God's Sovereignty Can't Be Explained In 5 Points.

[Awaken4Christ]

Nor can it be completely explained by humans. Isn't it possible that Paul's mentioning of "predestined" or the Golden chain of redemption, is his limit of his revelation from God with that particular subject?

I feel that both Arminianism and Calvinism Take Biblical truths and add them together, like a computation.

Like
Golden chain of Redemption+All things work for the Glory of God =unconditional election

Or for Arminians

Whosoever believes+choose you this day= Synergism.

Some of the conclusions both sides make are as if they both have the patent on the soul... and on the semantics and science of God's will and free will. But either of those combinations don't necessarily prove the specific viewpoint they are proclaiming.

Were any of us at the dawn of creation? Did we see how the soul and spirit was created? Did we see the particular brush strokes that painted the soul?
Does God use a paint brush or a number 2 pencil?

To Calvinists.... Which is the more accurate of these statements

The Gospel is the truth
Calvinism is the truth

If you said they are equal... Are you sure the 5 points are truly the best terms to use? Can you really replace Predestination with Unconditional election? Are we truly able to dissect the Word of God and know the particulars on the design of the soul and universe? Why in absolute terms is Monergism incompatible with free will?

I tred lightly when describing the Nature of God's sovereignty as should all of us.

 

[98cwitr]

Ill be the first to say that the God's Sovereignty is a Truth, but Truth is so many things. The 5 points are the Truth, because they are inline with Scripture (in a very complete and broad spectrum context), but the Truth is more than 5 points, and it's more than Calvinism...the Truth is all and everything God and His creation is, and NO single denomination explains that. We are Christians first, our denominations come second.

Are you sure the 5 points are truly the best terms to use?

They are a good start

Can you really replace Predestination with Unconditional election?

No one is trying to replace, but they are easily reconciled with each other

Are we truly able to dissect the Word of God and know the particulars on the design of the soul and universe?

With God anything is possible. Holy Spirit provides clarity and insight into Scripture.

Why in absolute terms is Monergism incompatible with free will?

Monergism states that no cooperation on the part of the saved is required for that salvation. Free will states that one must generate their own faith and thus be involved: "repent and believe."

 

[Skala]

You are right, 5 points is too many.

To quote JI Packer: To Calvinists, there is really only one point: God saves sinners.


Notice, it is not "God TRIES to save sinners", but "God saves sinners"

Without fail. He has a 100% success rate on saving every single person He intends to save.

 

[Awaken4Christ]

You are right, 5 points is too many.

To quote JI Packer: To Calvinists, there is really only one point: God saves sinners.


Notice, it is not "God TRIES to save sinners", but "God saves sinners"

Without fail. He has a 100% success rate on saving every single person He intends to save.

I like that. Skala.. I'm serious, that is the best answer to date. Thank you for that brother.

To me that is a neutral term that respects God's Sovereignty, and at the same time isn't a hair too specific.

 

[Avid]

I knew a pastor who had said on a few occasions that sermons and songs depict God as standing in heaven, wringing the brim of His hat, and wondering if anyone will ACCEPT Him. God is Sovereign, and what we hear in Churches, too much these days, makes it look as if He is powerless in the saving of sinful men.

.

 

[now faith]

Ill be the first to say that the God's Sovereignty is a Truth, but Truth is so many things. The 5 points are the Truth, because they are inline with Scripture (in a very complete and broad spectrum context), but the Truth is more than 5 points, and it's more than Calvinism...the Truth is all and everything God and His creation is, and NO single denomination explains that. We are Christians first, our denominations come second.

Are you sure the 5 points are truly the best terms to use?

They are a good start

Can you really replace Predestination with Unconditional election?

No one is trying to replace, but they are easily reconciled with each other

Are we truly able to dissect the Word of God and know the particulars on the design of the soul and universe?

With God anything is possible. Holy Spirit provides clarity and insight into Scripture.

Why in absolute terms is Monergism incompatible with free will?

Monergism states that no cooperation on the part of the saved is required for that salvation. Free will states that one must generate their own faith and thus be involved: "repent and believe."

Does free will say this in God's Word or theology?
Excuse me for asking but based on your statement on free will,how do you interpret this passage:
Ephesians: 2. 3. Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others. 4. But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, 5. Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved 6. And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus: 7. That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus. 8. For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9. Not of works, lest any man should boast.

I would think by the context of verse 8 God's grace has allowed for our faith,thereby how do we view this passage:
Hebrews: 11. 1. Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. 2. For by it the elders obtained a good report. 3. Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

How do you interpret this?:
Ephesians: 3. 8. Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ; 9. And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ: 10. To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God, 11. According to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord: 12. In whom we have boldness and access with confidence by the faith of him.

According to verse 9 all men see what is the fellowship hid in God,so would you think according to chapter 2 verse 8 all men would receive faith through grace?

 

[Awaken4Christ]

Does free will say this in God's Word or theology?
Excuse me for asking but based on your statement on free will,how do you interpret this passage:
Ephesians: 2. 3. Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others. 4. But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, 5. Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved 6. And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus: 7. That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus. 8. For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9. Not of works, lest any man should boast.

I would think by the context of verse 8 God's grace has allowed for our faith,thereby how do we view this passage:
Hebrews: 11. 1. Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. 2. For by it the elders obtained a good report. 3. Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

How do you interpret this?:
Ephesians: 3. 8. Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ; 9. And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ: 10. To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God, 11. According to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord: 12. In whom we have boldness and access with confidence by the faith of him.

According to verse 9 all men see what is the fellowship hid in God,so would you think according to chapter 2 verse 8 all men would receive faith through grace?

We know that all men will not receive grace through faith as that would be universalism. The counter against all men receiving grace through faith would be something along the lines of Matthew 7:21-23 etc. Or the Wedding Parable in Matthew 22"Many are called, Few Are Chosen"(emphasis on verse 14). There are many more verses that counter universalism though.

Lets Break Ephesians 3:8 down shall we. "And to make all men see what the fellowship of the mystery". At this point it is not specific enough to be salvation.. lets continue..."which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ" So this is so far talking about revealing Gods plan to all men. It was hidden..This so far harmonizes with spreading the gospel throughout the world so far. lets continue...

"To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God, 11. According to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord: 12. In whom we have boldness and access with confidence by the faith of him.

This Last section specifies intent. So everything in the first section is done so that the second section is fulfilled.


As far as his interpretation of Ephesians 2:8, Calvinists believe that God also provides the saving faith, so not only is Grace through faith, but that faith is also given by God. They feel it harmonizes well with versus like Romans 8:29-30. And who he gives that faith to is only done out of his will(grace). I hope that was an accurate representation 98.

 

[98cwitr]

Does free will say this in God's Word or theology?
Excuse me for asking but based on your statement on free will,how do you interpret this passage:
Ephesians: 2. 3. Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others. 4. But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, 5. Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved 6. And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus: 7. That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus. 8. For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9. Not of works, lest any man should boast.

I would think by the context of verse 8 God's grace has allowed for our faith,thereby how do we view this passage:
Hebrews: 11. 1. Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. 2. For by it the elders obtained a good report. 3. Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

How do you interpret this?:
Ephesians: 3. 8. Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ; 9. And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ: 10. To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God, 11. According to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord: 12. In whom we have boldness and access with confidence by the faith of him.

According to verse 9 all men see what is the fellowship hid in God,so would you think according to chapter 2 verse 8 all men would receive faith through grace?

I interpret Eph 2 simply by this statement: God saves sinnners, and not because of their works, but because of His mercy. This is reiterated in Romans 9 as well. You need to understand that faith/heart comes from God, it's not something that is self-manifested.

@Eph 3: Paul is simply saying that he has been commissioned to share the Gospel with everyone. It's not an evangelical's job to choose who to tell the Gospel to, it is to be told to those who will and will not believe alike (parable of the sower).

"so would you think according to chapter 2 verse 8 all men would receive faith through grace?"

Nope...not at all. I don't even see how you could get that from that verse unless you take verse 8 out of context.

 

[dms1972]

Just a few thoughts not completely unrelated to the topic. This is how I think about it, not that I know much about it, and this is grossly simplified, but maybe someone correct me if I am wrong

Theologians are not wholly theologians, doing theology. They have philosophical views too. Aristotle had massive influence

First theologically there is Calvin's Institutes (not absolutely first - for there was Augustine 1000 years before, and not only Augustine, but he is one of the most influencial)

Then there are others Calvinists, who have read, agreed with Calvin, however they sometimes change him a bit. Its not like some who reads Calvin and teaches theology then becomes a pure extention of his teaching.

Teaching is never quite cut and paste. Students have several teachers also.

So Calvinism has variations.

These people taught in the universities, but they didn't all agree entirely. I don't quite understand why except that it seems understandable that different people will not teach with exactly the same emphasises. Here is wikipedia on Arminius.

Wkipedia on Arminius:

Arminius remained a student at Leiden from 1576 to 1582. Although he enrolled as a student in Liberal Arts, this allowed him to pursue an education in theology, as well. His teachers in theology included Calvinist Lambertus Danaeus, Hebrew scholar Johannes Drusius, Guillaume Feuguereius (or Feugueires, d. 1613), and Johann Kolmann. Kolmann is now known for teaching that the overemphasis of God's sovereignty in high Calvinism made God "a tyrant and an executioner".[3] Although the university in Leiden was solidly Reformed, it had influences from Lutheran, Zwinglian, and Anabaptist views in addition to Calvinism. One Leiden pastor (Caspar Coolhaes) held, contra Calvin, that civil authorities did have jurisdiction in some church affairs, that it was wrong to punish and execute heretics, and that Lutherans, Calvinists, and Anabaptists could unite around core tenets.[4] The astronomer and mathematician Willebrord Snellius used Ramist philosophy in an effort to encourage his students to pursue truth without over reliance on Aristotle.[5] Under the influence of these men, Arminius studied with success and may have had seeds planted that would begin to develop into a theology that would later question the dominant Reformed theology of John Calvin. The success he showed in his studies motivated the merchants guild of Amsterdam to fund the next three years of his studies.
In 1582, Arminius began studying under Theodore Beza at Geneva. He found himself under pressure for using Ramist philosophical methods, familiar to him from his time at Leiden. Arminius was publicly forbidden to teach Ramean philosophy. After this difficult state of affairs, he moved to Basel to continue his studies.[2] He continued to distinguished himself there as an excellent student. In 1583 Arminius was contemplating a return to Geneva when the theological faculty at Basel spontaneously offered him a doctorate.[6] He declined the honor on account of his youth (he was about 24)[7] and returned to the school in Geneva to finish his schooling in Geneva under Beza.


By the time (and again I haven't studied this - beyond a paragraph here and there about it)

It reaches the Five Points, by that time its been through a lot of talk and arguments.

Calvins Institutes was four parts :

Knowledge of God the Creator,
Knowledge of God the Redeemer
Mode of obtaining the Grace of Christ...
The Holy Catholic Church

There are five points of Calvinism, because there where five Articles of Remonstrance.

My guess is the Articles of Remonstrance were in responce to High Calvinism.

Also on the wider topic of the reformation: The Spirit and Forms of Protestantism by Louis Bouyer has some insights, to see that there were both positive and negative elements in the Reformation.

But my difficulty of course would be that without comprehensive study of it all I wouldn't know how fair Bouyers assessment is.

 

[twin1954]

Neither God nor His sovereignty can be explained in five points but His salvation can. The five points, or Doctrines of Grace, are not an attempt to explain God they are concerning the manner in which God saves sinners. They lead us to a better understanding of the sovereignty of God and all the other attributes of God but they are not intended to be an end all to theology. Our theology comes from a study of the whole of the Scriptures and how God reveals Himself in them.

To say that we cannot understand God is a cop out. Of course we cannot understand Him more than blowing the dust off the cover. But we can understand what He has revealed in His Word concerning Himself, His salvation and His attributes. But that does require some diligent study and commitment.

 

[ThisBrotherOfHis]

Neither God nor His sovereignty can be explained in five points but His salvation can. The five points, or Doctrines of Grace, are not an attempt to explain God they are concerning the manner in which God saves sinners.

Well ... sort of ... but a more accurate description is that they are the misguided ramblings of some men who attempted an oversimplified explanation of God's sovereignty that, because of its oversimplification, fails utterly to explain it.

They lead us to a better understanding of the sovereignty of God and all the other attributes of God but they are not intended to be an end all to theology.

While I'm glad to see you say that, I rarely if ever seen a Calvinist able to expound on anything other than sovereignty as they have been led to understand it, utterly failing to grasp that what they understand is refuted in most of Scripture, many of which they use as their own proof-texts without really understanding what they say.

Our theology comes from a study of the whole of the Scriptures and how God reveals Himself in them.

I'm sorry, but don't "credit" God for teaching you He is so simple as to choose some for salvation and others for destruction, because He doesn't do that, despite what you've been led to believe.

To say that we cannot understand God is a cop out. Of course we cannot understand Him more than blowing the dust off the cover. But we can understand what He has revealed in His Word concerning Himself, His salvation and His attributes. But that does require some diligent study and commitment.

If Calvinists actually committed to diligent study of God's word, and not the limited realm of Reformed Theology and Calvinist thought, they would reach the same conclusion I have: God is too complex to be put in the small box they put him in. Spurgeon agreed, and it is ironic that so many Calvinists cite him to "prove" their views. Spurgeon stated quite clearly in his August 1, 1858 sermon God's Sovereignty and Man's Responsibility that God's sovereignty is unquestionable, but so is man's responsibility, meaning man has to "make a decision" under the inspiration and guidance of the Holy Spirit to accept or reject the truth of Christ.

You can rail against that statement all you want, it won't change the truth. A truth much closer to the reality of God's sovereignty than anything the average Calvinist teaches.

 

[Skala]

God is too complex to be put in the small box they put him in.

I hate this kind of argument because it assumes that God being in a box is a bad thing.

News flash: the Bible puts God in a box.

Seriously, it does. The Bible clearly and carefully defines what God is like and who He is.

That means it is wrong for us to believe God is anything beyond what the Bible reveals about him. It is wrong for us to go any further than the Bible goes: "The secret things belong to the Lord, but the things that are revealed belong to us and our children" Deut 29:29

The Bible puts God in a box. It defines him in a clear and concise way. After all, that's what you mean by the phrase "put God in a box". You really mean "understand God in a clear and concise way"

The phrase "put God in a box" is simply pejorative language that is used to put a bad-sounding spin on something that is actually good.

Because Calvinism is intellectually and logically satisfactory, nay-sayers will spit out the argument and "catch phrase" that Calvinism "puts God in a box". It's their way of justifying to themselves that it's ok to dismiss Calvinism. It's just too darn logical and makes too much sense for them!

To reject something because it is clear and concise and carefully defined and understood is nothing more than a product of post-modernism.

Seekers of truth will never use the phrase "put God in a box" in a negative way.

Next I wanted to comment on your final thoughts in the post above. You said:

Spurgeon stated quite clearly in his August 1, 1858 sermon God's Sovereignty and Man's Responsibility that God's sovereignty is unquestionable, but so is man's responsibility, meaning man has to "make a decision" under the inspiration and guidance of the Holy Spirit to accept or reject the truth of Christ.

You can rail against that statement all you want, it won't change the truth. A truth much closer to the reality of God's sovereignty than anything the average Calvinist teaches.

Um, you act as if what Surgeon said is any different than what regular old Calvinism has taught all along. Calvinists have always believed that man can (and does) make a decision to abandon his sins and follow Jesus.

Why on earth did you think otherwise?

I swear, the more you hear an anti-Calvinist talk about Calvinism, you realize that they actually have no clue what Calvinism actually is, but they are just bashing the daylights out of a strawman of their own making.

ThisBrotherOfHis: "Guys, Calvinists don't believe that man makes a decision to follow Jesus! But Spurgeon said he does, therefore Calvinists are wrong! As much as you may dislike what Spurgeon said, you filthy Calvinists, it doesn't change the facts! Spurgeons' statement is much better commentary on God's sovereignty than what Calvinism teaches!"

A Calvinist comes along and reads that statement: "Yo bro. Settle down. Spurgeon simply said what all Calvinists have always believed."