” it, they say you did what you “wanted” to do, you made the “decision” you “wanted” to make, and so you can “justly” be held accountable for it, even though you had no control over which nature/desires you got and had to obey.
Layers and layers of covering up what they really mean: God causes all sin and evil but punishes you for it, and you had no ability to do otherwise.
No wonder it’s so hard to pin them down, to get a straight answer. They can’t give a straight answer because it would contradict God and His Word, and so they have to layer it, twist it, redefine it, etc. It’s maddening. (And it’s what allows them to slip into churches unaware for so long.)
Heather
they talk out of both sides of their mouth, trying to make you think they aren’t saying what they are saying
br.d
YES!
So true!
Roland – for example – just stated that Calvin’s god has the function of “Choice” concerning what [X] will be.
But Roland also wants to give Calvin’s god foreknowledge of [X] which has *ALWAYS* been.
The problem:
If [X] is *ALWAYS* true – then [X] can *NEVER* be OTHERWISE than true.
Calvin’s god has NO CHOICE in the matter of what [X] will be.
[X] is FIXED and cannot be OTHERWISE
Thus the foreknowledge Roland wants to give to Calvin’s god EXCLUDED Calvin’s god having a choice about [X].
Roland needs to have – what his doctrine INFALLIBLY EXCLUDES
br.d
[X] is FIXED and cannot be OTHERWISE
roland
We agree! The events of this world are FIXED! Fixed by God’s decree.
Roland,
If it is fixed by God’s decree, then how do you advocate that you are not a robot or a puppet? You are only doing what God ordered to happen, and there is no free will in that at all.
Hello Ed,
Do you believe God has perfect knowledge of all events future, present, and past?
If so, then He perfectly knows what our future choices will be.
And if He perfectly knows what are future choices will be, they either come to pass according to His foreknowledge or they come pass contrary to His foreknowledge. If they come to pass contrary to His foreknowledge, then God can be wrong about what He knows. His foreknowledge can be wrong.
If He perfectly knows our future choices, then do we really have freewill? Are we free to choose contrary to what God perfectly knows will happen?
Thanks for reading, Roland.
Roland
He perfectly knows what our future choices will be.
br.d
INTERPRETATION
He perfectly knows what IMPULSES will come to pass within our brain – because he FIXED by decree – those impulses that would come to pass within our brains – and DID NOT GIVE US A CHOICE in the matter of what impulses he decreed to come to pass within our brains.
But we don’t want to acknowledge that all Calvin’s god gives us is infallibly decreed IMPULSES – which we have NO CHOICE in the matter of.
So we use the word “Choice” as a replacement word for IMPULSES
That way – we can go around telling people we have “Choices” when we really dont :-]
br.d,
Calvinists use the word choice because that is what the Bible uses. Non-calvinists use the word “IMPULSES” so they can build a strawman and make it easier to burn down! 🙂
Roland
Calvinists use the word choice because that is what the Bible uses.
br.d
Again
1) The standard definition of the term “Choice” entails a NECESSARY CONDITION of more than one option available – in order to constitute what people understand as the word “Choice”
2) Calvinism’s doctrine of decrees never grants more than *ONE SINGLE PREDESTINED RENDERED-CERTAIN option to the creature.
3) So the Calvinist does not have “Choice” according to the standard definition.
Roland
Non-calvinists use the word “IMPULSES” so they can build a strawman
br.d
Jon Edwards used the word “INCLINATIONS”
The word “INCLINATIONS” and “IMPULSES” are essentially the same
But we can re-word it for you using a more Calvinist language
1) What the infallible decree grants to the Calvinist are infallibly decreed “INCLINATIONS” – which the Calvinist is granted NO CHOICE in the matter of – and NO ability to refrain.
No Option(S) + No ability to refrain = NO CHOICE
Roland,
You had asked me if I believe God has perfect knowledge of all events future, present, and past?
I read somewhere that we were created in the IMAGE OF GOD. Therefore, if God is soveriegn, SO ARE WE. That’s the IMAGE of God, is it not?
Everytime that I hear a Christian telling another Christian that “God has a plan for your life”, I feel like vomiting, because THAT IS NOT TRUE. Where is this written?
He had a plan for the PROPHETS, but…that’s about it.
He “ADDED” YEARS to a man that was about to die. I think it was like what, fifteen years? Yes, God knows the count of the hairs on our head. But does he REALLY know what we are going to do in ten years?
Everytime I hear people talk about the SOVERIENTY of God, I also want to puke, beause God gave us soverienty of our own lives. So yes, we have free will, because, being created in the IMAGE OF GOD, if God is soveriegn, then so are we. God stays out of it. God does not want to be where he is not wanted, but wants to be where he is wanted. God wants us to come to him from our own hearts and minds, NOT HIS.
Yes, we all hear about how God is OMNI this, and OMNI that. But does he REALLY know what you are going to do tomorrow? Maybe God chooses NOT TO KNOW, out of his SOVERIENTY to stay out of our lives until we seek him from our own free will.
Ed Chapman
Ed
Therefore, if God is soveriegn, SO ARE WE. That’s the IMAGE of God, is it not?
roland
Hello Ed. Theologians have for centuries made a distinction between communicable and incommunicable attributes of God. Communicable attributes are those attributes that God has communicated or given to us humans. Incommunicable attributes are those that God has not communicated or given to us. I would say that God’s sovereignty is an attribute that He did not communicate to us. Humans are dependent on things outside of themselves for their existence. God is not dependent on anything in order for Him to exist. He’s the governor, humans are the governed.
Thanks for reading.
Roland,
And yet, when God created the earth and put man on this planet, he said that man has dominion, that we are in charge, that he gave us everything we need. That this is our domain.
That means that we are sovereign, because he gave that sovereignty to us.
Ed Chapman
Ed,
True. In Reformed Christianity this is called the dominion mandate. However, our dominion is limited to this earth.
Genesis 1:26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”
God’s dominion, sovereignty, is universal, ours is terrestrial. Whatever we are in the image of God, God Himself is greater. Yes, we have the attribute of sovereignty but in a limited sense and far lesser than God’s sovereignty.
Thanks for reading.
br.d
[X] is FIXED and cannot be OTHERWISE
roland
We agree! The events of this world are FIXED! Fixed by God’s decree.
br.d
Hows that MAGIC working for you? :-]
You have infallible foreknowledge of what [X] will be – which has *ALWAYS* been
Which *CANCELS* the option of Calvin’s god having a choice in the matter of what [X] will be
You want the very thing you’ve just *CANCELED*
MAGIC is such a wonderful thing! 😀
Roland: “Comments such as “Calvi-god” and Stockholm syndrome are part of the snark of Leighton’s followers.”
And yet the snarky comments were ordained by Calvi-god for his glory. (And he ordained that you see it as snark but that I don’t.) Who are you, O Roland, to talk back to Calvi-god? To deny him the glory he gets through those comments he ordained?
(And so I assume you don’t consider “Leighton’s followers” to be snarky too?)
Seriously, Roland, think about how your theology plays out in real life. Who is really, ultimately responsible for my snark? Could I choose to do anything differently? Isn’t my snark as glorifying to Calvi-god as you criticizing my snark? Can you really be upset about something that Calvi-god ordains for his glory? I mean, if James White can be okay with and glorify child-rape because Calvi-god causes it for his glory and purposes, surely a little snark is no big deal. Is it okay for a Calvinist to judge the things that Calvi-god ordains to happen as being bad or improper, saying it shouldn’t be that way or shouldn’t have happened?
I’m not being snarky here, just sincerely challenging you to evaluate how your Calvinism applies to real life instances.
[And the reason I specify Calvi-god, instead of just saying God, is not to be snarky, but so that people don’t think I am talking about the God of the Bible when I refer to things Calvinism’s god does. Because they are not the same person. And if they are not the same person, they need different names to differentiate.]
Heather:
I have made this comment often concerning abortion. My wife and I stand on the sunny or rainy or snowy sidewalk offering women one last chance before they go into an abortion clinic. Occasionally there are people there from Reformed churches (not too often).
When the young woman comes out of the clinic and we are grieving …..I never say (but think to myself) to the Reformed guy, “Oh well, God had His perfect way, and must have decreed, ordained, wanted, willed that abortion.”
I mean they just cannot refute that.
Ask me: Does God always get what He wants? My answer is no.
Ask Roland: Either he will not answer or say yes.
Ask me: Is everything that happens exactly what God wants to happen? My answer is no.
Ask Roland: Either he will not answer or say yes.
Pretty simple.
The MacArthurs of this world take the same line as the confessions: God ordained / decreed everything, but in Him is no sin (or without sinning). So, mysteriously He ordains / decrees IMMUTABLY the evil that we do —-and it is sin for us—-but not sin for Him.
FOH
So, mysteriously He ordains / decrees IMMUTABLY the evil that we do —-and it is sin for us—-but not sin for Him.
roland
I hope you would be willing to answer my question. I’m not looking to prove you wrong. I’m not looking to get into a long back and forth with you regarding this question. I seriously would like to know what you believe. If you don’t want to answer, I’m not offended. I can understand when someone doesn’t respond to my question as I always don’t respond to others questions.
Do you believe that in humanity’s understanding and interaction of/with God there is mystery?
If so, how do you determine whether it is mysterious or not?
I know you know this. I believe that divine sovereignty and human freedom are compatible. I believe the Bible shows us this in places such as Isaiah 10. Also, there doesn’t seem to be an issue brought up by the writers of the Bible regarding divine sovereignty and human freedom. Mystery to me is truth where God has not spoken to us or revealed to us what is in the mystery. Beyond God’s revelation, I would place reason as a second means to knowing truth. However, reason can never supersede God’s revelation. I do thank you for reading and responding.
Roland
Do you believe that in humanity’s understanding and interaction of/with God there is mystery?
br.d
Sure!
A Calvinist is designed to function as a ROBOT which is NOT a ROBOT
That is a mystery!
So you just accept it :-]
No, that is not what I accept. We are not robots. We are humans created in the image of God. God has communicated some of His attributes to us. We have those attributes not because I can compose a syllogism that is proper. But because God has so spoken in His Word that we are created in His image. The Word of God is my sole authority for faith, not syllogisms.
Roland
No, that is not what I accept. We are not robots.
br.d
Well – now you are denying the Mystery part!!
You don’t accept that you are designed to function as a ROBOT
But at the same time – you accept that you are designed to function as a ROBOT
Cmon Roland – that is a mystery!
You just accept it! ;-]
I will say that people that say that God’s divine decree (as they define it) and man’s free responsibility are compatible are not being honest with themselves.
They only believe that man is free to do whatever God has decreed.
That is not freedom.
They also believe that man is NOT free to do anything good. And that is not freedom either.
There is no “mystery” involved here such as the mystery of 3 persons in one God. This is just a man made “mystery” saying 2 opposites are true.
So a Calvinist might say that “all men are free to choose God” but then they will say that God has already chosen people before time.
So there is no way that a man in real time can choose God, if before time he was not chosen by God.
It is just ridiculous to say they are both true and that is a “mystery” that we don’t understand.
Contradiction is not mystery. What our new bodies will be like, that is mystery. The amount of information available is limited, but saying we will have a new body doesn’t contradict anything. Having enough information that something is ABLE to even be a contradiction tells us we have enough information to know some truth about it.
Contradiction is literally impossible. If there is a contradiction in your theology, something in your theology is wrong. Instead of accepting this truth, Calvinists make all sorts of appeal to mystery, and just dismiss contradiction as not a real problem in order to hold on to their belief.
Here is compatibilism applied to any other contradiction.
This circle is a square. Even though it has no edges, and a square has edges, it is still a square because these two concepts are compatible. Curves are just a bunch of edges!
The reason I don’t use names such as ‘armi-god’ or ‘freewill-god’ or ‘moli-god’ or ‘open theist-god’ is because I believe that people who believe in God as Arminians, libertarian freewill proponents, Molinists, open theist believe their perspective of God is the God of the Bible. I disagree with them but by saying they don’t believe in the God of the Bible means they are worshipping an idol. Unitarians, modalists, and others such as Jehovah Witnesses and Mormons are worshipping idols because their differences as to who God is, are greatly different than historical and creedal Christianity.
You mean the God who said:
Ezra 7:13 I make a decree, that all they of the people of Israel, and of his priests and Levites, in my realm, which are minded of their own freewill to go up to Jerusalem, go with thee.
How can they do ANYTHING of their own freewill if they don’t have one?
I do believe humans have freewill I just don’t believe our freewill is libertarian in nature. Libertarian free will means that our choices are free from the determination or constraints of human nature and free from any predetermination by God.I’m a compatibilist. I believe God’s sovereignty and human freewill are compatible.
I have posted on several of these pages one of my favorite quotes (as best I can remember it).
In regard to free will, Calvinists are like Henry Ford…… “You are free to choose ANY color Model T you like! As long as it’s black.”
FOH
In regard to free will, Calvinists are like Henry Ford…… “You are free to choose ANY color Model T you like! As long as it’s black.”
–
br.d
Would you mind if I added one more part to that FOH?
–
“You are free to choose ANY color Model T you like! As long as it’s black. Because you are NOT free to do otherwise” :-]
Roland
I do believe humans have freewill I just don’t believe our freewill is libertarian in nature.
–
br.d
And yet – every time you assume your brain has the ability to choose between TRUE and FALSE on any matter – you are assuming what in Calvinism is classified as a CONTRARY choice – which by definition is a Libertarian choice.
–
When it comes to Libertarian choice – the Calvinist is like a farmer who drives around on his tractor all day – trying to convince people tractors don’t exist :-]
Choose any color you want….as long as it’s black!!
FOH
Choose any color you want….as long as it’s black!!
–
br.d
Yes!
Choose any color you want ….as long as it’s black *AS-IF* you have a choice! :-]
And the proponent of libertarian freewill is the person who goes around DENYING that God is sovereign, decrees, governs by His providence, and foreknows all things. The libertarian freewill proponent denies the truth of God’s inspired Word.
James 4:15 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.
There is an arrogance in libertarian freewill that says, “the Lord doesn’t will, I do!” While the Calvinists might ride around on a tractor telling everyone that tractors don’t exist. The non-calvinists says, contrary to God breathed Scripture, “the Lord doesn’t will, I do!” All the while having his being and living in God as Acts 17:28 declares.
Roland
And the proponent of libertarian freewill is the person who goes around DENYING that God is sovereign
br.d
Only per Calvinism’s definition of sovereign
Which is classified as EXHAUSTIVE DIVINE DETERMINISM
–
Thus – the Calvinist perception that divine sovereignty grants him a “Choice” in the matter of anything – constitutes an infallibly decreed FALSE PERCEPTION because
1) The definition of “Choice” entails a NECESSARY CONDITION of more than one option available – in order to constitutes what people understand as having a “Choice”.
2) In a world in which every human impulse is reduced to ONE SINGLE OPTION – that NECESSARY CONDITION does not exist.
–
Libertarian Choice is a choice between [BE] and [NOT BE] or a choice between [DO] and [NOT DO]
Libertarian Choice – in Calvinist vernacular – is classified as CONTRARY choice
No such thing exists for the Calvinist. because of his definition of sovereignty
Hello br.d,
Luke 22:22 And truly the Son of Man goes as it has been determined, but woe to that man by whom He is betrayed!”
Jesus said in this verse that He, that is the Son of Man goes as it has been determined. Jesus’s ministry on earth was determined. The Greek word means to mark out or bound, to appoint, decree, specify.
Are you going to say that because Jesus’s ministry was determined that He was a robot? Because that is the argument you have been making regarding God and how He has determined all things.
Is that your position regarding Jesus?
You aren’t understanding the nuance of how and what can be determined. If I go to the store and buy a steak, the grocery store “determined” that steak prices that day would be $12.99 a pound. That doesn’t mean they caused me to buy it.
If I buy a no-stop flight to another state, that flight is determined (pre-determined even) to go to the state it is flying to. That doesn’t mean I have to get on the flight, or that I will.
You are once again eisegeting Calvinistic Exhaustive determinism into a text where it isn’t needed. Yes, God knew that the only way we could be justifiably saved is if there was a worthy substitute in our place, and that Christ was the only way to accomplish this. He determined that the work on the cross would indeed happen. But there is NOTHING that suggests every aspect was meticulously determined.
Kurt
He determined that the work on the cross would indeed happen.
Roland
Amen! That’s exactly what I believe as a Calvinist. There is nothing in Calvinism that does not agree with your statement. God did determine that the cross would happen. Which means nothing was going to stop God from accomplishing the work of the cross.
Except…and correct me if I am mistaken…every single action of every single person and every single response/reaction to Christ up to the events of His crucifixion were completely determined by God also. The Pharisees rejected Him, not from the pride in their own hearts and their idol is tic devotion to the laws they made up, and their own pride and position of power, but because He determined them to do it would be accomplished, as opposed to He knew them well enough to know how they would react. He tried to correct them, even.
Kurt
He tried to correct them, even.
Roland
Honest question. I’m not trying to make you look dumb or sending a got you question. You wrote that statement above.
Does God ever fail in His corrections? When He tries to correct, and doesn’t correct, is that a failure on God’s part?
This is a sticking point for me regarding other soteriological views. I can’t hold to a theology that believes God fails or has failed to accomplish His will. I see the weaknesses in Calvinism but I don’t believe there is a better alternative.
Failure is only failure depending upon what the desired outcome is. You assume the desired outcome is not conditional. If God wanted everyone to be saved, everyone would be saved. But that is leaving out conditions.
If He wants everyone to be saved BUT BY THEIR FREE DECISION then failure would actually be forcing someone to salvation.
You also seem to limit God by thinking He wouldn’t be able to accomplish His purposes if humans were able to act against and outside of Him. We believe God is so much greater than us that our pathetic efforts and rebellion against Him are ultimately nothing.
You wrote that God tried to correct them. Does God’s correction have a purpose? To what is God trying to correct people to?
Do you recognize a difference between guidance/instruction and force/slave labor?
A teacher presents information and guidance to a child and allows them to consider, learn and apply it on their own. They don’t FORCE the child to do it or do it for them.
Jesus was instructing the Pharisees on the error of their ways and beliefs, not forcing them to change or forcing them to continue their erroneous beliefs.
Roland
To what is God trying to correct people to?
–
br.d
A good Calvinist would say – he corrects them for what he infallibly decreed them to be and do
And corrects them for not doing what he does not permit them to do :-]
It sounds like you believe that God DOES NOT want everyone to be saved. If that is true, then it logically follows that there are some who CANNOT believe because God does not want them to be saved.
Not what I said. I believe God WANTS everyone to be saved. I don’t believe God always gets everything He wants. Part of what He wants is them to be saved using their free will to hear and believe the Gospel. To freely and meaningfully choose Him with no coercion or force.
Examples of “The Scripture does not mean what it says….” can be found everywhere.
Some reformed sites say it like this…
“When the Bible mentions God’s “sorrow” or the “changing of His mind,” it expresses in human terms the fact that sin bothers God.”
It’s kind of funny cuz even in trying to prove His immutability they have to infringe on His (Calvinist-owned) impassibility.
Meaning: Trying to say He does not change (at all) they say that sin “bothers” Him. Of course that would mean that He is not “impassible” (a Calvinist must) and that He can go from “not bothered” to “bothered”.
Roland
I see the weaknesses in Calvinism but I don’t believe there is a better alternative.
–
br.d
Can you be more specific here?
What weakness do you see?
I’m wondering if Calvinists actually do secretly recognize Calvinism is a system of of DOUBLE-THINK
Is that the weakness you see?
The biggest one for me: God’s infallible decree and freewill. But I honestly don’t believe there is a better alternative. Especially when it comes to Scripture. God’s decree, sovereignty, providence and human freewill as they are revealed in Scripture do not conflict. The argument that God’s infallible decree is incompatible with human freewill is nowhere presented in Scripture. It is quite the opposite. I’ve written this before: the idea that humans have libertarian freewill is an extra biblical assumption brought to Scripture.
Roland
The biggest one for me: God’s infallible decree and freewill. But I honestly don’t believe there is a better alternative. Especially when it comes to Scripture.
–
br.d
Wow! That was very sincere Roland!
I applaud you for that sincerity!
Wonderful!
–
However – I need to point out the other weakness – which is to conflate an interpretation of scripture with scripture itself.
We are exalting man – to raise a human interpretation up onto a pedestal and make it equal to scripture.
As sincere as you have been – I sincerely would ask you to consider that.
Some Calvinists here say that they believe man has free will (In fact I just saw one say that).
Here are some Calvinist quotes about Free will:
Free will is nonsense (Spurgeon, Free Will a Slave, 3).
Free will is the invention of man, instigated by the devil (David Wilmoth, The Baptist Examiner, September 16, 1989, 5).
Free will makes man his own savior and his own god (Tom Ross, Abandoned Truth, 56).
The heresy of free will dethrones God and enthrones man. … The ideas of free grace and free will are diametrically opposed. All who are strict advocates of free will are strangers to the grace of the sovereign God (W. E. Best, Free Grace Versus Free Will, 35, 43).
To affirm that [man] is a free moral agent is to deny that he is totally depraved (Pink, Sovereignty of God, 138).
In matters pertaining to his salvation, the unregenerate man is not at liberty to choose between good and evil, but only to choose between greater and lesser evil, which is not properly free will… As the bird with a broken wing is ‘free’ to fly but not able, so the natural man is free to come to God but not able (Boettner, Reformed Doctrine of Predestination, 62).
Inasmuch as Adam’s offspring are born with sinful natures, they do not have the ability to choose spiritual good over evil. Consequently, man’s will is no longer free (i.e., free from the dominion of sin) as Adam’s will was free before the Fall. Instead, man’s will, as the result of inherited depravity, is in bondage to his sinful nature (Steele & Thomas, Five Points of Calvinism, 19).
Taken from Redeeming God. all quotes are linked in that article on free will.
Clearly, you just don’t understand Calvinism!
Are those statements taken from exegesis of texts? Or are they just statements about freewill and man’s ability?
Consequently, man’s will is no longer free …….(Steele & Thomas, Five Points of Calvinism, 19).
br.d
That statement from a Calvinist – represents a clear denial of the doctrine of decrees.
Man’s will in Calvinism was never at any point – any more “free” then it is today.
In Calvinism – every impulse of Adam’s will was 100% Determined at the foundation of the world
In Calvinism – every impulse of Roland’s will was 100% Determined at the foundation of the world
There is no such thing in Calvinism as “mans will is no longer free”
It was NEVER “free” to be otherwise than what it was meticulously decreed to be.
Kurt
very single action of every single person and every single response/reaction
–
br.d
Kurt – take not of Roland’s wording concerning divine providence – you will observe that he makes statements that any Arminian or Non-Calvinist would make. But as your question reveals – Roland is trying very hard to avoid being up front about how EXHAUSTIVE determinism is within Calvinism.
–
Roland knows – the doctrine stipulates – every impulse in his brain – comes to pass infallibly and irresistibly – and he is granted NO CHOICE in the matter – of any impulse that will come to pass within his brain – because – as you point out – every single response/action/impulse – has been FIXED into an infallible program.
Roland
Are you going to say that because Jesus’s ministry was determined that He was a robot?
–
br.d
The answer to that is easy
I don’t make the silly mistake of conflating the what exists within Calvinism – with what exists within scripture! :-]
–
Per your own testimony – Calvin’s god has (past-tense) determined *WHATSOEVER* comes to pass.
Which – unless you deny your own doctrine – includes every impulse that will come to pass within your brain.
–
Now concerning the impulses that Calvin’s god has decreed to come to pass within your brain
–
James White explains
-quote
We can’t see the contents of god’s decree as we look forward.
We don’t know the contents of god’s decree until we look backwards. .(from Alpha Omega video presentation)
–
Thus the Calvinist does not know the impulses that Calvin’s god has decreed – until the Calvinist looks backwards.
In other words – the Calvinist functions as an observer of the impulses which Calvin’s god decreed to come to pass within his brain.
–
Even if there were an instance in which Calvin’s god would let a Calvinist choose between TRUE and FALSE on any matter – (which Calvin’s god doesn’t) – the Calvinist doesn’t have any say in the matter of any impulse that will come to pass within his brain. Since the Calvinist doesn’t have any say in the matter of any impulse that will come to pass within his brain – he certainly isn’t going to have any say in the matter of any choice – even if he were granted one – which he isn’t. :-]
So the text I cited states that it was determined that Jesus would die. You did not answer the Scripture. You answered with another syllogism that proves, under Calvinism, we are robots.
Sorry my friend, syllogisms may be on your side but Scripture is on the Calvinist side! :-]
Do non Calvinists deny that Christs death was predetermined? No we do not.
One thing being pre-determined does not equal EVERYTHING being predetermined. That is a BIG jump.
But the accusation from non-calvinists is that God determining something makes humans robots, puppets, etc. We don’t have freewill, we are not free to choose between true and false, etc. If, according to the non-calvinist, God’s determining all things make us robots. Then it necessarily follows that Christ being determined to die makes Christ a robot.
God determining something makes humans robot, puppets, etc.
God determined that Christ would die on the Cross,
Therefore, Christ is a robot, puppet, etc. when He died on the Christ.
The Christian who denies God’s determinations and concludes that it makes humans robots, puppets, etc. must hold to at least this truth about Christ: Christ’s love for the Father when He became flesh was not meaningful, not true but it was forced. Jesus’s love for His Father when He went to the cross was not genuine because the cross was determined according to the non-calvinist.
Nothing you wrote follows. SOMETHING being determined does not make someone a robot. EVERYTHING being determined does make something a robot. Your first premise is false, so the rest of your logic doesn’t follow.
Roland
So the text I cited states that it was determined that Jesus would die. You did not answer the Scripture.
–
br.d
To do so would be to make a very silly mistake!
I assumed as an adult – you would understand.
I don’t make the silly mistake of conflating what exists within Calvinism -with what exists withing scripture
–
So as I was saying
–
Per your own testimony – Calvin’s god has (past-tense) determined *WHATSOEVER* comes to pass.
Which – unless you deny your own doctrine – includes every impulse that will come to pass within your brain.
–
Now concerning the impulses that Calvin’s god has decreed to come to pass within your brain
–
James White explains
-quote
We can’t see the contents of god’s decree as we look forward.
We don’t know the contents of god’s decree until we look backwards. .(from Alpha Omega video presentation)
–
Thus the Calvinist does not know the impulses that Calvin’s god has decreed – until the Calvinist looks backwards.
In other words – the Calvinist functions as an observer of the impulses which Calvin’s god decreed to come to pass within his brain.
–
Even if there were an instance in which Calvin’s god would let a Calvinist choose between TRUE and FALSE on any matter – (which Calvin’s god doesn’t) – the Calvinist doesn’t have any say in the matter of any impulse that will come to pass within his brain. Since the Calvinist doesn’t have any say in the matter of any impulse that will come to pass within his brain – he certainly isn’t going to have any say in the matter of any choice – even if he were granted one – which he isn’t. :-]
Well, in Calvinism they believe in libertarian freewill because God determined that they would, and are boastful and arrogant because God made them do that, and actually everything they are doing (like not saying Lord willing) actually is God’s will because EVERYTHING is God’s will.
If Calvinism is true, everything you just said is false. Perhaps that passage has a better interpretation than the Calvinistic one?
Hello Kurt,
I’m sorry my friend but Calvinists do not boast about our election. If there are any Calvinists that do so, then they should not be doing so. This is often an accusation leveled against Calvinism. That we boast or it gives us grounds for boasting. I’ve never read anything by a Calvinist that has boasted in their election. There may be some Calvinists who do so. I’m not omniscient. Election should lead a person to deep humility and gratitude, not boasting.
Thanks for reading,
roland
That wasn’t what I said at all. You said freewill was something man does to boast in themselves. I was just pointing out that if Calvinism is true the reason they believe in freewill is because God made them believe in free will (or He isn’t sovereign) and He made them boastful, but you seem to be condemning someone believing in free will, even though you believe God is causing them to believe it.
Kurt
You (Roland) said freewill was something man does to boast in themselves.
–
br.d
If that is TRUE -the Roland boasts every time he asserts – he is granted a choice between any 2 options.
Because the doctrine of decrees stipulates – that WHATSOEVER comes to pass – has a *ALREADY* been determined
Which never grants the existence of more than *ONE PREDESTINED* option to Roland.
–
If Roland has the perception that he has multiple options granted to him – for anything – that would constitutes a predestined illusion.
I did not say that. I was quoting James 4:15. Which says that disregard the Lord’s will in our lives is to boast in arrogance. Whenever we plan to do something, our preface should be, “if the Lord wills…” The proponent of libertarian freewill ha NO need to be concerned with “if the Lord wills…” The will is free, would need is there to be concerned with God willing to us our plans.
Once again my friend, the Scripture is on the Calvinists’s side, the syllogism on yours. I’d rather take the God-breathed revelation over syllogisms.
Is that really the only way you can think of to interpret that verse?
Then, honestly, give me another interpretation. I didn’t even interpret the verse. It says what it says.
15 For that ye ought to say, If the Lord will, we shall live, and do this, or that.
The verse simply teaches that God’s will, the Lord’s will, has preeminence over our will! How can it be read any other way?
Please humor me, before I give you the answer. There is certainly another way to interpret it. What this demonstrates though, is expose that you are only capable of Calvinist eisegesis with that lens, and aren’t able to even put on a different lens. I can put on the Calvinist lens for verses, but I can also remove it. Can you?
br.d
If that is TRUE – then Roland boasts every time he asserts he is granted a choice between any 2 options.
Because the doctrine of decrees stipulates – that WHATSOEVER comes to pass – has a *ALREADY* been determined
Which never grants the existence of more than *ONE PREDESTINED* option to Roland.
–
If Roland has the perception that he has multiple options granted to him – for anything – that would constitutes a predestined illusion.
–
Roland
I did not say that.
–
br.d
Never the less – if making a Libertarian choice – equates to a boast – then it follows Roland boasts every time he asserts he is granted a choice between any 2 options – because the infallible decree INFALLIBLY EXCLUDES all options except that which has been decreed – and does not give you ANY SAY in the matter of that which is decreed.
–
Roland
Whenever we plan to do something, our preface should be, “if the Lord wills…”
–
br.d
Which is another great example of *AS-IF* thinking in Calvinism
in this case *AS-IF* Calvin’s god doesn’t will whatsoever comes to pass.
–
Roland
The proponent of libertarian freewill ha NO need to be concerned with “if the Lord wills…”
The will is free
What need is there to be concerned with God willing to us *OUR* plans.
–
br.d
Now there is another example of how Calvinism alters the meanings of words
–
Calvin’s god decrees *HIS* plans into a *PROGRAM* for humans to perform
There is no such thing as a NORMAL person labeling that as *OUR* plans!
–
Roland
Once again my friend, the Scripture is on the Calvinists’s side, the syllogism on yours.
–
br.d
You need to consider coming up a notch in intellectual honesty
You should have said “once again the Calvinist interpretation of scripture is on the Calvinist’s side.
But that goes without saying
–
Roland
I’d rather take the God-breathed revelation over syllogisms.
–
br.d
Here is another example
Honesty would have said “I’d rather take the Calvinist interpretation of god-breathed revelation over syllogisms.”
This is a strange post claiming that non-Calvinists say God “did not will it I do”??
It is a straw man.
But of course the reality of any similar claim by non-Calvinists is based on the HUNDREDS of times (not half verses pulled from here and there) where God says something like:
I did not want you to do X but you did
I wanted you to do X but you did not
Since you have done this I will now do this.
Since you have not done this I will not do this.
Jesus….Oh Jerusalem…I wanted…but you would not…..
and on
and on
and on.
Hundreds.
Calvinist exegesis every time (every time!) is something like this: “That whole passage does not mean that since we know better since we have our interpretations of Isaiah 45 [you can insert 10 or 15 other partial verses out of context here] and we know that God has several levels of wills and therefore does not mean what He says when He says ‘I the Sovereign Lord of Israel the Eternal say…..'”
You MUST read all of those hundreds and hundreds of verses though a narrow pre-defined, brought-to-the-passage lens.
Nah.
FOH
Calvinist exegesis every time (every time!) is something like this:
Roland
I would like to see some examples of Calvinist exegesis that’s in agreement with your statement. Your wrote “every time (every time!).”
So if Calvinists believe that (evangelical, Christ-dependent) Arminians, Molinists, and Open theists are believers too, that is great!
Then what is the point of all this?
Roland believes we are robot-non-robots….and he will not budge from his non-deterministic-determinism (but it makes no difference in his life, decisions, family, friends—– “cuz we do make real decisions”).
And the other group believes that we make real decisions and God is still really Sovereign by the definition that He gives us in the Bible.
Roland, necessarily believes the God determined that we be non-determinists (yet “right enough” to be redeemed), and we believe that God non-deterministically gave us the freedom to decide to be non-determinists.
Calvinism makes no difference in daily action. Many of my friends are Calvinists and I find them regularly saying non-Calvinistic things.
This may be one of the biggest things that drives me crazy about Calvinists/Reformed. Especially in sermons. They will spout off multiple points and scriptures that align perfectly with a free will view, even affirm it, and it is in direct opposition to the core beliefs they also teach. I know it is that *As-If* these things are false phenomena, but it still drives me crazy.
You are teaching and preaching something you don’t believe, or you don’t realize you don’t believe it. It is the strangest state of cognitive dissonance one can witness.
FOH
Many of my friends are Calvinists and I find them regularly saying non-Calvinistic things.
br.d
Yes!
Excellent points FOH!
Calvinist:
100% of whatsoever comes to pass is determined by infallible decrees before we exist
Non-Calvinist:
Are you granted any CHOICE about what is determined before you exist?
Calvinist:
Absolutely Not!
I did not exist when the decrees where established – and god does not ask man concerning what he is going to infallibly decree.
Non-Calvinist:
That would mean that every impulse that comes to pass within your brain – is determined by infallible decrees – which are totally out of your control.
Calvinist
We don’t believe that!
Non-Calvinist
I can understand that!
Because if you were *TRUE* to your doctrine – you would loose all sense of human normalcy.
FOH
Then what is the point of all this?
roland
The point I came to this website was to learn what provisionism is. I wanted to know what they believe. I also don’t believe I will change anybody’s beliefs regarding soteriology. I’m more interested in learning what others believe about soteriology than defending Reformed soteriology.
FOH
(but it makes no difference in his life, decisions, family, friends—– “cuz we do make real decisions”).
roland
Personally, my personal devotional life has been greatly blessed by reading the Reformers, the Puritans, and other Reformed theologians. I’ve learned so much that was not taught in the previous churches I attended. What does it mean to be a Christian? The Reformers and Puritans have outstanding books on this. What does it mean to be a Christian father? Again, the Reformers and Puritans. All their beliefs of course being derived from God’s Holy Word. Singing the old hymns has greatly enriched worship. Family worship is something we practice that I was never taught prior to reading the Reformers and Puritans. So much of my life as a Christian has been greatly enriched by a Reformed and Puritan understanding of God’s Word and a life devoted in service to the Triune God. Great assurance comes from knowing that Christ is the Prophet, Priest, and King of the Church. He teaches the Church. He offers Himself to the Church. He rules and cares over the Church. There was so much I wasn’t taught in my mainline southern Baptist church. It is really sad that the teaching was so shallow.
FOH
Many of my friends are Calvinists and I find them regularly saying non-Calvinistic things.
roland
I know many of you have heard this but as a Calvinist when I read statements like this my first response is: when we sound like non-Calvinists it is because you really don’t understand what we believe. You are really not listening or reading us. Thanks for reading hope this helps!
Roland
I know many of you have heard this but as a Calvinist when I read statements like this my first response is: when we sound like non-Calvinists it is because you really don’t understand what we believe.
br.d
We actually do understand Roland
We understand the natural human response to Determinism
–
All Determinists – whether they are Atheist Determinists or whether they are Theological Determinists (aka Calvinists) hold their belief as TRUE – while treating the belief *AS-IF* it is FALSE
–
Sean Carroll (Theoretical physicist) Atheist Determinist
-quote
Every person in the world, no matter how anti-free-will they are, talks about people *AS-IF* they make decisions.
–
Stephen Hawking – Atheist Determinist
-quote
I believe Determinism is true. But I’ve come to realize I have to live *AS-IF* Determinism is false. (Q&A Oxford, Lady Mitchel Hall)
–
William Lane Craig
-quote
Nobody can live *AS-IF* all that he thinks and does is determined by causes outside of himself.
The Determinist recognizes he has to act *AS-IF* he has option(S) to weigh, and can decide on what course of action to take.
–
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-IF* nothing were determined about any part.” (Concerning the eternal predestination of god)
–
So we do understand Roland
We understand Determinism – and the natural human response to it.
The Calvinist asserts Determinism is TRUE
And treats Determinism *AS-IF* it is FALSE
br.d
We understand the natural human response to Determinism
roland
The natural human response to God’s sovereignty is to reject it. It takes a supernatural work of God’s Spirit to accept God’s sovereignty! Man is his very own idol.
Is that the human response, or is it God’s immutable decree that they will react that way?
The human response is the working out of God’s decree. For the Reformed Christian it is not an either or. Either the human did it or God did it. Humans do things because God decreed them, governs them by His providence, and foreknows them perfectly. RC Sproul in his commentary on the Westminster Confession of Faith uses the example of a quarterback who throws a ball. The quarterback is not the first cause of his existence, God is. But the quarterback is the cause of throwing a ball, not God. The quarterback is not the cause of the physical laws that allow and govern for the ball to operate the way it does, God is. The quarterback is not even the cause of his own physical abilities, a strong arm, height, athletic ability, etc. God is. God decrees events but He does not perform the events for us.
Not sure why you guys are wasting time on this.
The quarterback example is erroneous and simplistic. Of course non-Calvinists agree that God created man (the quarterback) and gave man the ability to create a football and design plays. So in that sense He is the “origine” or “cause”.
But true Calvinism states (as we have clearly seen from brd’s quotes) that EVERYTHING is determined/decreed/ willed/ ordained immutably —-before time—- by God.
Nah…. that’s just illogical and unscriptural. I came out of Calvinism by reading Scripture. We are still members of a Reformed church (40 years) and sent by them as missionaries.
God gave us hundreds of examples in Scripture where He said “I, the Eternal, will do this, if you do this….”
Every one of those passages is exegeted by Calvinists with the opening phrase….. “This passages doesn’t really mean what it looks like it means…” ((Then they go on to tell us that they can explain it better than God just did!”
Already been around the block on these 100’s of times….. they say it is cuz He has a spoken will, hidden will, soveriegn will and they might all be opposite!
Yum.
One more thought on the quarterback idea.
On a human level people have been trying to hold car manufacturers and stadium builders responsible for what goes on in cars and stadiums.
But people decided, nah, if you break your neck playing football you cannot sue the guy who built the stadium.
And of course non-Calvinists would agree: If you are killed by violence on this earth, you cannot blame the creator of the earth and mankind.
But in Calvinism you CAN blame Him and you do! You just dont call it blame.
James White says the rape of a 3 year old girl is ordained/planned/willed by God and for God’s greater glory!
Yum.
FOH
But in Calvinism you CAN blame Him and you do! You just dont call it blame.
–
br.d
Oh that is VERY INSIGHTFUL!
Yes!
Its an issue of “Attribution”
Roland
God decrees events but He does not *PERFORM* the events for us.
–
br.d
*PERFORM* is an excellent word to describe what is going on in Calvinism!
–
In Calvinism – man is created with limited functionality
Man is designed to *PERFORM* a meticulously programmed *PERFORMANCE*.
Programmed by decree – which does not permit what it decrees to be or do otherwise that what it decrees
–
The Calvinist cannot have an impulse in his brain he can call his own – because every impulse is AUTHORED at the foundation of the world by Calvin’s god – and simply MADE to come to pass infallibly within the Calvinist’s brain.
–
Calvinist James White explains the process:
-quote
We do not have foreknowledge of the content of god’s decree.
We do not know what that content will be in advance
We only know the content of the decree when we look backwards.
–
Thus the Calvinist only knows the impulse that HAS come to pass within his brain AFTER that impulse has come to pass within his brain.
roland
The natural human response to God’s sovereignty is to reject it.
br.d
Since Calvin’s god – at the foundation of the world – decrees WHATSOEVER human responses come to pass
–
And since at the foundation of the world – he does not give humans a choice in the matter of what is decreed
–
He is the sole and exclusive determiner of whatsoever comes to pass
–
So you can take that up with him! :-]
You don’t understand Calvinism!
Hello br.d
What is there to take up with the King of Kings? What is there to take up with the Ancient of Days whose kingdom is from everlasting to everlasting?
There’s nothing to take up with God is perfectly pure, just, and righteous. Only thing to take up is submission to His ways and thoughts.
Roland
What is there to take up with the King of Kings?
br.d
AH! You were speaking in Calvinism’s *AS-IF* mode again
–
You spoke about man rejecting Calvin’s god *AS-IF* Calvin’s god did not decree it – and *AS-IF* you had a problem with what Calvin’s god decreed man do infallibly do – and *AS-IF* the decree gives man a choice to be other than what man is decreed to be
–
I should have seen that immediatly! :-]
With all respect, the fact that you were at a not biblically deep church doesn’t mean all churches that are not reformed are not biblically deep. False equivalency.
There is a very dark side to Puritan and Calvinists teachings, that you seem to ignore.
Finally the argument “you don’t understand Calvinism” is a cop-out argument. Over and over and over we QUOTE teachings of Calvinists from their own mouths. You will have to show WHAT exactly it is we don’t understand, not just say we don’t understand it. From our standpoint you say things that are not logically consistent and contradict each other. If I say, I am a male but actually I am a female, and you point out the contradiction, and I just say, no that isn’t what I believe, you just don’t understand it, you would be frustrated. This is the same thing.
I never said all. I was speaking to my own experience in non-Reformed churches.
I recognize that. I’ve been to both, and both do DEEP Biblical study. I’d agree with you on (in my experience) being at a Biblical Reformed Church. That doesn’t mean both Churches are not mistaken on things. I get what you are saying, I’d just say you can find a very Biblically sound non-reformed Church.
I agree with a lot of what Flowers teaches, and believe it or not, there are even things I disagree with him on. He is very accurate on Calvinism though. To say he doesn’t understand Calvinism is not accurate. He whole heartedly believed and taught it. It takes cognitive dissonance to reject that.
Kurt
He is very accurate on Calvinism though. To say he doesn’t understand Calvinism is not accurate. He whole heartedly believed and taught it.
roland
Hello Kurt, I have to disagree. Dr. Flowers does not understand Calvinism. I’ve watched a lot of his videos and I have never heard him accurately describe Calvinism. I just watched a video with Dr. Flowers and Dr. Turek. Dr. Turek talks about Calvinism and his description is just way off. If Dr. Flowers accurately understood Calvinism he should have interrupted Dr. Turek and explained to him what Calvinism is. Go to youtube and search Dr. Flowers and Dr. Turek. I believe it is on soteriology 101’s youtube channel.
Roland
I have to disagree. Dr. Flowers does not understand Calvinism. I’ve watched a lot of his videos and I have never heard him accurately describe Calvinism.
–
br.d
Jane’s boyfriend Billy was violently beating her
Whenever this would happen Jane would blame herself
Whenever Jane’s parents expressed their concern – Jane would say “You don’t understand the relationship”
–
Jane’s parents actually did understand
They just didn’t understand it – the way Jane wanted them to understand it
–
That is what the Calvinist means when he says “you don’t understand”
No, what the Calvinist means when we say you don’t understand is exactly that. You don’t understand Calvinism and it is evident by how Dr. Flowers misrepresents Calvinism. Your use of an emotional example of an abusive boyfriend and understanding is a false analogy between the relationship of God and His covenant people. It is completely irrelevant. There is nothing analogous to an abusive boyfriend and God’s relationship to His covenant people.
The manner in which you argue reminds me an atheist I used to work with. He argued that the problem of evil was the primary reason he did not believe in God. You sound just like him.
Roland
No, what the Calvinist means when we say you don’t understand is exactly that.
br.d
NAH!
What the Calvinist is saying is – “you don’t understand it – the way I want you to understand it”
Roland
You don’t understand Calvinism and it is evident by how Dr. Flowers misrepresents Calvinism.
br.d
NAH!
The issue here is not one of understanding.
It is one of ACCEPTING
The Calvinist mind has learned to live in a world of self-contradiction and incongruity.
That is how the Calvinist *UNDERSTANDS* his belief system
–
The Non-Calvinist is not willing to live in a world of self-contradiction and incongruity.
Roland
Your use of an emotional example of an abusive boyfriend and understanding is a false analogy between the relationship of God and His covenant people. It is completely irrelevant.
br.d
The relevancy is in the fact that Jane wants her parents to understand her situation the way she understands it.
The situation itself is irrelevant.
But Jane’s situation is one that every adult American understands
And they can understand why Jane wants her parents to understand her situation the way she does.
Roland
The manner in which you argue reminds me an atheist I used to work with. He argued that the problem of evil was the primary reason he did not believe in God. You sound just like him.
br.d
The Atheist argument for the problem of evil was successfully refuted years ago by Dr. Alvin Plantinga’s “Free Will Defense”.
–
But the “Free-Will Defense” is predicated on Libertarian Freedom – which the Calvinist does not have.
Therefore the Calvinist does not have a successful refutation for the Atheists argument.
However – that doesn’t stop Calvinists from imagining they have! 😀
br.d
But the “Free-Will Defense” is predicated on Libertarian Freedom – which the Calvinist does not have.
roland
No human has libertarian freedom. If libertarian freedom were true then humans would never make decisions because there would be no motive, inclinations, desire, want, etc. to do so. But there are antecedent conditions and causes to our choices that refute the idea of libertarian freewill.
But, you are like poor Jane being abused by Billy. And I don’t understand libertarian freewill as you want me to.
By the way, I wasn’t Calvinist when I worked with my ex co-worker. I was a non-calvinist using the cosmological argument I learned from William Lane Craig to try and convince my co-worker that God exist. After I became a Calvinist I realized that it is not arguments that changed hearts and minds but God. My co-workers problem was a logical or philosophical problem, it was a moral problem.
Then how do you explain me, and others in my church, and others in general who all became Christians through apologetic evidence (as former atheist)?
Also you described something, but it wasn’t libertarian free-will. We believe we are able to make choices, and are moral free agents.
Hello Kurt,
Yes, I’ve even met some Christians who have come to Christ through apologetic evidence. What I meant to convey regarding my earlier statement is that I used to believe that the right argument could convince or compel someone to believe in God. I no longer believe that. I believe it is God who compels sinners to believe in Him and He can use many different means to accomplish His goals. The primary means, and the best, most biblical, is the preaching of the Gospel. It is what the apostles used most if you read the Book of Acts.
I believe humans have freewill. At least that is how we perceive our choices. We perceive them as free. However, there are antecedent causes and conditions that play a role in our choices. Consider how God created humans. We are contingent or dependent beings. We depend on food, water, air, etc. to survive. When we make choices an antecedent condition such as us being human beings plays a role. I reject the idea of libertarian, that is freewill that has no antecedent causes or conditions, freewill.
Then you are simply creating a free-will straw man by thinking that people who believe in LFW believe what you just described. Not a single person who believes in freewill thinks that our will cannot be influenced. We just don’t believe influence=cause. If someone tells me, man you should really do this drug, it’s such a great experience, and then uses peer pressure…I still had the choice of doing that drug or not doing it of my own freewill. If I did it it was because I chose to. If I didn’t, it is because I chose to. That I was influenced does not absolve me.
But if someone beat me up, held me down, and injected the drug into my veins against my will, I am NOT responsible for that! I’d be the innocent party, a victim!
In my understanding, Satan influences us to bad, and so does God influence us to not do bad (moral law on our hearts) but our choice is on us, we make it, and are rightly held accountable for that choice.
In your understanding, God causes you to do evil, gives no other option for you to have not done evil, and then punishes you for what He caused you to do. This is like the being tied down and injected with drugs.
Or are you going to say my understanding more closely describes what you believe?
Kurt
Then you are simply creating a free-will straw man by thinking that people who believe in LFW believe what you just described. Not a single person who believes in freewill thinks that our will cannot be influenced. We just don’t believe influence=cause.
Roland
You should talk to br.d about this one because he believes in libertarian freewill. And I never wrote influence = causation.
Roland
You should talk to br.d about this one because he believes in libertarian freewill. And I never wrote influence = causation.
–
br.d
You misunderstood what Kurt was saying
He was not saying that you “wrote influence = causation”
His point was that you did not differentiate between the two.
The examples Kurt gave you – explained that.
Kurt
Then you are simply creating a free-will straw man by thinking that people who believe in LFW believe what you just described.
–
br.d
Just so that you know a tid-bit of Calvinist history
The business of rejecting LFW is somewhat of a recent phenomenon.
–
There were numerous Reformed thinkers of the past – who did acknowledge a limited degree of LFW for humans.
Roland is simply repeating what is currently circling around within Reformed circles today.
This is perfect!!
Roland said:
“By the way, I wasn’t Calvinist when I worked with my ex co-worker. I was a non-calvinist using the cosmological argument I learned from William Lane Craig to try and convince my co-worker that God exist. After I became a Calvinist I realized that it is not arguments that changed hearts and minds but God. My co-workers problem was a logical or philosophical problem, it was a moral problem.”
One minute a Calvinists says “Yes we ‘convince men’ because Paul says it!” “Yes we ‘persuade men’ because Paul says it!” “Yes we ‘reason with [dead] men’ because Paul says it.”
And then the Calvinist says…….After I became a Calvinist I realized that it is not arguments that changed hearts and minds but God.
Once again, stepping on their own words and wanting it both ways.
I like how it is demonstrably not true with me. The Calvinist literally has to tell someone like me that my testimony is wrong and it didn’t happen the way I said it happened. And I’m not the only one I know who has a similar testimony. When you have to start telling a fellow Christian that their testimony of coming to salvation is false just to maintain your dogmatic theological belief, I think you are in deep.
But wait….there’s more!
I have written on many of these pages the story of people attending Bible studies for years, studying the Bible, asking questions, even asking God to show them the truth if He really exists.
After years of this, some of these “seekers” come to Christ and live healthy, fruitful lives.
The question I ask Calvinists is when was this “dead man” regenerated [regeneration precedes faith]?
He is “too dead” to seek God in any way (a real God-hater!), but they say that once regenerated it is very soon that he calls on Christ. But what about the case where he is obviously seeking…..and yet it takes years?
Never an answer from a Calvinist.
Calvinism doesn’t line up with testimony, the Bible, Logic, Reason, Morality or people’s very real personal experiences and interactions while existing!
We experience free will. We know we can make any number of choices at any given moment. I can type this message, I can choose not to swear in it, I can scratch my head or my leg, I can open or close my eyes, etc…
br.d
That’s correct!
Calvinists – as FOH insightfully says – want it both ways.
–
For example – they insist Adam was granted a choice between eating the fruit and not eating the fruit – which is a denial of their own doctrine.
–
Calvin’s god – at the foundation of the world – had at least two options concerning Adam
1) Adam will infallibly eat the fruit at TIME-T
2) Adam will NOT infallibility eat the fruit at TIME-T
Calvin’s god has to make a decision between those two options
–
Calvin’s god cannot decree both options to infallibly come to pass – because one option cancels the other
It would be a self-falsifying decree – which would make that decree NOT infallible.
–
Calvin’s god cannot leave it *OPEN* for Adam to determine – because that would falsify the doctrine of decrees
He *MUST* choose one option.
–
Calvin’s god selects option (1)
Adam will infallibly eat the fruit
–
Since option (1) is infallibly selected
It is granted existence – to come to pass
–
Option (2) is infallibly rejected
It is NOT granted existence – to come to pass
–
Thus when TIME-T roles around – only *ONE SINGLE PREDESTINED RENDERED-CERTAIN* option is available to Adam – and Adam is given NO CHOICE in the matter – and no ability to refrain.
–
Therefore in Calvinism – Adam did NOT have a choice between [EAT] and [NOT EAT] because only one option was available to him – and he was not permitted to do otherwise.
–
The same applies to all Calvnists.
They do not have choice any more than Adam did.
Roland
Statement_1
After I became a Calvinist I realized that it is not arguments that changed hearts and minds but God.
–
Statement_2
My co-workers problem was a logical or philosophical problem, it was a moral problem.
–
Here we have a Calvinist – calling the heart and mind which Calvin’s god decreed to infallibly come to pass (within Roland’s co-worker) a -quote “problem”
–
What Calvin’s god decreed within Roland’s co-worker – for his express glory and good pleasure – the Calvinist labels a -quote “Problem”
–
Calvinism is not difficult do understand –
All one has to understand is DOUBLE-SPEAK? :-]
Excellent catch! Why does God want you to try to stop His Glory of giving that person a moral problem! Is it really a problem or something that gives God pleasure and brings Him glory?
br.d
Yes exactly!
Its all part of Calvinism’s *AS-IF* thinking pattern
The Calvinist holds to the proposition that all things without exception are decreed to infallibly come to pass – Calvin’s god exercising his divine sovereignty.
–
And yet Roland calls a “Problem” the very divine sovereignty Roland is always claiming to believe in.
–
DOUBLE-MINDED is – as DOUBLE-MINDED does :-]
FOH
Once again, stepping on their own words and wanting it both ways.
–
br.d
“Stepping on their own words”
That is a totally excellent way to put it!!!
Calvinists have historically been some of the most zealous for preaching the Gospel. Read some church history. So of course we believe in arguing, ever heard of James White, compelling sinners to come to Christ, etc. But sinners are not converted by properly form syllogism or evidence. They’re converted by the preaching of the Gospel through which the Holy Spirit works to bring them to Christ. We can plant the truth, we can water what others have planted but ONLY God can give the increase.
1 Corinthians 3:6-7
6 I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase. 7 So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase.
Roland
Calvinists have historically been some of the most zealous for preaching the Gospel.
–
br.d
And statistically – the preaching of “the gospel” to the already saved. :-]
What does that mean? Are you saying that George Whitefield preached to the already saved in the Great Awakening? It really was not a Great Awakening? George Whitefield was a Calvinist.
Roland
What does that mean? ….
–
br.d
You didn’t need to ask that Roland
What does “Statistically” mean?
roland
No human has libertarian freedom.
br.d
If that is the case for you then your brain is not granted the function of choosing between TRUE and FALSE on any matter – because doing so would constitute a Libertarian Choice.
–
Poor Calvinist – his brain is not granted the function of choosing between TRUE and FALSE on any matter! 🙁
–
Roland
But there are antecedent conditions and causes to our choices that refute the idea of libertarian freewill.
–
br.d
Per the standard definitions of the term “Choice” below – give us an example of Calvin’s god granting you a choice in the matter of anything.
–
KJV Dictionary
-quote
The act of choosing; the voluntary act of selecting or separating from TWO OR MORE things
–
Dictionary.com
An act or instance of choosing; selection: an ALTERNATIVE
–
The Free Dictionary
1. The act of choosing; selection – a NUMBER OR VARIETY from which to choose
–
“Collins Dictionary
CHOICE
If there is a choice of THINGS, there are SEVERAL OF THEM and you can choose the one you want.
Your choice is someone or something that you choose from A RANGE OF THINGS.”
–
Oxford Learners Dictionary
An act of choosing between TWO OR MORE possibilities;
–
Longman Dictionary
if you have a choice, you can choose BETWEEN SEVERAL THINGS”
Again, it is just absurd. He will literally play clips of Calvinists plainly stating their beliefs and interpretations of scriptures, letting them speak for themselves. He does that even with the explanation of Calvinists will say that I don’t understand or am misrepresenting Calvinism, so here listen to them explain it themselves. Then they say exactly what he explained.
At this point saying “he doesn’t understand Calvinism” is basically resembling gaslighting!
Kurt
At this point saying “he doesn’t understand Calvinism” is basically resembling gaslighting!
br.d
Kurt – do you think it is possible this is another example – of the fact that Calvinists make statements in which the meaning of those statements are not the meanings which *NORMAL* people understand within those statements?
–
Dr. Flowers – for example – will consistently point out – that Calvinists use the same language – but have a different (i.e. unique) dictionary – for terms and phrases which they use.
–
For example – when the Calvinist uses the word “Choice” – he is deploying a different (i.e. unique) definition for the word “Choice” than the *STANDARD* definition which people *NORMALLY* understand for that word.
–
So as you point out – Dr. Flowers will play a video clip from a Calvinist – which takes that Calvinist statement verbatim.
And Dr. Flowers will point out – how that statement represents a denial of the doctrine that Calvinist is assuming to enunciate.
–
Dr. Flowers will often shack his head – or bump his hand up to his forehead – in the recognition that the Calvinist is speaking DOUBLE-SPEAK.
–
For the Calvinist – that DOUBLE-SPEAK is completely normal
–
So it seems to me – the key difference is – The Non-Calvinist does not embrace DOUBLE-SPEAK – and the Calvinist does
–
The Calvinist is not going to want to say “You don’t embrace my DOUBLE-THINK” because that is not a self-complimentary statement to make.
–
So the Calvinist will instead say “You don’t understand”
–
But what he really means is – “You don’t embrace my DOUBLE-SPEAK”
br.d
About a year ago – I had a very large AHA! moment – when watching Joe Rogan interviewing Sean Carroll over the question of Determinism.
–
The subject of the language barrier between the Determinist and the Non-Determinist came up
–
What Sean Carroll (Atheist Determinist) said – was what gave me that AHA! moment
–
Sean Carroll
There are 2 questions.
1) How does the world work
2) What words should we *ATTACH* to how the world works
–
Why does the Determinist – have to *ATTACH* meanings to words within the common language?
Because the common language – does not reflect – the way the world works within Determinism
*NORMAL* language is NON-Deterministic.
It does not reflect “The way the world works” for a Determinist.
–
Because this is the case – the meanings of words within all standard dictionaries – are not going to be Deterministic.
–
So when the Determinist communicates – to describe how his Deterministic world works – he has to select words out of a NON-Deterministic vocabulary.
–
This is what Dr. Flowers means – when he says – Calvinists use the same vocabulary – but have a different dictionary
–
Now listen to this statement by John Calvin – in regard to Augustine’s use of the word “Permission”
John Calvin
-quote
When [Augustine] uses the term PERMISSION, the meaning which he *ATTACHES* to it will best appear from a single passage (De Trinity. lib. 3 cap. 4), where he proves that the will of god is the supreme and *PRIMARY CAUSE* of all things….(Institutes 1, 16, 8)”
So Augustine – who is a Determinist – is trying to communicate his conception of *the way the world works* for a Determinist. He wants to use the word PERMISSION. But in a Deterministic world – it does not have the meaning which all people *NORMALLY* define.
–
Augustine does not want to say – god *CAUSES* whatsoever comes to pass.
So he uses the word PERMISSION as a replacement word for CAUSE
He *ATTACHES* CAUSE as the meaning for the word PERMISSION.
–
So I think when the Calvinist says “You don’t understand” – he is *ATTACHING* that phrase to something that has a different meaning than what would *NORMALLY* be understood
To be clear:
When I said it makes no difference in a Calvinist’s life, I did not mean they glean nothing from reading Reformers or singing old hymns. Just as many people have been blessed by reading Billy Graham, Max Lucado, Chuck Swindoll, Chuck Smith, etc.
My point was that it makes no difference in behavior.
With the philosophy that God makes all the decisions immutably before time, and yet finite man still makes all his own decisions, a Calvinist can go about his business like Calvin told him to —– as if what we do matters (wink, wink).
I don’t understand how Calvinism is distinct from fatalism. They seem to be identical to me, but I’ve heard Calvinists say to avoid fatalism.
Rob
I don’t understand how Calvinism is distinct from fatalism. They seem to be identical to me, but I’ve heard Calvinists say to avoid fatalism.
–
br.d
That is very understandable
John Calvin – deliberated over using the word “Fate” because the infallible decree does determine the “Fate” of whatever it decrees.
–
He however didn’t like certain inferences which enter into a person’s mind when they hear the word
The Greeks had certain gods who were Deterministic – which were called the “Fates”
Calvin didn’t want his reader’s to automatically draw an association with that.
So he decided he would never use the word.
–
The scripture uses the word “Lot”
For example – the “Lot” was cast.
So Calvin adopted that word as a replacement for “Fate”
So Calvin would say – his god is the sole determiner of every man’s “Lot”
Which you can easily say as “god is the sole determiner of every man’s Fate
–
But we also have “Fatalism”
Fatalism and Determinism can be likened to two apples from the same tree.
They share much of the same DNA but they are not exactly like each other.
–
Fatalism entails the thesis that events happen “Of Necessity”
Within logic – the fact that events happen of *NECESSITY* with Fatalism – entails a “Modal” fallacy
–
There is an good article on Reasonable Faith which describes this very well
To find it – Google the following string:
“Foreknowledge and Fatalism Once More | Reasonable Faith”
FOH
My point was that it makes no difference in behavior.
roland
My friend, it makes all the difference in my life that God has decreed, governs by His providence, and knows everything about my future, present, and past.
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. 30 But the very hairs of your head are all numbered. 31 Do not fear therefore; you are of more value than many sparrows.
What is Jesus teaching us? To NOT live in fear because not a sparrow falls to the ground APART from God’s will. If God is so involved in the life of a sparrow, then how much more is He involved in the life of creatures that are made in His image.
Interesting the translation you use words it in the most Calvinistic way possible. Mine says
Matthew 10:29 Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father.
Notice the following:
Matthew 10:32 Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven.
Matthew 10:33 But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.
Whosoever….but that sure sounds like anyone can do either of these things! Unless of course you are using eisegesis, and reading Unconditional Election INTO the text here.
I use the New King James Version.
I stick with the original.
Kurt
I stick with the original.
Roland
Me too. My daily devotional reading is KJV.
Roland
My friend, it makes all the difference in my life that God has decreed, governs by His providence, and knows everything about my future, present, and past.
–
br.d
Every Arminian I know – has the same exact statement concerning divine providence and divine foreknowledge
Isn’t that interesting! :-]
br.d
Every Arminian I know – has the same exact statement concerning divine providence and divine foreknowledge
Isn’t that interesting! :-]
roland
I guess Calvinists are not the only ones with contradictions in their beliefs. And I guess Calvinists are not the only ones that have their own language. It sounds like the Arminians do to! Isn’t that interesting! :-]
Did you just admit Calvinists have contradictions in their beliefs and use a different language?
No. But I have been proven by br.d through syllogisms that Calvinism has contradictions and that Calvinism has their meaning for words!
Roland
I have been proven by br.d through syllogisms that Calvinism has contradictions and that Calvinism has their meaning for words!
–
br.d
John Calvin gives us an excellent example
Its the use of the word “Permission”
–
John Calvin
-quote
“John Calvin
-quote
When [Augustine] uses the term “Permission” the MEANING WHICH HE ATTACHES TO IT to it will best appear from a single passage (De Trinity. lib. 3 cap. 4), where he proves that the will of God is the supreme and primary CAUSE of all things….(Institutes 1, 16, 8)””
–
Here is how it works
1) What is divinely CAUSED is permitted
2) What is NOT divinely CAUSED is NOT permitted
–
So when the Calvinist says – sins and evils are permitted – what he means is sins and evils are CAUSED.
br.d
Every Arminian I know – has the same exact statement concerning divine providence and divine foreknowledge
Isn’t that interesting! :-]
–
roland
I guess Calvinists are not the only ones with contradictions in their beliefs….
–
br.d
That commits the fallacy of non-sequitur
Your statement was in fact a statement any Arminian could heartily agree with without any contradiction.
–
Now if you had *TOLD THE WHOLE TRUTH* – and said Calvin’s god determines every impulse in your brain – then the Arminian would certainly recognize that as Calvinism.
And I thought I’d add this to the conversation about if Pharaoh hardened his own heart in Ex. 7:13 or if God did it (take it as you will) …
Ellicot’s Commentary for English Readers says that “He hardened Pharaoh’s heart” is “a mis-translation. The verb is intransitive, and “Pharaoh’s heart” is its nominative case. Translate, “Pharaoh’s heart hardened itself.” It is essential to the idea of a final penal hardening that in the earlier stages Pharaoh should have been left to himself.”
Benson Commentary says “And he hardened Pharaoh’s heart — That is, permitted it to be hardened: or, as the very same Hebrew word is rendered in Exodus 7:22, Pharaoh’s heart was hardened.”
Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges says: “… In this case, the meaning will be that God ‘hardened’ Pharaoh just in so far as he hardened himself… He only hardens those who begin by hardening themselves … it would be contrary to His moral attributes, and inconsistent with the character of a righteous God, if He were to harden those whose hearts were turned towards Him, and did not wish to harden themselves. The Pharaoh—whatever he was in actual history—is depicted in Exodus as from the first a self-willed, obstinate man who persistently hardens himself against God, and resists all warnings: God thus hardens him only because he has first hardened himself.”
Pulpit Commentary says: ” And he hardened Pharaoh’s heart. Rather, “But Pharaoh’s heart was hard.” The verb employed is not active, but neuter; and “his heart” is not the accusative, but the nominative. Pharaoh’s heart was too hard for the sign to make much impression on it.”
Indeed.
That is why they need the ESV translation. It always takes the Reformed position in any verse that is possibly translated different ways.
Heather,
I am sure that Roland is referring to Ex 4:21….and he quotes the Calvinist-ESV.
Of course it can be understood to mean that Pharaoh will hardened his heart multiple times (and the Scripture says that) and then God says “enough” and hardens just before the last plague.
God knows Pharoah and the many generations of Pharoah-worship that will make it preeeeety difficult for him to humble himself. Then, when God says enough…he hardens Pharaoh for the last time ….and carries out His plan.
It is no different than Jonah chapter 3:4 where God decided to NOT carry out His plan….
“Jonah began by going a day’s journey into the city, proclaiming, ‘Forty more days and Nineveh will be overthrown.’”
THAT is the message the Lord gave him…in 40 days the city would be destroyed.
Even the Calvinist-ESV (below) shows clearly that God planned one thing and then changed his plan:
10 “When God saw what they did, how they turned from their evil way, God relented of the disaster that he had said he would do to them, and he did not do it.”
From this we learn:
1. God can change His mind.
2. God can be affected by the actions of people: “how they turned from their evil …”
3. God did not plan their repentance. He “saw” it. ((Remember He planned their destruction)).
4. Application to this discussion: God could have changed His plan with a hardened-heart Pharaoh in any way He wanted, but He decided to stay with HIs plan and add a further hardening to Pharaoh’s own hardening.
We see from Jonah (and many other examples, Jeremiah 18, etc) that God could have also changed His hardening plan if Pharaoh had somehow repented.
Jer 18:7 If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed, 8 and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned.
So “harden his heart” (judge him) is God’s plan….if Pharaoh continues in his hardened heart ways. But had Pharaoh repented (Nineveh did!!) God may have said “I relent of the plans to harden (destroy) Pharaoh.
Here is Spurgeon veering off the Calvinist message again….
“Possibly, dear friend, the reason why you will not come is that you indulge some secret sin which you cannot give up. O that secret sin! That secret sin! That worm at the root of the soul! I know not what it is, my friend, but God knows, and thou knowest. Is it thy pride? Canst thou not stoop to be saved by mercy, through the grace of God? Or is it a fleshly lust from which thou canst not separate thyself? Is it dear to thee as thy right hand? Off with it, man! “It is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire.” Is sin holding thee back from Christ, from life, from heaven? Dear as this Barabbas may be, do not prefer him to thy Lord. Away with the sin, it is a viper! Away with it, or else God will say, “Away with thee.”
This is NOT the Calvinist gospel. The reason they will not come is because God has not elected them. Pure and simple. ANY other reason gives credit to man, not God.
“Away with your sin….. or God will say away with thee.” ((you do something, or God will do something?????))
Dear Charles….. God has long ago made that decision!!! The choice is not up to that person. Besides, Charles, saying to man that “he must or God will” speaks of God reacting to man—-and that is NOT Calvinism.
There is no such thing in Calvinism as “putting away” pride, stooping, putting away lust, putting away sin …..or anything “holding us back from Christ”. The only thing holding us back is that we are not elected. Anything credited to man —-AT ALL—- takes away from God doing it all.
Stick to your message: stop preaching like an Arminian!
Spurgeon again…
“Why not now? Every day adds to the chances, if I may use such an expression, adds to the deadly “odds” against you, that you never will come to Christ.”
If you keep waiting, your chances are less.
You go Spurgeon!
“I do not serve the God of the Arminians at all; I have nothing to do with him, and I do not bow down before the Baal they have set up; he is not my God, nor shall he ever be; I fear him not, nor tremble at his presence.”
(Sermons Preached and Revised by the Rev. C. H. Spurgeon, sixth series, p. 241)
“I believe there will be more in Heaven than in hell. If anyone asks me why I think so, I answer, because Christ, in everything, is to “have the pre-eminence”, and I cannot conceive how He could have the pre-eminence if there are to be more in the dominions of Satan than in Paradise. ”
(C. H. Spurgeon’s Autobiography, Vol. 1, p. 171, in “A Defence Of Calvinism,”)
“Among all those who have been born of women, there has not risen a greater one than John Calvin; no age, before him ever produced his equal, and no age afterwards has seen his rival. In theology, he stands alone, shining like a bright fixed star, while other leaders and teachers can only circle round him, at a great distance — as comets go streaming through space — with nothing like his glory or his permanence” . . . “the longer I live the clearer does it appear that John Calvin’s system is the nearest to perfection.”
~ Charles Spurgeon, quoted by Stephen Lawson in his book on Calvin
Fromoverhere, Thank you for your ministry for the unborn. My mom almost aborted me when she was an unmarried pregnant teen fresh out of an orphanage. Glad she didn’t.
I think there is another post on Sot 101 where a Calvinist actually came out and said that “yes, God wanted the abortions to happen.” At least he was forthright.
But most Calvinists are more subtle and confusing than that, like what you said about Macarthur: “The MacArthurs of this world take the same line as the confessions: God ordained / decreed everything, but in Him is no sin (or without sinning). So, mysteriously He ordains / decrees IMMUTABLY the evil that we do —-and it is sin for us—-but not sin for Him.”
They muddle it up so much, speaking out of both sides of their mouths, that it makes it hard to discern what they are really saying, which makes it hard to understand why and where they are wrong, which makes it hard to debate them or confront them, which makes it so much easier for Calvinism to spread. It sounds so lofty, but it’s really just contradictory nonsense that doesn’t hold up under logical or biblical scrutiny. And it damages God’s good character and truthful Word.
Did you read the one about the Calvinist grandfather who proudly proclaimed that he loved his unborn grandchild but that he knew God (Calvinism’s god) might not and that maybe God (Calvinism’s god) even destined the child to be a murderer? He apparently was quite proud of his “humble submission” to God’s supreme “sovereignty,” to the point that he would accept that God could do these things. This is where Calvinism leads to. So sad.
(I wrote about it and anyone can find it by googling: Exposing Calvinism: I love my grandchild, but God might not
I wanted to back up what I said, to show the source I got it from.
And on a different note, oddly enough, the usually-very-Calvinist ESV actually is less Calvinist (therefore more biblically accurate) in translating Exodus 7:13: “Still, Pharaoh’s heart was hardened …”, whereas the KJV got it more wrong, more Calvinist. Interesting. It doesn’t happen often, but it did here.
brdmod
Thanks for being aware of the restriction of posting links Heather.
In the future – it would be appreciated if we could post title for a web-site so that people can easily google to find it
thanks!
The slipperiness is what makes it difficult to debate them. Pin them down on a point they can’t reconcile? They either appeal to mystery, or say “you don’t understand Calvinism, that isn’t what we believe!” If they are more consistent Calvinists they just affirm your objections as “hard truths” and say who are you to question God, or you don’t have to like it, it’s just what the Bible teaches.
They spin what we see as evil into good. A sinner going to hell is good, because that is what they deserve. We should applaud when a sinner goes to hell (Paul Washer preached something like this).
Then there is the barrage of false accusations. Oh, you are an open-theist. Of you are Arminian. Oh you follow the heretic Pelagius!
Then God’s ways are higher than your ways, and you are leaning on your own understanding.
All of these are canned cop out arguments, not reasons backed with evidence/reasons. I’ve even heard Calvinists say “humans have problems accepting contradictions, but contradictions are ok with God” and “you can’t follow human logic”. They try to just dismiss outright the principles that are devastating to their theology (but then use those principles in sermons or to refute atheists/other religions).
You can’t debate them because they don’t follow the rules of debate. Debate doesn’t favor them. Leighton has a video of an atheist dismantling a Calvinist in a debate.
Br.d.: “In the future – it would be appreciated if we could post title for a web-site so that people can easily google to find it”
No problem. And good to know. Thanks for correcting it for me. 🙂
Roland: “God hardened pharaoh’s heart first as you pointed out in Exodus 7:13. Then pharaoh hardened his own heart.”
If God first hardened Pharoah’s heart (which He didn’t), what is left for Pharaoh to harden? Why would and how could Pharaoh harden something that’s already been hardened? That doesn’t make sense.
Fromoverhere: “I am sure that Roland is referring to Ex 4:21….and he quotes the Calvinist-ESV. Of course it can be understood to mean that Pharaoh will hardened his heart multiple times (and the Scripture says that) and then God says “enough” and hardens just before the last plague.”
Yes, that’s how I read Exodus 4:21 too. God says He WILL harden Pharoah’s heart because He knows how it will all play out. That does not mean, as Calvinists think it does, that He hardened Pharoah’s heart from the beginning and that Pharaoh couldn’t change his mind early on. It just means that God knew Pharaoh wouldn’t change his mind and so, in response to Pharoah’s choice, God will eventually confirm (harden) Pharaoh’s decision.
Fromoverhere: “1. God can change His mind. 2. God can be affected by the actions of people: “how they turned from their evil …” 3. God did not plan their repentance. He “saw” it. ((Remember He planned their destruction))….But had Pharaoh repented (Nineveh did!!) God may have said “I relent of the plans to harden (destroy) Pharaoh.”
Good points and good connection between God relenting with Nineveh and the possibility that God could have relented with Pharaoh. And if Pharoah did repent, God would have been able to find another way to get glory and to get His plans done. It’s only Calvinism that locks Him into one way of doing things.
10 big miracles tend to do a splendid job of heart hardening. Jesus would do similar and pharisees would want to kill him all the more. Calvinist are so very strange.
Good comment Larry!
Yes- and in Calvinism – per the doctrine of decrees – the state of Pharoah’s heart – at every nano-second in time – is 100% meticulously FATED by supernatural decrees which Pharoah has absolutely no control over.
Pharoah doesn’t have any choice in the matter of his heart one way or another.
His heart is FIXED by infallible decree
How is logically possible – for Pharoah to change something that is FIXED by infallible decree?
You are correct!
Calvinist are so very strange! :-]
Kurt: Then there is the barrage of false accusations. Oh, you are an open-theist. Of you are Arminian. Oh you follow the heretic Pelagius!”
Don’t forget “universalist”. If we say that Jesus died for all people (as the Bible clearly says: the sins of the whole world), they interpret it as us saying that God saves all people, that all people go to heaven. But no … we are just saying that Jesus died for all people, but God leaves it up to us to decide if we will accept it or reject it. And only those who accept it will go to heaven. But Calvinists are locked into their idea that people cannot decide for themselves, that Jesus died only for the elect, and so they automatically assume that “dying for” means “saving/going to heaven”.
Kurt: “You can’t debate them because they don’t follow the rules of debate.”
Bingo! And this is why they have to rely heavily on manipulation and shaming in order to get people to believe in Calvinism.
It is subtlety too…before I became aware of Reformed doctrine, I actually really liked John MacArthur’s preaching, and in many ways agree with a lot of what he preaches still. The Calvinistic aspect was very hidden if you didn’t know to look for it. Because of the double speak it SOUNDS like biblical preaching!
I liken it to rat poison. Rat poison is 99% completely safe and edible. The poison part is 1%. There is just enough poison in it to kill the rats, but not so much they will recognize it is poison and not eat it. So is Reformed preaching.
Roland, I do want to apologize if I come across as snarky to you. (I like sarcasm, but snark has the added intention of causing pain.) You know I like you, and I have always considered you to be thoughtful and quite polite, even if we disagree. I do not mean to be snarky (most times), but I am rather blunt when challenging Calvinism or presenting questions for Calvinists to consider, and I’m sure that can sound rude. I’ve just found it a lot easier to be blunt and clear-cut (such as using “Calvi-god” when referring to the Calvinist’s beliefs about how God acts or what He’s like) to keep it short and tidy and clear.
And I meant it when I said I’d pray for you. I really do want you to see the truth of what Scripture says about God and Jesus and salvation. What we think about God – whether we believe that He causes sin or doesn’t, that He truly loves all people or doesn’t, that He determines where we spend eternity or we do, that He is glorified by evil or isn’t, that Jesus died for all or didn’t, that God wants all people saved or wants most in hell, etc. – will have a HUGE impact on our faith and our relationship with God and our eternities. And I want you to have the best of all of that.
But I do not think that can happen with Calvinism. I think eventually you will suffocate under Calvinism and it will hurt your faith and your heart. I’ve read of a bunch of Calvinist celebrities who’ve thrown out their faith because of Calvinism, most likely because they didn’t realize that there is a difference between Calvinism’s god and the God of the Bible, because they were taught that Calvinism IS the gospel. And so instead of just tossing out the Calvinism and keeping the gospel, they toss it all out. thinking they are one and the same.
But if and when that happens, just remember that many of us do not believe that the God of the Bible and Calvinism’s god are the same person. We do not believe that Calvinism IS the gospel, but that it is a corruption of the gospel. So if and when that happens, get rid of just the Calvinism but keep the gospel and find out who God really is in His Word by studying the Bible alone. And the truth will set you free.
Until then, keep commenting at Sot 101. It’s always good for Christians to share differing thoughts and to challenge/sharpen one another, like iron sharpens iron.
God bless!
Thank you Heather. Apology accepted. My response was partly due to watching Leighton Flowers a few days ago complain about being called heterodox and how rudely he is treated by others. I thought it was interesting that while he briefly acknowledged that it is on both sides, the majority of the time was spent addressing how he is treated by those who disagree with him. I’ve got tough skin. People call me whatever they want. I’m not offended and I seek not to offend. I do wish there was more politeness on both side. I won’t dismiss someone’s argument even if they are snarky. I try to overlook it.
I just did a study on this!
The Gospel
Mark 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
Romans 1:15 So, as much as in me is, I am ready to preach the gospel to you that are at Rome also.
Romans 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek
What was the Gospel that Paul preached?
1 Corinthians 15:1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
1 Corinthians 15:2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
1 Corinthians 15:3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
1 Corinthians 15:4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
1 Corinthians 15:5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:
1 Corinthians 15:6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.
1 Corinthians 15:7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.
1 Corinthians 15:8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.
What do we do with the Gospel to be saved?
Romans 10:8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;
Romans 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
Acts 16:27 And the keeper of the prison awaking out of his sleep, and seeing the prison doors open, he drew out his sword, and would have killed himself, supposing that the prisoners had been fled.
Acts 16:28 But Paul cried with a loud voice, saying, Do thyself no harm: for we are all here.
Acts 16:29 Then he called for a light, and sprang in, and came trembling, and fell down before Paul and Silas,
Acts 16:30 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what MUST I DO to be saved?
Acts 16:31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.
(Note on the jailer. He asked what HE must do to be saved. Notice they didn’t tell him there is NOTHING he can do to be saved, that God must elect and regenerate him. They simply said “believe on the Lord Jesus Christ”)
John 3:16 For God so loved the WORLD, that he gave his only begotten Son, that WHOSOEVER believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
1 Timothy 2:4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
1 Timothy 2:6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.
Another Gospel?
Galatians 1:6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
Galatians 1:7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
Galatians 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
What does the word Gospel mean?
Good News.
Does this sound like good news?
“Of the eternal election, by which God has predestinated some to salvation, and others to destruction … The predestination by which God adopts some to the hope of life, and adjudges others to eternal death, no man who would be thought pious ventures simply to deny…By predestination we mean the eternal decree of God, by which he determined with himself whatever he wished to happen with regard to every man. All are not created on equal terms, but some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and, accordingly, as each has been created for one or other of these ends, we say that he has been predestinated to life or to death (Calvin Institutes 3:21:5: 06 emphasis mine)
Does the above description sound like what the Bible says the Gospel is (the Good News?)
What do Calvinists say the Gospel is (keeping in mind if it is different than that which Paul preached in 1 Corinthians 15 to let them be accursed)
And I have my own private opinion, that there is no such thing as preaching Christ and him crucified, unless you preach what now-a-days is called Calvinism. I have my own ideas, and those I always state boldly. It is a nickname to call it Calvinism. Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else. I do not believe we can preach the gospel, if we do not preach justification by faith without works; nor unless we preach the sovereignty of God in his dispensation of grace; nor unless we exalt the electing, unchangeable, eternal, immutable, conquering love of Jehovah; nor, I think, can we preach the gospel, unless we base it upon the peculiar redemption which Christ made for his elect and chosen people; nor can I comprehend a gospel which lets saints fall away after they are called, and suffers the children of God to be burned in the fires of damnation, after having believed. Such a gospel I abhor. The gospel of the Bible is not such a gospel as that. We preach Christ and him crucified in a different fashion, and to all gainsayers we reply, ‘We have not so learned Christ.’ [Spurgeon’s Sermons, vol. I (Baker Books, reprinted 2007), 88-89.]
The Gospel of Jesus Christ is as light shining unto a dark world, and the Five Solas are the best representation of this Gospel as described in the Bible (Note that the verses referenced here exclude 1 Corinthians 15 which clearly defines what the Gospel is in the Word of God)
To sum up this brief commentary on our rule of faith and our doctrine of salvation, this is what we wish to make very clear: that salvation is the divine working of a Sovereign GOD who alone satisfied divine justice, established everlasting righteousness, and accomplished eternal redemption for His people by the cross of JESUS CHRIST. And, by the preaching of THIS SOVEREIGN GRACE, all of His elect shall be saved.
Did Paul say he preached or received Calvinism, the Five Solas, or This Sovereign Grace in 1 Corinthians 15? Or is that any other Gospel or perversion of the Gospel like in Galatians 1:6-8?
per·ver·sion
/pərˈvərZHən/
Learn to pronounce
noun
1. 1. the alteration of something from its original course, meaning, or state to a distortion or corruption of what was first intended.
Also for consideration
Revelation 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
Revelation 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
Who can be saved in this book of Prophecy?
Revelation 22:17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.
Kurt,
I’ll remove the link you posted in this last post
If we need to refer to another web-site – please provide sufficient info for a person to go there – rather than put a link to it.
Thanks
brdmod
Thank you, Roland. I’ve seen a lot of graciousness and maturity in you in your interactions with others. Just want you to know. God bless! 🙂
I just reread this comment of mine to Roland: “(And so I assume you don’t consider “Leighton’s followers” to be snarky too?)”
It might sound like I’m saying that other “followers” of Leighton are snarky too. But what I meant was … isn’t calling us “Leighton’s followers” a bit snarky too? Just wanted to clarify.
I don’t mean that Leighton has followers in a religious or cult like sense. What I mean is that there are people who follow Leighton’s content on youtube, facebook, twitter, etc. That’s what I meant. Hopefully that clarifies my statement.
Thanks for clarifying, Roland. 🙂
Roland: “The reason I don’t use names such as ‘armi-god’ or ‘freewill-god’ or ‘moli-god’ or ‘open theist-god’ is because I believe that people who believe in God as Arminians, libertarian freewill proponents, Molinists, open theist believe their perspective of God is the God of the Bible. I disagree with them but by saying they don’t believe in the God of the Bible means they are worshipping an idol. Unitarians, modalists, and others such as Jehovah Witnesses and Mormons are worshipping idols because their differences as to who God is, are greatly different than historical and creedal Christianity.”
I appreciate that you are being kind and tolerant here, as you usually are. But I’m gonna be a little rascal here (as I usually am) and play devil’s advocate, throwing something out there for consideration:
Mormons and JWs also believe their perspective of God is the God of the Bible. Should we base whether someone worships a false god or the real God (whether they have a false gospel or the real gospel) on if they themselves think their views accurately reflect the Bible?
I mean, we all believe our perspective of God accurately reflects the God of the Bible, so how do we determine who’s right and who’s wrong? When are the differences in beliefs significant enough to require that we label one a false gospel? Which differences can we let slide (compromise with) and which should we boldly come against (not compromise against)?
And most relevant for this post: Are the differences between Calvinists and non-Calvinists small enough that the two can compromise/mesh with each other? Or are they significant enough that we should both call out the other side as unbiblical/a false gospel?
[Personally, I think “idol-worship” is when people know they are worshipping a being who is not God from the Bible. Hindu gods. Greek/Roman gods. Sun-worship. Etc. But many false religions/cults do worship “God” and believe in Jesus and uphold the Bible, but they have very different interpretations of it all. So instead of saying they worship idols, I would simply say they have an incorrect, unbiblical, different view of God and the gospel.]
I’m not being sarcastic here, but just presenting some real questions to think about, from one Christian to another, especially since the Bible warns us against compromising the gospel and God’s truth.
I’m asking because I’ve had to wrestle with this, with if I really should be calling Calvinism a false gospel with a different (version of) God. It seems harsh, especially when most of those people are good Christians who’ve just been trapped into Calvinism and are just doing their best to live rightly and to honor God, as they’ve been taught.
But then I re-examine some of the differences between Calvinism and non-Calvinism, differences on some of the most important things in the Bible: God’s character, Jesus’s death, how we get saved, etc.
Calvinism: God chooses if we get saved; the Holy Spirit regenerates before belief; only the elect can believe; God really loves only the elect; His saving grace is only for the elect; He wants most people in hell for His pleasure and glory; He “ordains” sin for His glory; He actively controls everything even sin and evil; He sent Jesus to die for only the elect; He punishes people for doing the things He predestined them to do (injustice), etc..
Non-Calvinism: We choose if we will believe in Jesus or not; regeneration is after belief; anyone can believe; God truly loves all people; His saving grace is available to all people; He wants all people to be saved and wants no one to go the hell; He is not glorified by sin; He allows a certain amount of creaturely freedom within boundaries; He sent Jesus to die for all sins of all people; He punishes people for doing what they chose to do (justice), etc.:
Sure, we both use the Bible and biblical concepts and we both have the most basic part of “faith in Jesus saves us” in common (but Mormons and JWs would say this too), but when we add in all the differences in our beliefs (especially about who Jesus died for, how we believe in Him, what faith is and how we get it, and who can believe in Him), we end up with two different messages, two different gospels, two different versions of God. [Not to mention that the Calvinist gospel is only for the elect, but the non-Calvinist gospel is for everyone.]
How much difference can there be between two views of God/the gospel before we call one out as false? Do you think Calvinism and non-Calvinism are similar enough that they can compromise with each other, that there would be little harm in melding the two? (If you did, I doubt you’d be here at Sot 101 arguing for Calvinism.) When and where do we draw the line between truth and falsehood? How much falsehood should we overlook in the name of unity?
I’m asking this because … maybe Calvinists who believe that Calvinism IS the gospel and non-Calvinists who believe it’s NOT the gospel should not be compromising with each other or trying to meld together in peaceful unity. Of course, we can have polite, lively conversations and respectful debates, but maybe we should both be bold enough to call out the other side as “unbiblical” or “heresy” (in the commonly understood way it’s used), especially if we want to protect the integrity of (our version of) the gospel.
Of course, I’m not saying that Calvinists are right, and I don’t want to encourage more hostility and division. But I take it seriously that God entrusted Christians with the gospel and that we are to protect it from error. And so I would expect any Christian to draw hard lines between (what we think is) truth and (what we think is) lies. And this includes drawing hard lines (respectfully, but firmly) between Calvinism and non-Calvinism.
In fact, I think we’d have a lot less confusion between the two if Calvinists drew a stronger line between Calvinism and non-Calvinism, if Calvinist pastors stopped saying that Calvinism is just a secondary issue and that our different beliefs shouldn’t cause division (which, I think, is an attempt to shame non-Calvinists into keeping quiet and staying under their Calvinist leadership). Maybe there should be a stronger, clearer division between Calvinism and non-Calvinism, especially if we are all seeking to do our best to not compromise (our version of) the gospel.
Anyway, I’m just throwing this out there to give people things to think about. Mainly, when are the differences great enough that we should call something “unbiblical,” a false gospel? And if we should call something unbiblical but we don’t, are we compromising the truth and the gospel?
(And it would not bother me at all if you called the non-Calvinist God “free-will God” or “non-calvi-God” or something like that. I would simply think you are trying to be clear that you are talking about the non-Calvinist view of God and not your own. And I think it would help everyone to better see the differences in how Calvinists and non-Calvinists view God.)
[Side note: Calvinism has a luxury that non-Calvinism doesn’t have, which allows them to be more “compromising” with non-Calvinists than non-Calvinists can be with Calvinists, which is that non-Calvinist beliefs fit into Calvinism on one level, the surfacey level. Almost anything we say is incorporated into Calvinism’s “two different types of …”
Non-Calvinists say “God loves all people.” Calvinists say “Of course He loves all people. It’s just that He’s got two different types of love, one for the elect and one for the non-elect.”
Non-Calvinists say “God calls all people.” Calvinists say “Yes, He does. But He gives two different calls: an irresistible one for the elect that they must heed and a resistible one for the non-elect that they can’t heed.”
Non-Calvinists say “Jesus died for all people.” Calvinists say “Of course He did. But His death was sufficient for all but only efficient for the elect.”
Non-Calvinists say “It’s God’s will that all people are saved and that no one perishes.” Calvinists say “Yes, true. But He has two wills, a spoken one (wants all people saved) and a hidden one (wants to punish sinners in hell to show His justice).”
Calvinism “agrees” with non-Calvinism on the surface, making it seem like they can be more tolerant of us. But non-Calvinism doesn’t have that luxury because we don’t have that “deeper/hidden” level of beliefs that Calvinism has. We don’t have the “two different types of …”
And we know that, in Calvinism, the surfacey things they say are just a cover-up for their deeper beliefs which change/alter/contradict the surface level they claim to believe. (And we know they will hide the deeper things for as long as possible, that they hook and reel people in with the surfacey things we can all agree on before revealing the “hard truths.”)
And so we are forced to draw stronger lines of division between Calvinism and non-Calvinism, to clearly call out Calvinism as unbiblical and to point out that they worship a different version of God than the one clearly, plainly revealed in Scripture. And so we look more intolerant, more harsh.
But we know that if we don’t push back, that if we compromise even a little bit, Calvinism (which we believe is a corruption of the gospel and God’s character) will sneak in under cover and spread unnoticed. And so if we non-Calvinists take it seriously that we need to protect the gospel and the truth of Scripture, how can we not call it out as unbiblical?
And on the other side, if Calvinists think Calvinism IS the gospel and we say it’s not, how can you not call us out as unbiblical, especially when we contradict your version of the gospel and God’s character and are trying to dismantle Calvinism and stop its spread?]
Just some things to think about. From one Christian to another. I mean, I’m all for Christians living in harmony with other Christians in spite of differences in our beliefs. But when are beliefs too different to do this? (I’ll be offline for several days now, so I won’t be able to read any replies.) Blessings to you, Roland! Enjoy your week/weekend.
Remember Heather….
Calvinists are Universalists!
They are just stingier.
Universalists: “God is love” means that He (forcefully) takes everyone.
Calvinists: “God is love” means He (forcefully) takes a teeeeny weeeny percentage of the creatures that he created in His own image! The other 90-ish% of those God’s-image-bearers were just created for eternal destruction and torment.
And I don’t actually expect any replies. I’m just throwing these questions out for each of us to examine in our own hearts, between us and God. Of course, anyone can reply if they want to, but no one has to.
Blessings. 🙂
Roland: “You are really not listening or reading us.”
Roland, I am sorry if it seems that way to Calvinists, that we’re not really listening to you and so we don’t really understand you. I’m sure that’s got to be frustrating.
But from my perspective, we are listening to what Calvinists say … we just don’t ONLY listen to what Calvinists say.
We listen to what Calvinists say in one place, but then we compare it against what they say in other places, and we note the contradictions. [Br.d., was it you who said that what Calvinists take out with one hand, they slip in later with the other hand?]
We listen to what Calvinists say, but then we carry those beliefs out to their ends, to their obvious undeniable conclusions (which end harming God’s character and contradicting the Bible).
We listen to what Calvinists say, but then we go to Scripture and see if it accurately reflects the plain, clear, easily-understood teachings of Scripture.
We listen to what Calvinists say, but we dig deeper to find what they hide, what they REALLY believe.
We do listen to what Calvinists say. We just don’t end with what Calvinists say. We don’t trust what they “say” because we know there’s a whole lot more to it than that.
I know that sounds harsh, and I’m sorry about that. But I hope and pray that someday you too can see past what they “say” to what they really believe underneath (beliefs that alter/contradict what they “say”).
Heather, here is a perfect example of what you mean.
Calvinists say that God does it all. Man does nothing (TULIP) either in the wanting, receiving, asking, listening part —AT ALL.
Neither does man as a 3rd party. Meaning: You have nothing to do with whether another person comes to Christ—nothing AT ALL. God cannot be deprived of His total, total, total 100% ownership of what happens.
So, then we say….. “So you Calvinists dont believe that we ‘persuade men’ or that we ‘reason with men’ or that we ‘convince men’?”
And of course, the Calvinist answer SHOULD be a resounding “NO! NO! NO! Because if you ‘persuade men’ then that will in some way deprive God of doing it 100%. I mean that implies that you — a human — participated (used persuasive argument) and that the dead, God-hater human could in any way ‘be persuaded!’ Remember our mantra: Dead men dont make choices!! (we say that all the time).”
That is what the Calvinist answer SHOULD be!
But they pull some verses from the Arminian Bible and say….. “Oh yes, we persuade men” “Oh yes we reason with men” …… because that is what Paul says.
Get it?
Build a man-made philosophy (Calvinism) on a false idea of sovereignty —-and claim that “God does it all, cuz man is a dead, God-hater.”
Then in another conversation (not too close in time to that one) state that this “dead” man CAN be reasoned with “because Paul tell us he can.”
The absurdity just never stops!
Fromoverhere: “Build a man-made philosophy (Calvinism) on a false idea of sovereignty —-and claim that “God does it all, cuz man is a dead, God-hater.” Then in another conversation (not too close in time to that one) state that this “dead” man CAN be reasoned with “because Paul tell us he can.””
Yeah, my Calvinist pastor asked the congregation one day “How can God be sovereign over all, ordaining everything that happens even our sins, but we are still responsible for those sins?”
His answer: “I don’t know. But the Bible teaches both God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility, and so we have to accept both.”
But no one questioned his definition of sovereignty or “ordaining”. No one asked him to clarify what it means for man to be “responsible for his actions” in Calvinism. And so the people swallow it whole because “the Bible teaches it,” so says the Calvinist pastor.
But my husband and I could tell that this wasn’t a good or even a real answer, that it didn’t make sense or accurately reflect Scripture, that it had contradictions and ultimately assaulted God’s good character. And so we examined it all more closely. We heard what the pastor “said,” we just didn’t swallow it without further examination. And when we did examine it, we knew we had to spit it out.
It’s the same with when Calvinists say something like “Yes, God ordains/predestined everything that happens, even all sin and evil. But we don’t say He’s the author of sin. [Insert quote from Westminster Confession here, as if it’s the final authority and solves the contradiction.]”
I don’t really care what they “say” or what they say they don’t say. I care what their theology inevitably, undeniable teaches. And to find that out, you have to examine what they “say” in light of the clear teachings of Scripture, in light of what they say in other places, and in light of their definitions of things and their hidden “deeper” levels of meaning.
And sadly, not enough of us do that. We hear what they “say” and trust that it’s what they really, truly mean on the bottom-line, and we accept it because, after all, they said “it’s what the Bible teaches.”
It’s sad. And angering.
(Okay, now I will be offline. Gotta get to work. Have a great day, all y’all!)
Kurt: “The Calvinistic aspect was very hidden if you didn’t know to look for it. Because of the double speak it SOUNDS like biblical preaching! I liken it to rat poison. Rat poison is 99% completely safe and edible. The poison part is 1%. There is just enough poison in it to kill the rats, but not so much they will recognize it is poison and not eat it. So is Reformed preaching.”
Exactly my view too. The poison drips in so slowly, so little at a time, that it can go almost unnoticed. That’s why it took my husband and me 6 years to leave our church over it. We had to spend all that time figuring out what the pastor was really teaching because he never came out and called himself a Calvinist. We had to learn ourselves, over time, what to listen for and what it meant.
And once you realize how careful they are to disguise their views, it really makes you mad. I would rather they just came out and told the ugly “truths” from the beginning, and let us decide if we want to stay or not. What are they afraid of anyway, especially if God predestined everything?
(Well, I’m done for the night. Gonna be off-line now. Thanks for the good conversation.)
For Roland if you’re listening in: I sent the following to my Calvinist take over church pastors asking if this is what our Church believes concerning the God we love and serve. I asked twice for corrections. Dead air was all I got for a response. I assume you know your Calvinism. Are there any corrections to the below or does this state it pretty well?
Calvinistic Soteriology Overview: Before creation God sovereignly and unchangeably ordained whatsoever comes to pass. Through His eternal decree God is the exhaustive divine determiner of all things. God not only has ordained all good but has also ordained all evil. Every evil thought, every evil desire and action of every man and woman flows from his eternal secret decree. Although the eternal decree originated in the mind of God and cannot be thwarted, He mysteriously is not the author of the sin that results. By ordaining everyone’s greatest desires, God has determined each person’s every choice. To define free will as man’s capacity to choose between options such that he is capable of choosing other than what the eternal secret decree of God has determined for him to choose is a myth, a lie of Satan. Through His divine decree God ensured that most of humanity will never want a relationship with him. Instead men and women have all been decreed to enter into this world at conception, guilty of the sin of Adam, conceived spiritually dead, incapable of choosing to come to Him in humility, incapable of asking for forgiveness and incapable of accepting the Gospel. Having ordained this before their existence, God has determined the eternal damnation of the vast majority of mankind. However we, his special elect, have been “Effectually Called”. This supernatural and mysterious call results in the elect being ontologically changed, regenerated such that we are afforded one choice and only one choice and that is to love God. This love choice mysteriously should be understood as “true love”. His purpose in creating the unwanted reprobate who will never be “effectually called” is such that all of creation, angels and men alike, will on judgment day play witness to His great sovereign and holy justice as He glorifies himself by sentencing these individuals to a fiery eternal damnation in hell.
Mankind – Elect and Reprobates: All people come into this world predetermined by God as either one of The Elect or as a Reprobate. The Elect are those predetermined to love God and to spend eternity with God in heaven. The Reprobates are those predetermined by God to spend eternity in hell. How God makes this unilateral choice is a mystery. One thing we can be assured of is that a humble heart, a contrite spirit and faith in Jesus play no part in God’s choosing of the Elect.
Sovereignty of God: To believe that God is sovereign means that we hold that He is the meticulous divine determiner of all things. He is not capable of expressing his sovereignty by granting men a free will which would enable them to choose between multiple choices. God’s sovereignty requires that mankind must choose only that which God has divinely decreed they choose.
Regeneration: Regeneration means to be born again, born of the spirit. As stated earlier, repentance, contrition of spirit and faith in Jesus play no part in someone being regenerated. Regeneration must precede faith.
Spiritually Dead: Men are created by God and decreed to come into the world spiritually dead. Although the spiritually dead man is capable of making spiritual decisions such as placing their faith in Allah, Buddha or the God of Joseph Smith, they are completely incapable of placing their faith in Jesus.
The Gift of Faith: Everyone enters this world created and gifted by God as a creature of faith. Each is capable of placing faith in a multitude of things however the one thing unregenerate man is incapable of is placing their faith in is Jesus. To do this a special salvation “gift of faith” in Jesus is required. This cannot be requested but rather is graciously and unilaterally bestowed to the Elect only, and this after regeneration.
Compatibilism and Free Will: Man’s choices are all determined by God yet each choice is freely made by man according to his greatest desire. This will always hold true because man’s deliberations and resultant greatest desires have also been decreed and determined by God. The concept that man could have freely chosen otherwise (other than God’s secret decree) is a deception of Satan.
Regarding loved ones who do not accept the Gospel: We should all hold out hope that loved ones who have rejected the Gospel are not reprobates, those whom God has already predetermined to hell. We must hope that God loves them as much as we do and that He will someday effectually call them to love Him. Loved ones who have died never having placed their faith in Christ were unfortunately not the chosen Elect who were loved by God. Rather they were chosen and predestined by God to be passed over as reprobates. We must however take comfort that God will someday be glorified in their damnation.
The Apostate: Our friends and loved ones, even children who have been brought up to love God and who at one time confessed Christ as savior but have walked away from the faith are most likely reprobates who were graced by God with, as John Calvin described, “evanescent grace”, a temporal but false faith in God.
Explanation of a few problematic biblical passages:
John 3:16 : “For God so loved the world that he gave his only son that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life” This verse should be understood that God so loved the Elect from all parts of the world. The reprobates, who consist of the majority of mankind, were never really ever loved by God other than he perhaps loved them in the sense that he gave them life on earth with things like rain for their crops. Clearly Jesus did not die for them.
2 Peter 3:9 : “The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.” The “any” spoken of here are only the elect. God does in fact wish/desire the reprobates to perish and to never come to repentance. God wants this because he will eventually be glorified in their damnation.
1 Timothy 2:4 – “God our savior, who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.” Again the “all people” here are the Elect people. It is God’s desire that the reprobate are not to be saved and that they do not come to the knowledge of the truth.
br.d
I would only add – something which I have stated quite a bit here at SOT101
The standard definition for the term “Choice” (if you look up any number of dictionaries) entails a NECESSARY CONDITION of the availability of more than one option – in order to constitute what people understand as a “Choice”.
In other words – a “Choice” between [BE] and [NOT BE] or a “Choice” between [DO] and [NOT DO]
This NECESSARY CONDITION for choice – is not granted to the creature in Calvinism.
For every human event – and every human impulse – the infallible decree grants only *ONE SINGLE PREDESTINED RENDERED-CERTAIN* option.
And the creature is given NO CHOICE in the matter of what that option will be.
And no ability to refrain.
No Option(S) + No ability to refrain = NO CHOICE
Calvinists want to claim that they are granted options between various things – because that is what they perceive in every day life.
That perception – however – is an infallibly decreed FALSE PERCEPTION.
1) The perception that the decree grants them multiple options from which to choose
2) The perception that the decree grants them to function of “Choice” between those options.
Both of those perceptions are FALSE – per the doctrine of decrees.
In Calvinism – the creature is not granted a “Choice” in the matter of anything.
All “Choices” are solely and exclusively made at the foundation of the world.
The function of “Choice” is reserved solely and exclusively for the exercise of divine sovereignty.
Well done, Larry! You know your stuff. And it’s the perfect blend of actual Calvinist theology and its horrifying, unbiblical consequences. No wonder they gave you no response. It would be great if they didn’t reply because they were busy examining God’s Word alone to see if it really does teach Calvinism, but most likely it’s because they are busy looking up how MacArthur, Sproul, Piper, etc. would answer these questions.
Great job. And I particularly liked this insightful part: “Although the spiritually dead man is capable of making spiritual decisions such as placing their faith in Allah, Buddha or the God of Joseph Smith, they are completely incapable of placing their faith in Jesus.”
Blessings!
Hello Larry,
Thank you for your proposition and stated understanding of Calvinism. Sorry to hear that your church was taken over by Calvinists. I don’t believe this is something Calvinists should be doing especially if it is done in secret. I’ve read several testimonies on this site of this happening. The Reformed church I attend does not approve of such behavior. Our elders have never advocated for infiltrating pulpits and taken over churches with Reformed doctrine.
I am listening. I’m perplexed as to what kind of response I should proffer. I sense some animus in your post in relation to what Calvinists actually believe and how they actually state it and how you perceive it. The manner in which you stated Calvinism steers me to believe that you have animus towards Calvinists and Calvinism. I could answer but I don’t believe it would be of any help as I perceive that your mind is closed to hearing what Calvinists actually say and believe.
Does your statement of Calvinism need corrections? Yes, quite of few.
Does it state some of Calvinism well? Yes, it does.
I’m willing to elaborate if you would like. If there is some particularity in your post that you would like me to respond to, then please let me know. Thank you for reading.
Roland: “Sorry to hear that your church was taken over by Calvinists. I don’t believe this is something Calvinists should be doing especially if it is done in secret…. The Reformed church I attend does not approve of such behavior.”
I’m glad to hear that you and your church don’t support this. I would have much less problem with the spread of Calvinism if it was done “honestly,” by being totally upfront about their bottom-line theology, without hiding what they really mean or sugar-coating it or trying to sound like they aren’t saying what they really are.
It would be great if they said, “I’m a Calvinist who’s going to teach Calvinism. I believe God is the ultimate cause of all sin and evil and unbelief, that Jesus only died for the elect, that your eternity has already been predestined and you don’t really get a real choice about it because God will cause you to decide what He predestined for you, and that God might not love you and might not have chosen you and you can’t do anything about it anyway. Now go research both sides of the issue for yourselves and see if you want to stay at my church or not.”
The problem, I think, is that Calvinist pastors don’t think they are being sneaky or hiding anything when they only tell the surfacey, good-sounding parts that cover for the bad. A Calvinist pastor thinks he is being “wise” to only tell the congregation what he thinks they “can handle,” giving them small doses at a time to “not scare them off or cause unnecessary distress or conflict.” He convinces himself that he is hiding the bottom-line “hard truths” from us “for our good,” to “protect” us, as if we can’t be discerning about Scripture or doctrine, as if we will all just fly off the handle in an emotional fit, totally misunderstanding what they are saying. It’s insulting and demeaning and not how a pastor should lead his church.
(I, however, think we are actually understanding what they are teaching better than they do. They can’t see the contradictions that we can because they have multiple ways to excuse them. They drank the kool-aid, but we didn’t.)
But I’d rather they just told us the “hard truths” openly, from the beginning. (If they are God’s ‘truths’, why hide them or disguise them?)
I’d rather the James White’s who say that God causes child rape for His glory, because if He didn’t it would be a meaningless evil.
I’d rather the Vincent Cheung’s who basically say babies and mentally-handicapped people who didn’t repent before they died are non-elect and going to hell, and if the parents can’t accept this then they’re headed for hell too.
I’d rather my Calvinist pastor who said that God “ordained” childhood abuse for His glory, for your good, and to keep you humble. (One of the few times he came right out and said the “hard truths.”)
I’d rather the Calvinist grandfather who is honest about being okay with the fact that God might have predestined his unborn grandchild to go to hell … or to be a murderer.
I’d rather the Calvinist on Sot 101 who said “Yes, God wants all those abortions to happen.”
I’d rather the Calvinist (in a reddit post) who said “In the Bible, there is no verse that says that God does NOT author sin. And in fact, He Himself says in various verses that He is the direct cause of man’s sins… Non-Calvinists try to say that God is not responsible for sin and evil, but He Himself happily takes responsibility for those things.”
Sure, it will be nasty to hear, but at least it’s “honest.” At least we’d know what we’re getting into. They should be upfront about the hidden, ugly parts (which, apparently, glorify Calvinism’s god anyway, so why hide them?), and let the chips fall where they may.
But it’s the stealthy take-overs and word games that make me the most mad because it’s so dishonest, deceptive, and manipulative (does that sound like how God does things?). And, ultimately, it contradicts their Calvinist theology, which is that God predetermines everything (including whether people or a church become Calvinist or not), so why does a Calvinist pastor think he needs to be careful how he presents Calvinism? Can he really scare off someone if God predestined them to stay in the church and become a Calvinist? If sharing the “hard truths” causes conflict, isn’t that “ordained” by God for His glory? So why go through all the trouble to disguise what they believe, to polish it up so that it sounds better? It doesn’t make sense.
Roland,
Thank you for taking time to reply Regarding your concern of animosity, please know that I hold no ill will against any calvinist, pastor or elder. I pray for my church and its leaders daily that the Lord would lead them out of error and into the truth. Perhaps what you sense is a deep frustration as well as an anger that the enemy of our souls has deceived the Christian community including many in my church, my own son and daughter-in-law included; decieved with a theology that portrays a very evil god rather than the God of scripture.
If you do choose to reply with what you contend are corrections, I would ask that you do not waste your own time attempting to spin or add a flowery rewording. Simply advise which statements are in error. I will take it from there to do more research.
THE PARABLE OF THE YOUNG MAN WALKING IN A FIELD OF PRICKER BUSHES
There once was a young man trying to make his way through a dense forest.
As he proceeded – he felt a prick of pain on his left knee
He looked down – and there was a small pricker burr sticking in his pants
He flicked the bur off and continued
But a minute later – he felt another jab of pain somewhere else
Another bur
This became a continuous and painful problem
He stopped and decided he would walk slowly so that he could identify which plant had the burs
He found the plant – and stood over it examining it – so that he could identify it from a distance.
By identifying the plant – he was able to continue through the field – navigating around the pricker plants
–
THE MORAL TO THE STORY
Whenever a Non-Calvinist intends to engage with Calvinism – he is walking through a dense forest
It will not take long – before he feels the prick of a bur.
The bur is called DOUBLE-SPEAK
DOUBLE-SPEAK is the language of incongruity and self-contradiction.
–
Human speech is the outward expression of human thought.
So DOUBLE-SPEAK – is the outward expression of DOUBLE-THINK
And that is the pricker-bur the Non-Calvinist is going to continuously come in contact with.
–
When the Non-Calvinist learns to recognize the field he is walking in – is full of DOUBLE-THINK – he will eventually learn to scrutinize every statement – in order to identify the pricker-burs of DOUBLE-SPEAK.
–
What will be unexpected – is the *PREVALENCE* of DOUBLE-SPEAK within Calvinist statements
Calvinism’s language – is a language saturated with DOUBLE-SPEAK
The prevalence of DOUBLE-THINK within Calvinist thinking – is *EXTREMELY* ubiquitous
Don’t expect the Calvinist to see it
His mind has been conditioned to embrace it as both natural and normal
The Non-Calvinist eventually learns to scrutinize every statement the Calvinist makes
Because in the sheer density of DOUBLE-THINK within Calvinist thinking is amazing
Testimony of an Ex-Calvinist
-quote
I used to say that Leighton Flowers wasn’t ever truly a Calvinist, or he wouldn’t have left Calvinism.
I believe him now, because I know I was a Calvinist, and I’m not anymore.
When other Christians said that Calvinists have a cognitive dissonance, I would chuckle.
But now I can see how I definitely did.
I was just thinking of something today after reading (not on Sot 101) about so many hurting people out there, those struggling with anxiety, depression, hopelessness, suicidal thoughts, etc.
And I have a question for Calvinists: What would you say to these people? Would you be able to look in the eyes of any and every hopeless, hurting person who wants to give up, and say to them “You matter. Hang in there. There’s hope out there for you, and you can find healing”?
Or can you only really shrug your shoulders (on the inside) because you’re not sure who’s elect and who’s not? Who has hope and who doesn’t? Who can find healing and who can’t? Who matters and who doesn’t?
And if you would tell them “You matter,” on what basis do they (the non-elect) matter? Because their eternal damnation brings Calvi-god more glory?
I doubt these questions will hit hardened Calvinists in the heart, but it does hit me in the heart. My heart hurts for hurting people, and it hurts even more for what Calvinism does to hurting people. (But I don’t expect Calvinists to understand.)
Heather:
As a former Calvinist I can tell you that I crushed a young woman I was dating seriously along these lines.
I told her that we could not say to her father “God loves you” cuz we did not know.
I told her that we could not say to her father “God wants good things for you” cuz we did not know.
We could only tell him (and all others) to repent. If they repented, that was God doing it. If they did not…that too was God doing it. But we could not tell him that God loves him and we could not pray for his salvation (since that might be asking God to go against His will of creating him for destruction—-and certainly it had no effect anyway since God had decided that.
FOH, thanks for sharing honestly. I can only imagine the internal struggles Calvinists have (and those who listen to them). They have to know it sounds wrong, but people keep telling them “it’s what the Bible says”. I think that’s where a false sense of humility comes in; they become convinced that it’s humble to submit to these harsh, wrong-sounding “biblical truths,” to “not question God’s sovereignty,” and so they just push aside any doubts they have, convinced that they don’t have to understand it. It’s sad.
I pretty much addressed this, but I want to emphasize it some more (Roland, I’m not being hard on you personally – I think you are a kind, thoughtful, respectful person – but on your theology and how it’s lived out):
I asked Roland “Would you be able to look in the eyes of any and every hopeless, hurting person who wants to give up, and say to them “You matter. Hang in there. There’s hope out there for you, and you can find healing””
And he answered: “There is hope for people that are hurting. Jesus Christ. That’s what I would say to someone who is hurting. Jesus Christ is the hope of all nations… we know that God has His elect, He will draw them to Him, they will come, and they will never be cast out!”
Essentially, he confirmed that he could not tell any and every hopeless, hurting person that they matter, that there’s hope for them and that they can find healing. True hope is only for the elect.
To say that there’s hope for “people/all nations” is the Calvinist way of sounding like they are talking about every person, but it really just means there’s hope for mankind [people] in general, that God has chosen elect from all nations. (And yet, most people are non-elect.) Of course, Calvinists hope that the hurting person is one of the elect and has real hope, but they can’t know. So the Calvinist offers this answer of “Jesus is the hope of all nations” trusting that if the person is elect, this message will reach them, but that if they are non-elect, it will have no effect.
The thing is, even if the hurting person doesn’t realize that this hope may not be for them, the Calvinist does. The Calvinist knows the offer of hope might not really be intended for that person (which is why they don’t say “YOU matter, there’s hope for YOU,” but just “hope for people/all nations”), and so the Calvinist knows that this is a “false hope” for any non-elect person out there while making it sound like a real hope for all people.
I would call this being deceptive. Lying. Making it seem like something (hope, healing, salvation) is available to them that might not be. (But this is nothing short of what Calvi-god himself does.)
However, to be fair, notice in Roland’s carefully worded answer that he didn’t say that there’s hope for that person specifically, just for people in general, so therefore Roland can claim he’s not actually lying, that he’s not offering that specific person hope. He’s just informing the person that there is hope in Jesus … if that person happens to be one of the elect. So technically, it might not be called “lying” because he’s not offering that specific person anything, but it is still deceptive to make it seem like there’s hope when there might not be.
And just because a Calvinist doesn’t yet know who’s non-elect doesn’t mean that they’re not being deceptive by offering a lot of false hope to people. It’s just that they can’t know yet if they’re being deceptive or not because they don’t know who’s elect and who’s not. It doesn’t take the deception away, just their awareness of their deception. So essential, they can offer this deceptive false hope with a “clean conscience” because they aren’t yet aware of who the non-elect are, if they’re offering false hope or real hope. It’s like committing a sin that you didn’t yet know was a sin. It’s still sin, though, isn’t it? Even if you aren’t aware of it yet? And God, in His Word, says that even if we don’t realize we sinned, we are still guilty (Leviticus 4:13,22,27). Why would a Calvinist take the chance that they might be sinning by deceiving all the non-elect people into thinking there’s hope for them when there isn’t? (Or is being deceptive not a sin?)
I point all this out because deflection, reframing, and deception seem to be typical Calvinist methods of making their answer sound better than it is. And because Calvinists essentially just “kick the can down the road” when it comes to so many of the conundrums and contradictions in Calvinism.
I wanted to know if Calvinists could tell EACH and EVERY hurting person that they matter, that there’s hope for them, but Roland’s carefully worded reply shows that there is really only hope for the elect, making my point for me.
All those hurting people with no hope, destined to hurt forever! All those broken, hurting people who don’t really matter, other than for the glory their damnation brings Calvi-god and for the joy it gives the elect in knowing that at least Calvi-god didn’t make them one of the non-elect too. Breaks my heart!
I don’t doubt that Roland and many other Calvinists have a heart for hurting people. But it does make me wonder how a Calvinist could feel bad about any non-elect person going to hell if Calvi-god ordained it for his glory and doesn’t feel bad about it? Why should a Calvinist have a heart for people that Calvi-god doesn’t have a heart for? If the whole idea of elect and non-elect doesn’t bother him – if it’s okay with him that Jesus (the Calvinist Jeus) died only for the elect and that there’s no hope for the non-elect – then why shouldn’t Calvinists be okay with just coming right out and saying “Well, if you’re elect then Jesus died for you and there’s hope for you. But if you’re not, then Jesus didn’t die for you and there’s no hope. What’s predestined will happen, and there’s nothing you can do about it anyway”? Wouldn’t this type of honest answer – instead of trying sugar-coat Calvi-god’s “hard truths” – be more glorifying to him? If he’s not embarrassed by these “hard truths,” why should Calvinists be? Does he need or even want Calvinists to try to make him look better than he is? And wouldn’t that be insulting to him for Calvinists to try to do so?
Just some things to think about. Have a good Sunday! 🙂
br.d
Excellent points heather
Nicely done!
–
Concerning Roland’s answer to your question – Roland’s statement reminded me of something Ex-Calvinist Daniel Gracely wrote – in his book “A closer look at Calvinism”
–
I’m going to have to paraphrase Daniel Gracely’s quote because I need to go back to his book and find it.
–
But here it is in paraphrased form
–
The Calvinist will make a statement – and immediately add to it a QUALIFIER which in effect nullifies the statement he made.
–
This is a semantic practice which allows him to have it both ways.
For example – he can make the statement concerning divine benevolence
And that statement in all probability be strategically designed to sound very ARMINIAN
But in order to be true to his doctrine – he has to add a QUALIFIER to that statement.
That QUALIFIER essentially nullifies the statement he made
–
Calvinism entails a DUALISM of good and evil
Calvin’s god creates/designs the vast majority of his creatures – specifically for eternal torment in a lake of fire – for his good pleasure. That is the “Evil” side of the doctrine.
–
So in Calvinism we have a DUALISTIC deity
His both a deity of divine benevolence – and a deity of divine malevolence.
–
The Calvinist knows – if he tells the WHOLE TRUTH – what he will be enunciating is Calvinism’s “Good-Evil” DUALISM
Roland – knows if he enuciates Calvinism’s “Good-Evil” DUALISM – his representation of Calvinism will be rejected by the NON-Calvinist
As a Calvinist – Roland has been taught to crafts statements designed to sound ARMINIAN in nature
Those statements enunciate only ONE HALF of the doctrine – the divine benevolence half
Roland is obfuscating the OTHER HALF of the doctrine – the divine malevolence half
That is why Roland makes statements which are designed to sound very ARMINIAN in nature.
–
So Roland did exactly what Daniel Gracely described.
He made a statement which sounded like universal divine benevolence
But then had to add a QUALIFIER which effectually nullifies that statement of universal divine benevolence.
–
That is a semantic strategy which Calvinists use – in order to be able to make Calvnism *APPEAR* as a doctrine of grace – rather than a doctrine of “Good-Evil”
Heather,
This is a big contradiction for Calvinists. One of the best Arminian preachers I have heard is at a church where my daughter was on staff.
Only he is a disciple and PhD student of RC Sproul!!!
He is a self-proclaimed Calvinist but is constantly saying “you” in his messages: God loves you, Jesus died for you. You can come to Christ. You have a way out. You can have victory. Jesus didnt just die for me and you….he died for everyone in this room. These are the things stopping you….and you must chose otherwise. What is keeping your from accepting Christ today? What keeps people from Christ? etc etc etc.
He never preaches that people are “too-dead” but often preaches that they are “blind” or “sick” or “lost” (like the Bible says) and need a healer.
This is the PRIMARY reason that average Christians do not flee churches that are (taken over or) led by Calvinists.
That is why I said the other days “it make no difference in their lives.” Roland then went on to say how much he enjoys and learns from old Reformed teachers. Fine. But not my point.
My point is that THEY STILL ALL ACT LIKE ARMINIANS!!
At this church where my daughter was on staff, the young youth pastor told her one day that he was a Calvinist (perfect demographic: male, white, young college educated). She then said…”Oh so you believe X….” and he said NO!
She asked him 5 different questions (all should have been yes answers) and he emphatically said NO!
Theologize like a Calvinist, but live and preach like an Arminian. Standard practice.
FOH
(Calvinist pastor “supposedly”) These are the things stopping you….and you must chose otherwise.
–
br.d
*AS-IF* otherwise is granted to the creature as an option!
You are absolutely right FOH
How many Calvinists does it take to turn a DOUBLE-SPEAK light bulb! 😀
–
FOH
Theologize like a Calvinist, but live and preach like an Arminian. Standard practice.
–
br.d
Bulls-eye once again FOH!
One slight correction:
I said the Calvinist preaches something like…..
“These are the things stopping you….and you must chose otherwise.”
more like….
“These are the things stopping you….but you CAN chose otherwise.”
Preaching “you must repent” is what Calvinists do (and should only do).
But often they will preach, “You CAN repent today.”
or worse…
“Christ is offering Himself to you today.”
Even Spurgeon does it all the time!!
From his message “Unwillingness to come to Christ”
“O sinner, by nature thou art dead in sin; and thou must be made alive or thou canst not dwell with God, for he is not the God of the dead but of the living. To be quickened thou must come into contact with him who is “the life,” even Jesus; and if thou come to him thou hast begun to live. Thou art also condemned to die on account of thy breaches of the law. Thou art condemned already….”
“made alive” but for what? to come? no, to dwell with Christ. ((We all agree with that.))
“to be quickened” [made alive, regenerated] “thou must COME”
oooops. Calvinists preach that we are made alive (regenerated) so we that we CAN come!
“…if thou come to him thou hast begun to live.”
oooops. our of order again! For them you cannot come till you have been regenerated (you are too-dead).
“Thou art also condemned to die…”
oooops… you are condemned to die….. but …..humm…. not too-dead yet cuz you can “quicken yourself” by coming.
These kinds of examples are everywhere in his preaching (and MacArthur, and Piper)….. just like the pastor where my daughter was on staff.
I could find hundreds of “preach like an Arminian” moments for Spurgeon.
br.d
Yes!
Understood
Point well taken
Good catch FOH – and thanks!
Heather
All those hurting people with no hope, destined to hurt forever! All those broken, hurting people who don’t really matter, other than for the glory their damnation brings Calvi-god and for the joy it gives the elect in knowing that at least Calvi-god didn’t make them one of the non-elect too. Breaks my heart!
roland
“…for the joy it gives the elect in knowing that at least Calvi-god didn’t make them one of the non-elect too.”
I can take hard truths. But this is a SLANDEROUS STATEMENT. To impute an attitude or belief that Calvinists do not express, should never express, is SLANDEROUS. To impute to Calvinists that “…FOR THE JOY IT GIVES THE ELECT IN KNOWING…”
If you really believe that Calvinists have joy over knowing that they’ve been elected and are not one of the non-elect, then I can say that history speaks directly against such a slanderous statement as Calvinists have been some of the most ardent and zealous evangelists in church history. My church in association with other like minded churches has 30 plus missionaries throughout the world. We have two medical teams that operate in two different third world countries providing free medical care and sharing the Gospel. We have several missionaries in closed countries that are immersed in the local cultures and languages, sharing the Gospel.
And people on this site wonder why Calvinists are always saying you don’t understand Calvinism.
…for the joy it gives the elect in *KNOWING* that at least Calvi-god didn’t make them one of the non-elect too.”
–
br.d
Actually the Calvinist is not granted this kind of *KNOWING*
The Calvinist is not granted any CERTAINTY of whether or not he was created as wheat or chaff.
–
John Piper
-quote
No Christian can be sure that he is a true believer. (The supremacy of god in preaching)
–
R.C. Sproul explains:
-quote
There are people who are not saved, but who know they are.
–
John Calvin
-quote
The Lord…. instills into their minds such a *SENSE*….as can be felt *WITHOUT* the spirit of adoption.(Institutes 1. 2. 11)”
-quote
When he shows himself propitious to them, it is not as if he had truly rescued them…. (Institutes 1. 2. 11)
-quote
he *ILLUMINES ONLY FOR A TIME TO PARTAKE OF IT*; then he …..strikes them with even greater blindness (Institutes vol 2)
–
Additionally in Calvinism – the promises within scripture to the elect are classified as the ENUNCIATED will of Calvin’s god – which in most cases is the opposite of the SECRET will of Calvin’s god.
So when the Calvinist reads – you are beloved – he has no way of knowing if the SECRET will of god is the opposite – in which that Calvinist was specifically created/designed for eternal torment in a lake if fire – for Calvin’s god’s good pleasure.
–
Now for the Calvinist who *THINKS* he is saved – I’m sure it would not be beyond human nature – for him to say to himself “There but for the grace of god go I”
–
So Heather’s statement is simply an acknowledgement of human nature
br.d
So Heather’s statement is simply an acknowledgement of human nature
roland
No, Heather’s statement was not simply an acknowledgement of human nature. It was a slanderous statement that said Calvinists rejoice that they are the elect and not one of the non-elect. That attitude is far from what Calvinists truly believe regarding the lost and our responsibility as Christians to share the Gospel with them. Her statement and your comment regarding her statement shows how deep your misunderstanding of Calvinism is.
And not one of the quotes you provided HINTED at any suggesting that Calvinists rejoice over lost souls and not being one of them.
Roland
No, Heather’s statement was not simply an acknowledgement of human nature. It was a slanderous statement that said Calvinists rejoice that they are the elect and not one of the non-elect.
br.d
Here is a Calvinist who holds that Total Depravity cannot possibly apply to a Calvinist!
Calvinists are above that!
Calvinists are way too divine for something as depraved as that! (wink-wink!) :-]
Just a few things. I don’t understand how the Gospel has a “hard truth” in it that needs to be accepted. Jesus said His yoke is easy and His burden is light. This seems the opposite of Calvinists, who have described accepting the truth of the non-elect to put them into great despair. This sounds the opposite of easy and light.
The other thing. I noticed Calvinists don’t understand that what non-Calvinists refer to about your beliefs is most often the logical implications of your beliefs, which exist if you acknowledge them or not. For example:
If I say of all the students who completed the exam, 70% of the students passed the exam, I am positively saying that 70% passed. There is, however, information in that statement that is every bit as true as the stated statement, without being stated. If 70% passed, 30% failed.
Calvinists ignore the logical implications of their theology. Non-Calvinists point out the “30%” implication to Calvinists, but Calvinists say “I didn’t say that, or I don’t believe that, or Calvinists don’t believe that!”
The problem is, not acknowledging that 30% failed if 70% passed doesn’t make it any less true. Refusing to acknowledge that implication doesn’t make it not true. No matter how one tries to slice it, there is the negative correlative information that is necessarily true, if the positive information is true.
Calvinistic theology creates and ignores necessarily true negative correlative information. This is why we say there is double-mindedness and double speak among Calvinists.
In any case, Heather is just pointing out the negative implications and necessary logical conclusions to your beliefs, and you are not understanding that is what she is doing, instead taking it as a personal attack.
Br.d.: “The Calvinist will make a statement – and immediately add to it a QUALIFIER which in effect nullifies the statement he made…. As a Calvinist – Roland has been taught to crafts statements designed to sound ARMINIAN in nature. Those statements enunciate only ONE HALF of the doctrine – the divine benevolence half. Roland is obfuscating the OTHER HALF of the doctrine – the divine malevolence half.”
And this is why they can say we “don’t understand Calvinism” – because there’s multiple layers that contradict/nullify each other, and so any statement we make about one layer is going to “misunderstand” the other layer. No wonder we don’t “understand” Calvinism. But that’s okay. I understand the gospel (the clear gospel that does not have multiple layers that contradict/nullify each other), and that’s enough.
Heather
because there’s multiple layers that contradict/nullify each other, and so any statement we make about one layer is going to “misunderstand” the other layer.
–
br.d
Wonderfully said!!
Very insightful!
Fromoverhere: “He is a self-proclaimed Calvinist but is constantly saying “you” in his messages… This is the PRIMARY reason that average Christians do not flee churches that are (taken over or) led by Calvinists…. My point is that THEY STILL ALL ACT LIKE ARMINIANS!!”
This is why I wish that Calvinist preachers would just come right out and call non-Calvinism unbiblical/heresy, in their view, instead of trying to compromise with us, acting like Calvinism is just a “secondary issue” with minor differences in beliefs that don’t really matter. And it’s why I wish Calvinists were more honest with the “hard truths,” instead of trying to sugar-coat them to make them more palatable.
It just confuses (deceives) everything and everyone when they believe one way but talk another, allowing them to slip in more easily and unopposed (which is exactly what they want).
But if they were to be more honest and to draw a harder line between Calvinism and non-Calvinism, more alarm bells would go off in people and less people would be duped by them. Which is why they have to soften things and use double speak.
Roland: ““…for the joy it gives the elect in knowing that at least Calvi-god didn’t make them one of the non-elect too.” I can take hard truths. But this is a SLANDEROUS STATEMENT.”
FYI, I wasn’t referring to you personally in this statement but to Calvinists in general. And I am sorry if this offended you. (But who “ordained” that slanderous statement? If God ordained it for His glory, why should Calvinists be upset about it?) But I am glad that you and your church have a real heart for people.
And for the record, I have heard/read basically this exact statement from other Calvinists – that one of the reasons why God has non-elect people is to show the elect how loved they are, by comparison, so that they can appreciate more their “chosen” state. And so maybe it doesn’t apply to you, but you cannot speak for all Calvinists.
And I am glad that you can take the hard truths.
So then, what you do think of the James White-type Calvinists who say that God “ordains” child rape for His glory because if He didn’t ordain it than the rape would be meaningless? Is it better to have “meaningful child rape that God caused” or “meaningless rape that man chose to do, against what God wanted”?
What do you think of the Calvinist grandfather who is okay that God may have predestined his grandchild to be a murderer, and who praises God for it?
What do you think of my Calvinist pastor who said that child abuse (something God commanded against) is ordained by God for His glory, for our good, and to keep us humble? Does it matter if the child is elect or non-elect, meaning does God still ordain the abuse for the “good” of the non-elect and to keep the non-elect humble? Or is this only in the cases of the elect? Because, let’s face it, not every abused child grows up to be “elect”.
How about the hard truth that there is no hope in Jesus for the non-elect? You say you’re okay with the hard truths but then you soften this one to make it sound like you’re saying that there’s hope for all people in Jesus, when you know that hope is only for the elect.
(I’m not trying to be hard on you, Roland. I’m really not. I’m trying to encourage you to get off the fence, to either really commit to Calvinism if that’s what you believe or to start questioning Calvinism, to start reading the Bible without Calvinist glasses on, and to begin tossing out the parts of Calvinism that don’t fit what the Bible clearly, plainly says, the parts that hurt the gospel and God’s character and Jesus’s sacrifice and people’s eternities.)
Roland: “…Calvinists have been some of the most ardent and zealous evangelists in church history… We have several missionaries in closed countries that are immersed in the local cultures and languages, sharing the Gospel.”
This sounds great (other than the fact that I think Calvinism is a corruption of the true gospel, spreading a twisted version of God). But can I ask, who is the gospel for in Calvinism? For everyone? For all the lost people who are headed to hell and need to be rescued? Or is it really just for the elect who don’t yet realize they are elect?
I mean really, Roland, think about it.
(Once again, I am not trying to be hard on you. But I will be very hard on Calvinism. And so if you align yourself with Calvinists, you’ll be standing in the line of fire. Not to mention that you voluntarily came to an anti-Calvinist website to defend Calvinism. And so you can and should expect that to happen. But while I do hate Calvinism, I do like you, and I do think you are handling all of this with a lot of graciousness and maturity.)
Roland: “If you really believe that Calvinists have joy over knowing that they’ve been elected and are not one of the non-elect…”
So then … you DON’T have joy in the fact that you’ve been elected instead of being “passed over” like the non-elect? If not joy, then what does being elected make you feel? And what do you feel for the non-elect?
Thanks for reading, Roland, and for taking the time to address things I say. But I hope you realize that I am not expecting you to answer anything I ask. I am asking these to get you to think, between you and God, and to get you to examine Calvinism more closely. I have hope for you, Roland, precisely because you are a deep thinker and have a good heart.
[And for some minor trivia, “libelous” is written/published defamation, “slander” is usually spoken defamation. 😉 ]
Heather,
I feel like that great response of yours is worth condensing for posterity (with a few short additions from me if you dont mind).
1. You (Heather) only said for the “…joy it gives the elect in knowing that at least Calvi-god didn’t make them one of the non-elect too.” You never said that Calvinists had joy in seeing the lost (only that they were not lost).
2. Even if you had said a hurtful saying…. as with all sin in Calvinism…. it was God’s divine decree.
3. You said you have seen this in writing: “…..one of the reasons why God has non-elect people is to show the elect how loved they are, by comparison, so that they can appreciate more their “chosen” state.” Of course you (Heather) would have to show that in writing (which would NOT be hard to do), but I think that it would only produce a “that person is not a good Calvinist,” type remark from most Calvinists.
4. James White example (which is even hard to stomach) of “meaningful child rape.”
5. Grandfather example of murderous grandson.
6. Your pastor’s example of child abuse for God’s glory. ((You just gotta ask Calvinists: does the sex slave industry bring God glory?)) ((Again from FOH: When a Calvinist answers “yes” to that, non-believers rightfully point out “how disgusting Christianity is.” But that matters not to Calvinists. They have no concern about “making Christianity disgusting” “hey, the truth is the truth, man” cuz if that person is not elect he cannot “understand the Gospel” anyway.))
7. Jesus only represents hope and truth for the elect. ((and I will add that, in Calvinism, our Savior is not joy and love, but only in-your-face condemnation for the non-elect.))
8. Roland needs to quit riding the fence and commit to Calvinism. Admit/ embrace that there is no joy for the world in Christ (if the “world” means “elect,” yes). For the non-elect, Christ did not “come to seek and to save that which was lost” —-but he came only to condemn. He represents procured salvation for the elect and procured condemnation and torture for the non-elect (by design and for God’s glory). Embrace and state clearly that God is glorified in hundreds of years of sex slavery and the eternal torture of the non-elect. Embrace it.
9. Start reading the Bible without the glasses on ((my personal testimony)) and stop filtering all of Scripture though the Reformed interpretation of a few verses….making the bulk of Scripture conform to a few brought-to-the-Scripture ideas.
10. The missionaries sent by these churches ((I am one, by the way—commissioned and sent (and still supported) by a Reformed church 35 years ago)), what do they teach? Do they teach: You must be born again! —–and you will be if elect, but you wont be if not elect. So, whatever.
11. Aligning with Calvinism subjects someone to the hard questions/ statements made about Calvinism.
12. Commenting on this site with pro-Calvinistic ideas requires one to accept the push back.
13. So….. Clavinists DON’T have joy in the fact that they’ve been elected instead of being “passed over” like the non-elect? If not joy, then what does being elected make a Calvinist feel? Sorrow (for the others)? Neutral feelings (“Hey, I’m not happy or sad about it. It’s not personal, dude, God did it all.”)
14. Distinction on “libelous” and “slander”
And I misspoke here: “And so if you align yourself with Calvinists, you’ll be standing in the line of fire.”
I meant to say “And so if you align yourself with Calvinism (the theology), you’ll be standing in the line of fire.”
And, Roland, when I said “I am not expecting you to answer anything I ask”, I realize that I should have said “You probably shouldn’t answer anything I ask.” Because sometimes the best thing we can do is to sit in silence before God with our thoughts and views, to wrestle with them before God and run it all past Him, to linger at His feet, in His Word, giving Him permission to correct any wrong views we have while we listen for the Holy Spirit who reveals truth to us.
But we miss all of that sometimes when we rush to formulate our arguments and defend our views (and we’re all guilty of this sometimes, at least I am), when we are more concerned with organizing our ideas into something powerful than we are with letting God correct our ideas if we are wrong (which would require that we be quiet and still before Him, run our views past Him and through His Word, wait for Him to answer us, and then listen for and heed/follow the still, small voice of the Spirit, being willing to admit we might be wrong and to accept whatever God reveals to us).
I think we can all lose sight of this in the “heat of the battle,” when we’re more concerned with winning an argument or proving our point than with examining ourselves and letting God search our hearts.
And so I would suggest that you don’t answer me on these, but that you just sit with it all for awhile before God, and see what He tells you.
And with that, I’m going to bow out for awhile too, so that I don’t goad you on in formulating more arguments and defending Calvinism more, thereby entrenching yourself deeper and deeper into Calvinism. I myself just need to spend some time being quiet before God. This world is wearing me down, and I need to just rest in Him for awhile and let Him refresh my soul.
God bless, Roland. Keep being the deep thinker and questioner that you are. I think you’ll eventually get there.
God bless. 🙂
Thank you, FOH. I always appreciate your input and comments. We think a lot alike. 🙂
And I particularly liked/appreciated this: “You (Heather) only said for the “…joy it gives the elect in knowing that at least Calvi-god didn’t make them one of the non-elect too.” You never said that Calvinists had joy in seeing the lost (only that they were not lost).”
Exactly! And thank you for noting the distinction. I can see how it can be read into by Calvinists, as if I am saying they have joy in seeing the non-elect perish, but that’s not what I’m saying.
Heather,
Appreciate your comments too.
We are not MEANT to take joy in the demise of of the unredeemed (or un-elect for Calvinists).
Of course Roland was offended when he thought you to have said he takes joy in their fate.
All the more why we find it astonishing that they think that GOD takes pleasure in the eternal demise of the non-elect.
Ironically, Roland was offended thinking that you accused him of the very thing that Calvinism says God does!!!!
I am sure that br.d can give us lots of quotes from Reformers explaining how the demise of the non-elect is somehow a joy or pleasure to God…. for His glory!
FOH
I am sure that br.d can give us lots of quotes from Reformers explaining how the demise of the non-elect is somehow a joy or pleasure to God…. for His glory!
–
br.d
The scripture describes a principle
What a person worships – is what that person will eventually become like unto.
And to me – that principle within scripture makes sense
The characteristics of the deity that a person worships – will be the character which that person looks up to – and uses as a model.
–
And since Calvin’s god creates/designs the vast majority of individuals – specifically for eternal torment in a lake of fire – for his good pleasure – and creates/designs a large percentage of believers as “Chaff” deceiving them with a FALSE SENSE of election/salvation – also for eternal torment in a lake of fire – for his good pleasure – then *IF* the principle the scripture describes is true – then it would have to be the case that the Calvinist will be “Like Unto” what he worships.
–
Additionally – we have the Calvinist definition for “divine love”
Calvinists who follow A.W. Pink’s conception of “divine love” will say Calvin’s god does not love everybody.
Calvinists who follow R.C. Sproul, and D.A. Carson’s conception of “divine love” will say Calvin’s god has a KIND of love – which creates/designs individuals specifically for eternal torment in a lake of fire.
–
So if a Calvinist has that as his conception of “divine love” – and *IF* the principle within scripture is true – then that will be the KIND of love that a Calvinist will eventually become like unto.
I’d argue it is the logical implications of THEIR beliefs though. You are pointing out the necessary conclusion of their beliefs.
If God does pass people over and they are condemned to hell, and that is justifiable because it gives God glory, then the logical conclusion is God getting glory is Good and should be celebrated. You are then left with having to say God getting glory isn’t good, but then how do you justify that?
They try to say this isn’t the case, but it is the only way to interpret it logically. You can say, only the girls get a prize. If that is true, the boys don’t get a prize. You can’t deny that the boys don’t, just because it is good the girls do.
This one took me 2 mins to find on Ligonier ministries.
“For the Creator gets glory not only in creating and saving people, but also in executing His righteous judgment. That day of judgment will magnify the Lord’s glory, for we will see His attribute of righteousness on full display…”
yum!
You see, they seem to think that God “needs” badness to better reflect His goodness. He cannot just be good….He needs a good contrast to really make it shine!
So… even though you did not accuse Roland of wanting God’s glory in the demise of the non-elect….. it is clearly a teaching of his doctrines.
Here you go…..this took another 3 mins to find on reformedanswers.
The author is teaching why we should NOT take literally when Scripture says that that God does not delight in the death of anyone.
“So, the Ezekiel passages actually deal with the church and not all humanity….”
“…we should understand that in some sense God does not delight in the death of the wicked, but in another sense, to satisfy his justice, he does. As seen below, this is not contradictory, but complimentary. We call this God’s will of disposition. See “What are the Wills of God?” below.”
Notice:
1. Scripture does not mean what it says….(the article is all about that).
2. This is about the church, not Ezekiel’s Israel.
3. Apparently God decrees certain people to be wicked because He needs these wicked to “satisfy his justice.” So….apparently the supreme sacrifice —which is our Lord Jesus —- is NOT enough for the Calvinist doctrine of justice. God needs lots of wickedness to “satisfy his justice”. So….. the more wicked He creates the more we see the contrast of his “satisfied justice”? Yum!
4. This is “God’s will of disposition.” Which of course is a complicated, man-made, hierarchy structure of God’s different (and often opposing wills). Oh how to understand?! Well, just see our list below of His wills the way we decided to define them.
FOH: “Of course Roland was offended when he thought you to have said he takes joy in their fate. All the more why we find it astonishing that they think that GOD takes pleasure in the eternal demise of the non-elect. Ironically, Roland was offended thinking that you accused him of the very thing that Calvinism says God does!!!!”
Brilliant! Great job noticing that contradiction.
Kurt: “If God does pass people over and they are condemned to hell, and that is justifiable because it gives God glory, then the logical conclusion is God getting glory is Good and should be celebrated. You are then left with having to say God getting glory isn’t good, but then how do you justify that?”
Great point! And you also correctly note that “it is the only way to interpret it logically.” But I have read from several Calvinists (even here on Sot 101) who claim that we cannot use logic when examining Scripture or God’s character. Of course, they may mean that we cannot reinterpret Scripture or define God based on our own ideas of things, which I agree with. But I think that their efforts to do away with logic are more about manipulating us into accepting contradictions and illogical ideas that we know don’t sound right.
But is God a God of chaos and illogical ideas? Is He schizophrenic? Does He expect us to shut off our thinking caps when it comes to doctrine and to just blindly accept whatever crazy, nonsensical, or contradictory idea we are told? Or does He expect us to test the spirits and to thoroughly examine what we are being taught to see if it’s right? How can we test or examine anything or be discerning about anything if we not allowed to be logical or if God operates so illogically that we can’t know up from down, right from wrong?
The word Logic derives from the Greek word logos, which John 1:1 says God IS logic.
Heather
You are then left with having to say God getting glory isn’t good, but then how do you justify that?”
–
br.d
Which raises the question within Calvinism:
Who gets to decide whether the Calvinist should glory and take pleasure in that which Calvin’s god does to glorify and please himself vs. criticizing and disdaining that which Calvin’s god does to glorify and please himself?
God decreed they should be upset with or happy about it, so they are, and couldn’t do otherwise.
I’ve also heard Calvinists say we have free-will “within limits”. Which I believe…but I’m sure they mean something different than what I think that means. If asked what limits, I’m sure one would find that the limits are so profuse they actually eliminate any possibility of free-will.
Heard the Ford any color as long as it’s black, which is a good analogy, but I’d take it farther. Calvinism is more like you can choose any car you like so long as it is the one we choose for you!
br.d
With Calvinism – since it is founded on EXHAUSTIVE DIVINE DETERMINISM – the Calvinist has what is called “Compatibilism” – which means any “Freedom” they have must be “Compatible” with Determinism
–
Standord Encyclopedia of Philosophy
-quote
Compatibilism is the thesis that free will is compatible with determinism.
–
So you can think about it this way
Where [X] is decreed to infallibly come to pass – it follows [X] must be granted sufficient “Freedom” to come to pass.
The same thing applies to “Permission”
Where [X] is decreed to infallibly come to pass – it follows [X] must be granted sufficient “Permission” to come to pass.
–
However – any alternative of that which is decreed would constitutes a falsification of the decree
Therefore – Where [X] is decreed to infallibly come to pass – any alternative of [X] is not “Freedom” or “Permission” to come to pass.
–
So in Calvinism – with Adam in the garden
1) Adam was granted “Freedom” and “Permission” to eat the fruit – because eating the fruit was Determined to infallibly come to pass – and thus COMPATIBLE with Determinism
–
2) Adam was NOT granted “Freedom” or “Permission” to NOT eat the fruit – because NOT eating the fruit would be an alternative from that which was decreed to infallibly come to pass.
–
3) Additionally Adam NOT eating the fruit – would falsify the infallible decree – and creation is not granted “Freedom” or “Permission” to falsify an infallible decree.
–
So yes – that Calvinist was not telling a lie when he said “Freedom” is limited in Calvinism
It is limited to *ONLY* that which is decreed.
And the same thing is true of “Permission”
–
Where Calvin’s god decrees a Calvinist to sin at TIME-T – sinning at TIME-T is the only option granted to that Calvinist.
He is NOT “Free” to NOT sin
He is NOT “Permitted” to NOT sin
And of course we have the other question for Calvinists:
Why does God tell us to “love our neighbor” when He very likely does not love our neighbor?
Everywhere in Reformed writings (see Pink!) is the idea that we cannot and should not say that God loves everyone.
And yet…He asks us to do so.
We might actually be loving and praying for someone that He created specifically to “satisfy His justice” (nuke ’em!).
And yet we are to love them ….and tell them that God loves them….oops…no, not that.
And yet we are to love them…. and tell them that Christ has His arms open to them….ooops no, not that.
And yet we are to be willing to lay down our lives for people if needs be…. even though they are mere vessels of wrath.
Sure, they are created in God’s image. And maybe even “baptized into the covenant” if raised in a Reformed home….but still created just so He can “satisfy His justice”…so He can contrast His goodness and glory against their wickedness.
Yum.
Heather
I was just thinking of something today after reading (not on Sot 101) about so many hurting people out there, those struggling with anxiety, depression, hopelessness, suicidal thoughts, etc.
And I have a question for Calvinists: What would you say to these people? Would you be able to look in the eyes of any and every hopeless, hurting person who wants to give up, and say to them “You matter. Hang in there. There’s hope out there for you, and you can find healing”
Roland
There is hope for people that are hurting. Jesus Christ. That’s what I would say to someone who is hurting. Jesus Christ is the hope of all nations.
Heather
Or can you only really shrug your shoulders (on the inside) because you’re not sure who’s elect and who’s not? Who has hope and who doesn’t? Who can find healing and who can’t? Who matters and who doesn’t?
Roland
Never shrug my shoulders at an opportunity to share and offer Christ in whom they can find healing. I know there are hyper-Calvinists who do the shoulder shrugging. I don’t know them personally but I’ve heard stories. I believe they’re out there.
One thing my church, our elders, and all the Calvinists I know is never ever consider as to whether the person in front of me is elect. We don’t know who the elect are, therefore we do not operate as if we do know who they are. However, we know that God has His elect, He will draw them to Him, they will come, and they will never be cast out!
Honest question for you: Do you ever shrug someone off because you think they will never believe?
You don’t understand the logical implications of your beliefs though. You say they can have hope in Jesus Christ….but that is a lie in your belief, because they might be a reprobate, and will never be able to believe in Christ, so therefore there may not be comfort in Christ for that person. But I truly believe anyone can believe in Christ and if they do they will find comfort. I can say that with no danger of lying, you can’t.
Also, the way you are describing your church as behaving, this is inconsistent with the beliefs you claim to hold. You make a distinction between hyper-calvinists, but really they just honestly embrace the logical implications of their belief.
Heather doesn’t believe it is guaranteed someone will never believe (correct me if I’m wrong, Heather) because she believes anyone can believe.
Isaiah 5:
I will sing for the one I love
a song about his vineyard:
My loved one had a vineyard
on a fertile hillside.
2 He dug it up and cleared it of stones
and planted it with the choicest vines.
He built a watchtower in it
and cut out a winepress as well.
Then he looked for a crop of good grapes,
but it yielded only bad fruit.
3 “Now you dwellers in Jerusalem and people of Judah,
judge between me and my vineyard.
4 What more could have been done for my vineyard
than I have done for it?
When I looked for good grapes,
why did it yield only bad?
What was God “trying” to teach here that they did not learn?
Why was He looking for (expecting) something and got something else?
Did He plan everything? Why does He choose to communicate with us in such a misleading way, if Calvinism is true?
What more could He have done? I guess force them to produce good fruit? Unless this falls under something God can’t do (like lie).
Philippians 1:6 Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ:
God begins the work in His people and He will finish it until Christ returns for His Church. Now, if God had begun a good work in Isaiah 5, I can be guaranteed that God would have yielded good grapes through His people. But from the verses it is revealed that Israel only produced bad grapes.
So why did He say WHAT MORE COULD I HAVE DONE? Are you really reading that differently than how it reads? What more could I have done for you? When would you say that to someone.
Well, apparently from the context of Isaiah 5, God had done all He could and Israel still only produced bad grapes.
Outside of Isaiah 5, what else has God done for His people? Do you believe that God did everything He ever did and will do for His people as explained by a parable of a vineyard in Isaiah 5?
Is the promise of Christ mentioned in Isaiah 5? Is the promise of the Holy Spirit mentioned in Isaiah 5? Is the promise that one day God will raise the valley of dry bones to flesh in Isaiah 5? Is the promise that God will make a covenant with His people, write the law on their hearts, and be their God given in Isaiah 5?
Yes, in the context, through a parable about a vineyard, God did all He could. But there is much more that God will do in the future as revealed further.
Did the people not produce good fruit on their own, or did God decree that they would not produce good fruit?
Kurt
Did the people not produce good fruit on *THEIR OWN*, or did God decree that they would not produce good fruit?
–
br.d
Excellent!!
–
Since in Calvinism a humans cannot have an impulse in their brain they can call *THEIR “OWN”
Roland
God begins the work in His people and He will finish it
–
Unfortunately – the Calvinist does not know *WHAT* work Calvin’s god is going to finish on that Calvinist’s behalf
–
For many Calvinists – Calvin’s god has specifically created as chaff
And for those Calvinists – he divinely deceives them with a FALSE SENSE of salvation.
They go about their daily lives from year to year – moment to moment with FALSE PERCEPTIONS of salvation coming to pass within their brains.
Those who wake up in the lake of fire – for his good pleasure – will then know.
–
This – in Calvinism – has historically been called “The dreaded false hope”
But its more precisely identified as “The dreaded divine deception”
br.d
Kurt – just to let you know – Determinists reject the notion that Determinism entails force.
So Roland’s response to you here – is that Calvin’s god does not use force.
What Roland is not going to tell you though – is Calvin’s god *MAKES* people be and do what he determines them to be and do – simply by not granting any other existence to them.
–
For example – if Calvin’s god determines a Calvinist to rape an elementary school girl – he simply makes it the case – that that act is the only act he grants existence to – for that Calvinist.
–
So with Adam eating the fruit
By decreeing that Adam would eat the fruit – Calvin’s god granted existence to Adam eating the fruit
There is no such thing as an ALTERNATIVE from that which has been decreed.
So the decree does not grant the existence of any alternative.
–
So Calvin’s god does not have to use force in order to make people do what he determines them to do.
God is calling them to judge between how good God has been to His people the inhabitants of Jerusalem and Judah. He calling them to examine how good He has been to them but YET they responded negatively. They responded in a manner that did not conform to God’s standards. Just like men always do in response to God’s good favor towards them. How else can men respond when they are totally depraved? We only produce bad grapes!
Yes, I don’t deny that God expects good fruit from us.
How do these verses prove that Calvinism causes or believes God misleads us?
I don’t see the relevance between these verses and God misleading us. This proves one of the five points of Calvinism. Verse 4 says only bad grapes were yielded.
Because Calvinism says God infallibly decrees that they won’t produce Good Fruit even though He wants them to. So, in Calvinism God doesn’t get what He wants?
Do you know how many times I’ve read 1 Timothy 2:4 and 2 Peter 3:9 brought up to defend non-calvinists views of salvation? Countless. These two verses are used to prove the argument that God wants all men to be saved and come to repentance.
I guess in non-calvinism God doesn’t always get what He wants either?
I never claimed God always gets what He wants. You do by default, because you think everything is God’s will.
Of course I believe that God does NOT always get what He wants! How crazy that anyone would wonder on these page if I am saying that.
He say hundreds and hundreds of times through many books of the Bible, genres of literature, prophets, poets, and epistles that He does not always get what He wants.
What do you think sin is?
Roland
I guess in non-calvinism God doesn’t always get what He wants either?
–
br.d
All except in Calvinism *NOTHING HAPPENS* that isn’t what Calvin’s god wants.
So if it happened – then Calvin’s god wanted it – and didn’t permit any alternative
Roland
God is calling them to judge between how good God has been to His people the inhabitants of Jerusalem and Judah.
–
br.d
*AS-IF* Calvin’s god didn’t decree WHATSOEVER impulses would come to pass within their brains!
–
Another good example of Calvinism’s *AS-IF* thinking pattern.
–
It takes a NON-Calvinist – to tell you the WHOLE TRUTH about Calvinism. :-]
God’s chosen people
God is doing many things to “try” to point them in the right way.
God “expected” them to do it.
God’s chosen (get it?) people (the chosen, the elect, get it?) (not dead pagans)
“They responded in a manner that did not conform to God’s standards [God’s will?].” Why not say “God’s will”?
They responded in a way that He did not want?
They responded in a way that He did not plan?
If He planned their response (immutably before eternity), why does He say he expected something else?
Question for Calvinists: Does God always get what He wants?
If yes (which is your only answer), then why does He so often make it look like He doesn’t?
Roland
There is hope for people that are hurting. Jesus Christ. That’s what I would say to someone who is hurting. Jesus Christ is the hope of all nations.
–
br.d
I’m hoping everyone here is recognizing something concerning Roland’s statements having to do with:
1) Divine control
2) Divine intent
3) Divine knowledge
–
From the statements Roland has made – any Arminian passing by and reading – would without question assume Roland is an Arminian – making Arminian representations of those things
–
Now ask yourself why that is the case?
The reason I sound like an Arminian to you is because you have strawman Calvinism.
Have you ever read Calvinist literature? Or have you only read anti-Calvinist literature? Or, maybe you read neither?
Roland
The reason I sound like an Arminian to you is because you have strawman Calvinism.
–
br.d
Here is the “so called’ straw-man
1) In Calvinism – per the doctrine of decrees – WHATSOEVER come to pass is determined by Calvin’s god
2) And comes to pass infallibly
3) And NO ALTERNATIVE of that which is decreed is granted existence
4) Which of necessity would have to include every impulse within your brain
5) The Calvinist does not have foreknowledge and only knows the content of the decree by looking backwards (quote from James White)
6) Therefore it follows – the Calvinist does not know what impulse will come to pass within his brain – until after it happens and that Calvinist looks backwards.
–
The question is – why does it require a NON-Calvinist to tell the WHOLE TRUTH?
br.d
5) The Calvinist does not have foreknowledge and only knows the content of the decree by looking backwards (quote from James White)
Roland
So the non-calvinist has foreknowledge and knows the content of the decree? You know the future?
Roland
So the non-calvinist has foreknowledge and knows the content of the decree? You know the future?
–
br.d
The non-Calvinist doesn’t have someone else determining whatsoever impulses will come to pass within his brain!
–
1) Determinism includes the thesis that whatsoever comes to pass is determined by antecedent factors totally outside of human control
2) In Calvinism’s case – those antecedent factors are infallible decrees – which are totally outside of human control
3) Therefore it follows – the impulses which come to pass within the Calvinist brain – are determined by antecedent factors – totally outside of the Calvinist’s brain’s control
–
QUESTION:
How is the Calvinist going to have the mental control necessary to make a choice (even if Calvin’s god granted him one – which he doesn’t) when the Calvinist has no control over any impulse that comes to pass within his brain?
br.d
1) Determinism includes the thesis that whatsoever comes to pass is determined by antecedent factors totally outside of human control
roland
Luke 22:22 And truly the Son of Man goes as it has been determined, but woe to that man by whom He is betrayed!”
According to you, the Son of Man, Jesus, on an interpretation of your definition of determinism, Jesus’s life was determined by antecedent factors totally outside of human control. It sounds like you are saying that Jesus was a robot. That His love for the Father was not genuine. That all of Jesus’s impulses were not His own. That He had no genuine choice in obeying His Father.
Roland
According to you, the Son of Man, Jesus, on an interpretation of your definition of determinism, Jesus’s life was determined by antecedent factors totally outside of human control.
br.d
You have 2 errors with that
1) Jesus is not simply a human. Jesus is fully God and fully man. In Calvinism – the divine mind has Libertarian choice.
For example – when he is deciding whether or not you will sin at TIME-T or not – he has two options available from which to select. That by definition entails a Libertarian Choice. So by trying to use Jesus as your example – you’ve selected the wrong being to use as an example.
–
2) The Determinism we are talking about is EXHAUSTIVE divine Determinism – as defined by the doctrine of decrees – which stipulates that 100% of whatsoever comes to pass is determined by antecedent factors outside of human control.
–
Lets say for example that a mad scientist but a radio receiver module into a person’s head – and that scientist uses a computer program which would determined every impulse that comes to pass within that person’s brain. It would be obvious in that situation – that that person does not have the control necessary to make a choice because he does not have control over any impulse that comes to pass within his brain.
–
The Calvinist can typically recognize that. But what he will say is that Calvin’s god is not a human scientist. Which is simply appealing to mystery- or more frequently falling into magical thinking.
br.d
QUESTION:
How is the Calvinist going to have the mental control necessary to make a choice (even if Calvin’s god granted him one – which he doesn’t) when the Calvinist has no control over any impulse that comes to pass within his brain?
roland
I will rephrase your question in an honest manner since you refuse to answer any questions about Jesus going as it has been determined, Luke 22:22
How is Jesus going to have the mental control necessary to make a choice (even if Jesus’s god granted him one – which he doesn’t) when Jesus has no control over any impulse that comes to pass within his brain?
This question is premised on your definition of determinism.
I did address that question
You appear to not be able to recognize that for some reason.
I’m going to assume you know the answer to my question here.
There is no way a human could have the control necessary to make a choice – given no control over impulse in the brain.
br.d
Roland – in regard to trying to make connections between EXHAUSTIVE DIVINE DETERMINISM (EDD) and scripture – there is another issue you need to tackle. Let me un-package it.
–
1) The Calvinist is taught that EDD is what the Bible teaches
–
2) The Calvinist is taught that “Contrary Choice” (which by definition is “Libertarian Choice”) is not granted to humans – but exists solely and exclusively for Calvin’s god alone – who exercises “Libertarian Choice” in the process of selecting and rejecting whatsoever he wills to come to pass.
–
3) “Contrary Choice” (aka “Libertarian Choice”) entails the following:
a. The availability of more than one option from which to select or reject
b. The ability to choose one option vs. the other.
c. Thus the ability to select one option and reject all alternatives
–
4) So per EDD – Calvin’s god exercises “Libertarian Choice”
a. In the process of selecting what he wishes to come to pass
b. And that process of selection entails the rejection of all alternatives to that which he has selected
c. That option which he selects – is then decreed to infallibly come to pass
d. Thus what he decrees to come to pass at any TIME-T – is granted existence at TIME-T
e. And that existence of what he decrees at TIME-T – is infallible
f. And the NON-existence of all alternatives (that which he has rejected) is also infallible
–
5) So every event infallibly decreed to come to pass represents an event he selected and granted existence. And that events existence is infallible
–
6) And all alternatives of that event (the alternatives which he rejected) are NOT granted existence – and their NON-existence is also infallible
–
7) This means that for every event and every human impulse – there is never granted to the creature more than ONE SINGLE PREDESTINED RENDERED-CERTAIN option.
–
8) Consequently – any time a Calvinist has
a. The perception that more than one option exists for him to select
b. The perception that he is granted the function of choice between one option vs another
c. That perception is in fact a perception of a “Libertarian Choice”.
d. And since “Libertarian Choice” exists only for Calvin’s god and not for the Calvinist – then any perception of having “Libertarian Choice” the Calvinist would have to acknowledge is a FALSE perception – in order to be true to his belief that “Libertarian Choice” does not exist for humans.
–
9) AND YET: Every Calvinist goes about his day – having hundreds of such perceptions. On a continual basis through-out each day – perceiving himself as making moment-by-moment “Libertarian Choices”.
–
10) Consequently – while the Calvinist is asserting that “Libertarian Choice” does not exist for humans – he is at the same time treating “Libertarian Choice *AS-IF* it does exist for himself.
–
11) This is what we call Calvinism’s practice of *AS-IF* thinking
a. The Calvinist asserts some [X] is TRUE – while treating that [X] *AS-IF*it is FALSE
b. The Calvinist asserts some [Y] is FALSE – while treating that [Y] *AS-IF* it is TRUE
–
12) Thus the Calvinist holds EDD as TRUE – while treating EDD *AS-IF* it is FALSE
–
Now here is where your conundrum with scripture comes into the picture for you to tackle
1) Since the Calvinist is taught that EDD is what the scripture teaches
2) And since the Calvinist treats EDD *AS-IF* it is FALSE
3) It follows – the Calvinist in doing so – is treating what the scripture teaches *AS-IF* it is FALSE
–
So here is a critical question for you
Where do you find – any author within scripture instructing the Bible reader to treat Scripture *AS-IF* it is FALSE?
Br.d,
We see Arminian Roland indeed.
Roland: “That’s what I would say to someone who is hurting. Jesus Christ is the hope of all nations.”
All nations, in Calvinism, but not all people. So like Kurt points out, it would be a lie in Calvinism to encourage all people with the fact that they can have hope in Jesus.
I don’t doubt that you’ve got a heart for lost, hurting people, but I don’t think Calvinism’s gospel is for the lost. It’s for the elect only, for those already saved from before time began. It doesn’t “save” anyone from hell; it just helps those who are already going to heaven to realize they are already going to heaven. Where is the hope in there for any lost, hurting person who’s not chosen? If there is no hope for them, how can you pretend there is?
(Personally, I think hyper-Calvinists are the most honest Calvinists, the ones who actually see the inevitable conclusions of their theology and live it out.)
Roland: “However, we know that God has His elect, He will draw them to Him, they will come, and they will never be cast out!”
Will your efforts to evangelize change the outcome in any way? Will any non-elect person get saved or any elect person fail to get saved based on whether or not you evangelize?
Roland: “Honest question for you: Do you ever shrug someone off because you think they will never believe?”
I don’t shrug off anyone, but I do respect people’s right to not want to hear the gospel or about Jesus. Most of my and my husband’s families are resistant to the gospel and want nothing to do with Jesus. But I will always make at least one attempt to point the way to Jesus, and I try to live out my faith in front of them so they can see it and know where to come for answers, and I try to let them know that I am always willing to talk about it. But if they don’t want to hear it, I don’t push it, but I do keep praying for them and watching for an opportunity, if ever they do want to hear about it. I respect their right to make their own decision. I wouldn’t call this shrugging them off, but more like respecting their right to decide and letting them have their way, while always being ready to share the truth with them if they ever want it.
Roland: “I guess in non-calvinism God doesn’t always get what He wants either?”
No, of course the non-Calvi-God doesn’t always get what He wants (not everything that happens is because He willed/wanted it to happen), because He’s allowed people to make their own choices, and people choose things God doesn’t want. But He can and does take whatever we choose – good or bad – and work it into His plans somehow, into something good, eternally.
… Or it would seem to me the non-Calvi-God (the one I read of in the bible God) does always get his overarching want/desire, i.e. his creatures exercising their God given ability to make choices including the one most important choice of whether to love or reject the God who has extended grace to them.
Larry, good point. I think, over all, God wants a genuine relationship with people. He wants to be with people who want to love Him, who willing choose Him. (And not in the Calvinist way where God plants certain desires in you that you have to obey, that cause you to “freely choose” what He predestined you to choose.) And this means that He had to allow us to have the free-will right to make our own decisions, for good or bad. Which means that people will choose to do things He doesn’t want them to do (a natural consequence of free-will). And so things will happen that God doesn’t want. But they didn’t have to happen that way. God gave us the choice, calling us to do the right thing but He gave us the option, the ability, to disobey. And so if things happen that He doesn’t want, it’s because of us, not Him,
In Calvinism, though, God tells us that He doesn’t want something to happen but then He causes us to do the thing He didn’t want to happen, and then He holds us accountable for it as if we had a choice. This makes Him an unjust, untrustworthy, two-faced God – far different from a God who says what He means and means what He says, and who doesn’t cause us to do what He told us not to do (sin) or prevent us from doing what He commands us to do (believe, repent, obey).
How any Calvinist can trust the Calvinist god is beyond me. But then again, I’m just a lowly little human … and “Who am I to question our big, mysterious, sovereign God who actively causes/controls everything for His glory?”
Larry and Heather,
Speaking for myself, I would say that yes God does always get what he wants in the broad sense. What he wants is a relationship with His creation ….and He gets that. But His creation does not always do what He wants (so, no He does not get His way in that sense).
Someone might say to me, “Was that your will that your son go X dollars in debt starting that business?” I could answer yes and no. Yes in the sense that I want him to be free to try things, but no in the sense that I did not really want him to launch so soon into something (and told him so). Get it?
If THIS was what Calvinists were saying, I could agree. But it is not.
I could agree that God gets His will in the broad sense that man is free to interact with Him.
But they insist that ALL things that happen are exactly what God wants (even sin).
So for example, when the Bible says “God grieved over their sin….” It cannot mean that. God cannot grieve (because He is impassible— a man-made, Calvinist doctrine). So…..watch this…
Calvinism says that God decided before time that He would: create man, tell him not to sin, have (make) him sin, and then “grieve” over that sin. BUT….. since He decided He would do all this….. He is NOT “changing” from non-grieving to grieving—- or “reacting” to man (heaven forbid)…NO! Since He decided that He would “change” in this way before time, it doesnt count.
This is why no Calvinist on this site ever answers my two questions:
Does God always get exactly what He wants?
Is everything that happens exactly what God wants/desires to happen?
Talk about coincidence! As I started reading the first paragraph I thought, why this reminds me of that book by Verduin I started last week. : )
Hello labsquad and welcome :-]
br.d