Calvinism: Is the bible lying or is God powerless to save everyone?

[Marvin Knox]

Some say "if you have not been called by God, you are not His" or "if you have been predestined you will come to Him, if not you were not predestined". How does one preach the gospel like that? That is why it stays in the forefront of my mind. Because I see how their advice to struggling or non-Christians is put.

Predestination and effectual calling are not part of the gospel one preaches.

No Calvinist of whom I am aware preaches a gospel to the people of the world which includes such doctrine.

Such advanced doctrine is being discussed in an intramural debate about what all the scriptures teach about certain doctrines.

It is not being discussed with people who do not have the Holy Spirit as their counselor. Such spiritually dead people are not yet equipped to handle even the demands of the simple gospel let alone enter into discussion about doctrines such as this.

It's been my experience that even people who supposedly are inhabited by the Holy Spirit of God are not able to think through these things properly.

I do see that there are predestination texts in the Bible and verses where it says the Father draws us. So there is something there.

But I also see that Adam & Eve had the free-will not to obey God's commands and Lucifer and the other angels in rebellion chose the rebellion and two thirds of the angels stayed with God, so there is something in free-will also.

Calvinism agrees holds both of those doctrines equally as has been displayed again and again here through the posting of excerpts from the Westminster Confession of Faith (likely the most widely accepted authority when it comes to these Reformed doctrines).

If every student of scripture would but hold in this way to ALL of what the scriptures teach there would likely be no trouble.

But it seems that in their zeal to undermine the name of Calvin - anti-Calvinists here simply refuse to acknowledge the first point you make about what the scriptures teach.

But rather than become something to argue against predestination should be view as what it is - a glorious statement about the self sufficiency and sovereignty of God.

Predestination simply teaches that before anything else was there was God. God knew every possibility of what He could and could not do and or allow to occur without violating His own nature. God decided what He would allow to take place under various laws which He created for the universe and also exactly what His personal involvement would consist of while allowing such. He did that before the foundation of the world according to what He wanted to accomplish in this and subsequent ages for His glory.

Certainly there are other doctrines which are often debated among Calvinists and non-Calvinist (some related to predestination more than others).

But why in God's name predestination itself as a basic doctrine would be in dispute is beyond me.

I suppose it may be because John Calvin mentioned the doctrine in his writings and certain people feel that they have to oppose it (no matter how illogical that opposition would be) rather than embrace something that a brother (whom they consider their enemy) mentioned.

 

[Marvin Knox]

No, but if you were omniscient and omnipotent that child would only do what you programmed and predestined that child to do. Sounds kinda robotic to me.

Why do you use the words programmed and predestined as if they were synonymous?
They clearly are not.

 

[Marvin Knox]

Just for simplicity I am going to use Adam & Eve.
Now how does your sentence above prove that God predestined them to fall? or to sin?
Just because a situation is possible, does not mean that God predestined that thing to happen.

That statement alone does not prove that God predestined them to fall.

It does, however, serve to illustrate the method that God used to bring about what He had predestined to occur.

 

[Marvin Knox]

Can man freely choose against God's predestination? Here's the crux of your problem.

As usual your question and statement make no sense.

Man can freely choose.

What man freely chooses will be exactly what God predestined.

God uses means to bring about what He has predestined. In this case those means are the God given free will choices of those He created in His own image.

Have you been out of town or something or just not reading along?

Don't answer that - I forgot that I was going to try not to enable your foolishness any more than absolutely necessary.

 

[EmSw]

As usual your question and statement make no sense.

No Marvin, your statement makes no sense.

Man can freely choose.

What man freely chooses will be exactly what God predestined.

Man cannot freely choose if he only chooses what God predestined. This truth is as plain as day. Once your statements are rational and comprehensible, then we might get somewhere.

An irrational statement cannot have a rational rebuttal. But, that's the way you like it. Then you can pretend you always win.

God uses means to bring about what He has predestined. In this case those means are the God given free will choices of those He created in His own image.

You have no Biblical support for your presumptions, and you know it. You might get a few to believe your non-sense, but those with understanding will avoid it at all costs.

Have you been out of town or something or just not reading along?

Everything is okay at this end, Marvin. Reading along does not mean acceptance of what was read.

Don't answer that - I forgot that I was going to try not to enable your foolishness any more than absolutely necessary.

Should I not answer that because God predestined it that way, or should I freely choose to answer because I have been given TRUE free will, and not some pseudo-free will you spout?

If I am only choosing what God has predestined, then quit fighting God's predestination, and quit calling His predestination foolishness. You are fighting your own bogus beliefs. You say God predestines everything, but, you don't like what He predestines with people and want them to stray to your fraudulent human convictions.

STOP CALLING GOD'S PREDESTINATION FOOLISHNESS!!!

 

[EmSw]

That statement alone does not prove that God predestined them to fall.

It does, however, serve to illustrate the method that God used to bring about what He had predestined to occur.

Say what? You say God predestined everything, and now you say He didn't. You don't even believe your own beliefs.

 

[EmSw]

That statement alone does not prove that God predestined them to fall.

It does, however, serve to illustrate the method that God used to bring about what He had predestined to occur.

Say what? You first say it 'does not prove that God predestined them to fall', then turn right around and say 'to bring about what He predestined to occur'. How in the world do you believe this stuff, Marvin?

 

[ToBeLoved]

Predestination and effectual calling are not part of the gospel one preaches.

No Calvinist of whom I am aware preaches a gospel to the people of the world which includes such doctrine.

Such advanced doctrine is being discussed in an intramural debate about what all the scriptures teach about certain doctrines.

It is not being discussed with people who do not have the Holy Spirit as their counselor. Such spiritually dead people are not yet equipped to handle even the demands of the simple gospel let alone enter into discussion about doctrines such as this.

It's been my experience that even people who supposedly are inhabited by the Holy Spirit of God are not able to think through these things properly.

Calvinism agrees holds both of those doctrines equally as has been displayed again and again here through the posting of excerpts from the Westminster Confession of Faith (likely the most widely accepted authority when it comes to these Reformed doctrines).

If every student of scripture would but hold in this way to ALL of what the scriptures teach there would likely be no trouble.

But it seems that in their zeal to undermine the name of Calvin - anti-Calvinists here simply refuse to acknowledge the first point you make about what the scriptures teach.

But rather than become something to argue against predestination should be view as what it is - a glorious statement about the self sufficiency and sovereignty of God.

Predestination simply teaches that before anything else was there was God. God knew every possibility of what He could and could not do and or allow to occur without violating His own nature. God decided what He would allow to take place under various laws which He created for the universe and also exactly what His personal involvement would consist of while allowing such. He did that before the foundation of the world according to what He wanted to accomplish in this and subsequent ages for His glory.

Certainly there are other doctrines which are often debated among Calvinists and non-Calvinist (some related to predestination more than others).

But why in God's name predestination itself as a basic doctrine would be in dispute is beyond me.

I suppose it may be because John Calvin mentioned the doctrine in his writings and certain people feel that they have to oppose it (no matter how illogical that opposition would be) rather than embrace something that a brother (whom they consider their enemy) mentioned.

I find many Calvinists that act smug about them being elect, or chosen or predestined. There is nothing to be smug about, if anything it should humble us.

That's one of the things that bothers me so much.

 

[DingDing]

Here is a recent example. A guy named Sproul wrote a book called Chosen by God. (I read it many years ago, but probably no longer have it.) On the back cover he wrote the following:

"If God is truly God, He is sovereign - over all things, over all decisions;
If God is truly God, He chooses who goes to heaven and who doesn't."

Now the problem I have is this: Sproul never proves these things - particularly the 1st point - these are his starting assumptions. And not that I have a problem with the 2nd statement (though I reject how calvinists say God chooses), but the 1st statement is the real problem. Sproul assumes this 1st statement (and the calvinist interpretation of the 2nd statement) and runs with both throughout his book.

So the problem is that the starting "prior opinions or prejudices" of calvinism are foundational assumptions (such as these) which are never called into question. (And your quote of the WESTMINSTER CONFESSION OF FAITH above is no different.) At some point people need to see that calvinism is not just what "the Word of God teaches when it is tackled in a systematic way receiving what the Holy Spirit teaches with humility and without prior opinions or prejudices" as you said in an earlier post, but rather, people need to recognize that calvinism has a foundational philosophy which it brings to, and reads into, scripture. At some point, those inside the box need to try to step back and re-examine their starting assumptions.

Good ideas - I agree.

But that is exactly what the framers of the Westminster confession of Faith (and me as well for what it's worth) did IMO.

At the end of the 5 years or so ... they were required to include in their final draft the "proof texts" which they used to come to their conclusions.

...

Well, let's think about this. You didn't address the comments I made about the Sproul book, but you want me to address the WCF. So, does the WCF only provide scriptures in isolation which in isolation may appear to support their position, or does it deal honestly and openly with other scriptures and arguments brought up by opponents?

Please show me where the WCF deals with and addresses those scriptures and arguments used to defend the doctrine of corporate election? Where does the WCF show that these are wrong or misunderstood? And where does the WCF deal with cited scriptures and arguments which don't fit with total depravity? Please pull these quotes for me from the WCF so that I can address them.

 

[ToBeLoved]

That statement alone does not prove that God predestined them to fall.

It does, however, serve to illustrate the method that God used to bring about what He had predestined to occur.

I don't believe God predestined it. Where are your verses that show that God predestined the fall?

Did God also predestine Isrraelites to worship the golden calf?

 

[Uber Genius]

The Five Main Points of Calvinism:
Total Inability - Man has sunk so far through the Fall that he is no longer capable of believing the gospel.

Unconditional Election - God has, before the creation of the world, selected a portion of humanity to be saved. This election is irrespective of any foreseen merits or faith. It is only according to the good pleasure of His will.

Particular Redemption - Jesus on Calvary bore the full punishment due his elect, ensuring their final salvation. He did not die for the non-elect, who are excluded and hopelessly reprobated.

Efficacious Grace God moves upon the helpless sinner before he has a single thought of responding to the good news. Grace renews the spiritually dead will, imparts a new nature and infallibly draws the sinner to Christ. Regeneration, or the new birth, occurs before belief in Christ. Faith, in fact, is a gift imparted to the sinner, who is entirely passive in this act.

Final Perseverance - Everyone regenerated by God's grace will persevere and be finally saved. No one who truly begins the life of faith will ever fall away and perish.


HERE IS THE PROBLEM

A. If God predestined the fall, the "total inability" of man was also predestined by God.

B. If God "selected a portion of humanity to be saved", then it is His will that not everyone becomes saved.

C. If someone is not saved, it is only because God did not elect them to be saved. Because we have absolutely no control as to who gets elected and our "total inability to come to Christ without this election, God would be entirely responsible for someone not being saved.

D. Scripture specifically says that God wants everyone to be saved(1 Timothy 2:4)( 2 Peter 3:9)(Ezekiel 18:23)(Matthew 23:37). However many calvinist claim that the scripture are only directed to the "elect" and not everyone. However, if that is true, wouldn't (James 5:19-20) also be written to the elect as well? Does (James 5:19-20) prove that the "final perserverance" be false?

E. If James 5:19-20 is directed to not only the elect but the non-believing, unsaved members of the Church, wouldn't (1 Timothy 2:4)( 2 Peter 3:9)(Ezekiel 18:23)&(Matthew 23:37) also be directed to the unbelieving, unsaved members of the church too?

So if Calvinism is true:
-Can God genuinely will that all be saved (1), and yet only choose to save only some, the elect (2)?

-Is it even logical to hold that God can at the same time will salvation for all (1), and not will salvation for all (2)?

-If (1) and (2) are true, is God schizophrenic or confused? (1 Corinthians 14:33)
Or can a sovereign, all-powerful God who does whatever he pleases, hold wishful desires for the salvation of all that he cannot fulfill?

-Which leads to asking, is there a power in the universe greater than God, frustrating his desires?
Or can God will in different ways simultaneously?

-Or should modern Christians simply downplay election in order to highlight God’s desire for the salvation of all?

-Because if we equally hold to election, isn’t our general offer of the gospel to all sinners disingenuous?

-And won’t election erode the energy and incentive for global missions and evangelism because the "elect" inevitably come to Christ regardless?

Well the charitable answer would be to point out that you have created an either/or fallacy in the title of your post.

Secondly, deeper engagement with Calvin's Institutes might help give a full-blooded representation that is fairer to the position.

Thirdly, just as the Reformers were better exegetes than the scholastics, who were better than the post-nicene church fathers, who were better exegetes than the ante-nicene church fathers, and so, we can understand the various texts and argument better than our Reformers.

I'm not arguing in favor of Calvinism, but rather in favor of more of an abductive approach. That appeals to the evidence of solid exegesis rather than paint people into a corner.

 

[Marvin Knox]

I find many Calvinists that act smug about them being elect, or chosen or predestined. There is nothing to be smug about, if anything it should humble us.
That's one of the things that bothers me so much.

It would bother me as well.

However I haven't found many, if any, Calvinists who act smug about them being elect.

The entire theme of election is that no one deserves in any way the grace extended to them by a gracious God in effectual calling.

I can't imagine a Calvinist who would act smug about their election while at the same time teaching that there is nothing to be smug about because salvation is all of God - apparently the central tenet of Calvinistic thought.

I won't ask you to produce any of these Calvinists who are smug about their undeserved salvation. I'll just take your word for it that your experience concerning this has been quite a bit difference during your life as a Christian than it has been in my 59 years in the faith.

On the other hand - it has been a constant charge here in the forum from Calvinists that those who deny the doctrines of grace (non-Calvinists) have something to feel proud about concerning their success at overcoming sin in order to earn their salvation.

Whether those Calvinist charges are true or whether the non-Calvinists have indeed overcome sin to the extent that they are owed salvation - I will refrain from commenting.

 

[Marvin Knox]

Well, let's think about this. You didn't address the comments I made about the Sproul book, but you want me to address the WCF.

You didn't ask me to address your comments about the Sproul book.

I don't have a copy of the book here before me. But I know enough about Sproul's theology to not doubt that he made those statements and believes they are biblical.

I have no way of knowing right now if Sproul supplied proof texts for his alleged assertions. But if he didn't supply them in that book itself he certainly has elsewhere in his prolific writing and lecturing.

In fact I suspect that many of those proof texts are repeats of those used by the Westminster framers.

So, does the WCF only provide scriptures in isolation which in isolation may appear to support their position, or does it deal honestly and openly with other scriptures and arguments brought up by opponents?

The Westminster Confession and the larger and smaller catechism framers made summary statements about certain doctrines and supplied scriptures which back it up. They can not be expected to provide pages of arguments from those of other faiths in a document meant as a summation of truth.

Please show me where the WCF deals with and addresses those scriptures and arguments used to defend the doctrine of corporate election? Where does the WCF show that these are wrong or misunderstood?

See the answer above.

It is the task of anyone attempting to refute the summations of the Westminster to provide supporting scriptures for their objections.

If by "corporate election you mean that Christ is primarily God's elect, and that through Christ's redemptive work God has purposed to form a people to be His body (who become part of the Elect/ Christ) - then most Calvinists I am aware of would agree with that statement. Therefore there is no need for rebuttal of the doctrine.

At any rate - it was not the goal of the WCF and it's attendant catechism to present to the people every opposing view known to man.

And where does the WCF deal with cited scriptures and arguments which don't fit with total depravity? Please pull these quotes for me from the WCF so that I can address them.

Same answers as above concerning the fact that it is not the duty of the writers of the summary doctrines to provide arguments for every possible disagreement.

Since you seem to be of that view - please present those views and make your case.

They are hardly new arguments here however.

You will find by the way that Calvinists do not deny that those scriptures exist. They would simply argue that they be viewed from a different paradigm - one which includes the teachings of the proof texts used for total depravity.

In other words - Calvinists believe all of the pertinent scriptures and include them in a systematic way in their theology whereas non-Calvinists tend to leave out the half of the scriptures that give them trouble.

For example I might say that no natural man seeks God. I might say that no one can come to the Jesus except the Father draw him.

You might counter with a scripture that commanded all men to repent and turn to Christ.

I would say that I agree with both sides of the paradox. The lens through which I view the command to repent is the empowerment given by the Father to some to do exactly that.

The lens through which non-Reformed people tend to look at my statements is the free will of men and the need for God to be what they term fair and just in His dealing with every man equally.

I believe all of the related scriptures while those people simply ignore the ones I supplied and throw in a couple of other concepts to hope they won't have to face them.

Enough of this anyway - it's all been said here a thousand times and you are just the latest in a long line of those who will not embrace all that God says in the scriptures.

I'll see you on the other side hopefully and we'll compare notes.

Anywhere EmSw shows up with his foolish comments I don't stick around in for very long.

 

[bottomofsandal]

It would bother me as well.

However I haven't found many, if any, Calvinists who act smug about them being elect.

The entire theme of election is that no one deserves in any way the grace extended to them by a gracious God in effectual calling.

I can't imagine a Calvinist who would act smug about their election while at the same time teaching that there is nothing to be smug about because salvation is all of God - apparently the central tenet of Calvinistic thought.

I won't ask you to produce any of these Calvinists who are smug about their undeserved salvation. I'll just take your word for it that your experience concerning this has been quite a bit difference during your life as a Christian than it has been in my 59 years in the faith.

On the other hand - it has been a constant charge here in the forum from Calvinists that those who deny the doctrines of grace (non-Calvinists) have something to feel proud about concerning their success at overcoming sin in order to earn their salvation.

Whether those Calvinist charges are true or whether the non-Calvinists have indeed overcome sin to the extent that they are owed salvation - I will refrain from commenting.

Clearly God wants us to be certain about our salvation-

A man need not be a Calvinist be be confident in what The Lord's death and resurrection accomplished.

Maybe those who doubt their salvation or feel they can lose salvation, perceive the saint as lacking humility.

1 John 5:10-13 New King James Version (NKJV)
10 He who believes in the Son of God has the witness in himself; he who does not believe God has made Him a liar, because he has not believed the testimony that God has given of His Son. 11 And this is the testimony: that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. 12 He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life. 13 These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life,and that you may continue to believe in the name of the Son of God.

 

[ToBeLoved]

It would bother me as well.

However I haven't found many, if any, Calvinists who act smug about them being elect.

The entire theme of election is that no one deserves in any way the grace extended to them by a gracious God in effectual calling.

I can't imagine a Calvinist who would act smug about their election while at the same time teaching that there is nothing to be smug about because salvation is all of God - apparently the central tenet of Calvinistic thought.

I won't ask you to produce any of these Calvinists who are smug about their undeserved salvation. I'll just take your word for it that your experience concerning this has been quite a bit difference during your life as a Christian than it has been in my 59 years in the faith.

On the other hand - it has been a constant charge here in the forum from Calvinists that those who deny the doctrines of grace (non-Calvinists) have something to feel proud about concerning their success at overcoming sin in order to earn their salvation.

Whether those Calvinist charges are true or whether the non-Calvinists have indeed overcome sin to the extent that they are owed salvation - I will refrain from commenting.

Well interesting enough, I am not a Calvinist but I believe wholeheartedly OSAS.

Now this is interesting:

On the other hand - it has been a constant charge here in the forum from Calvinists that those who deny the doctrines of grace (non-Calvinists) have something to feel proud about concerning their success at overcoming sin in order to earn their salvation.

In which case I would think ANYONE would correct these people with God's Word because grace is all over the New Testament. Those people are mistakenly mislead. We are all Christ's children.

 

[Marvin Knox]

................... We are all Christ's children.

Well -- we'll see how all that pans out eventually I suppose.

I've conversed with many people in this forum who's salvation I wouldn't bet a dollar on.

And - no - I'm not talking about them perhaps not being saved because they do or do not believe in Calvinism or do or do not believe in Arminianism or any other ism.

There are a great many here who give evidence by their words that they do not understand the basics of salvation by grace and have never trusted in Christ's work at Calvary for their salvation rather than their own works.

I am fully aware that only God can sort it out in the end. But narrow is the way and few there are that find it seems pretty well displayed here in this forum.

 

[EmSw]

Anywhere EmSw shows up with his foolish comments I don't stick around in for very long.

Marvin, you know you can't keep away. God's truth will draw you back in.

 

[EmSw]

I am fully aware that only God can sort it out in the end. But narrow is the way and few there are that find it seems pretty well displayed here in this forum.

Those who find the narrow gate are those who 'STRIVE' to enter.

 

[ToBeLoved]

Just for simplicity I am going to use Adam & Eve.

Now how does your sentence above prove that God predestined them to fall? or to sin?

Just because a situation is possible, does not mean that God predestined that thing to happen.

bump.

I would still like this question answered. It is very relevant to predestination, IMHO.

 

[Uber Genius]

ummm...No. That is NOT what Calvinist theology holds.


But he was not. The Bible is pretty clear about that.

"I admit that in this miserable condition wherein men are now bound, all of Adam's children have fallen by God's will." Bk 3, Ch 23, s. 4

"Again I ask: whence does it happen that Adam's fall irremediably involved so many peoples, together with their infant offspring, in eternal death unless because it so pleased God? ... The decree is dreadful indeed, I confess. Yet no one can deny that God foreknew what end man was to have before he created him, and consequently foreknew because he so ordained by his decree." "And it ought not to seem absurd for me to say that God not only foresaw the fall of the first man, and in him the ruin of his descendants, but also meted it out in accordance with his own decision.. Bk 3, Ch 23, s. 7

"Man falls according as God's providence ordains, but he falls by his own fault." Bk 3, Ch 23, s. 8

Here we see Calvin's incoherence man is fated to fall but is still at fault. No fatalism is ever accompanied by fault. Free will is a necessary condition of fault!

How is this "NOT" what Calvinists hold since these quotes are verbatim and pertaining to the context? Are you saying that some versions of Calvinism hold radically different positions than Calvin did? That might be true.