Understanding Calvinism

[heymikey80]

I did not 'become". I was born and brought up in a hate filled environment in NI.

If you are in the UK cygnus alive in the 70's you would know about it. Guilford 4, Birmingham 6. If not ask you parents.

People often press their hatred into their religion. To believe one must align with the other, you'd have to believe we all want to come and fight in NI for the same reasons your environment held. We don't.

In fact I happen to appreciate the Jansenist approach to Augustine that influences much of Roman Catholic Ireland, and that Pascal followed. They have something to offer to our reformation. So do we to theirs. But neither is right. We are all wrong.

 

[Pinkman]

They're equivalent due to the following sequence of deduction:
God knows everything His creation will do.
God empowers everything His creation will do.
God's power and knowledge are perfectly organized by God's intent, or will.
=> God intends everything His creation will do.

I've a hard time connecting this with your demand for equivalence, as they're not equivalent, but they're pretty obvious.

God condemns of all sin with eternal torment.
All are born with sin through Original Sin.
=> God punishes the entire human race for their sin with eternal torment.
God intends everything in creation.
=> God intended to punish the entire human race for their sin with eternal torment.

"making all born" doesn't imply immediacy of responsibility for their being born in this way. Adam is immediately responsible for this change in humanity (as is quite obvious), only to be demonstrated by our own sinfulness when each of us is born. Again, the doctrine of Original Sin explains this situation.

There is no such thing as the "Ultimate Cause" holding the same responsibility as the "immediate cause". This is so patently obvious that it should go without saying. One might attribute the ultimate cause of a plane crash to the failure of a tiny screw hole in a window; but the immediate cause would be the inspector's neglect of the crack that's growing out of that screw hole. The reponsibility is nowhere near the same. The causes are qualitatively different.

John Calvin summarised this as 'The Terrible Decree". Hyper Calvinism again !

Methinks the poster are not exactly transparent.

 

[Pinkman]

People often press their hatred into their religion. To believe one must align with the other, you'd have to believe we all want to come and fight in NI for the same reasons your environment held. We don't.

.

OF which I don't believe. Decades on from that I do not hate. I have learnt from experience not to.

I have also learnt from experience to question why we did what we did. Why we believe some religious rigmarole. Which is why I have the doubts I do. Especially about Calvinism. Of which this board is so inconsistent about.

Ask a straight question .....

 

[Pinkman]

I fail to see where any Calvinist here has lost their cool. Who specifically has lost their cool?



I find it rather arbitrary that you maintain a strawman version of Calvinism, a version that has not been held historically by many Calvinists.



I think it's insulting that you have hundreds of responses, a novel's worth in this thread, and yet you claim none have helped you in the least. Hyper Calvinism is High Calvinism taken to it's logical extremes. Hypers will deny the "general call" to salvation, despite the fact we do not know who God will or will not regenerate/call/draw to salvation, despite the fact we are commanded to preach the gospel.



Correct, and most of the world is not even Christian. The way is straight and narrow, many are called, but few are chosen. If most of the had believed in Calvinism, it might give me pause to wonder, in light of the Scriptures.



I feel not compelled to give a straight forward answer considering what you've said, so I will use one word: Passover



You know what they say, if you can't take the heat...

The novels worth came from an Arminian.

 

[heymikey80]

Heymikey80:

1. Decreeing that Adam sin (i.e. "God decrees whatsoever comes to pass")


Which makes him a supralapsarian hyper calvinist. But then he denies this ?


Confused ?

Oh yes

Why would that make someone a hypercalvinist -- to accept something Calvin himself stated?

Are we back to citing Dordt? Keeping track of the rejections:
Having set forth the orthodox teaching concerning election and reprobation, the Synod rejects the errors of those

* * *

Who teach that it was not on the basis of his just will alone that God decided to leave anyone in the fall of Adam and in the common state of sin and condemnation or to pass anyone by in the imparting of grace necessary for faith and conversion.

For these words stand fast: He has mercy on whom he wishes, and he hardens whom he wishes (Rom. 9:18). And also: To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given (Matt. 13:11). Likewise: I give glory to you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding, and have revealed them to little children; yes, Father, because that was your pleasure (Matt. 11:25-26). Dordt, Rejection 1.8

 

[cygnusx1]

I did not 'become". I was born and brought up in a hate filled environment in NI.

If you are in the UK cygnus alive in the 70's you would know about it. Guilford 4, Birmingham 6. If not ask you parents.

OK

yes , I am old enough to remember , so you were brought up in Northern Ireland in some sort of sectarian church that you claim were Hypers ? and from a bad experience/s you formed your theology ? right .

 

[Pinkman]

yes , I am old enough to remember , so you were brought up in Northern Ireland in some sort of sectarian church that you claim were Hypers ? and from a bad experience/s you formed your theology ? right .

WRONG

I am trying to form it now.

 

[heymikey80]

OF which I don't believe. Decades on from that I do not hate. I have learnt from experience not to.

I have also learnt from experience to question why we did what we did. Why we believe some religious rigmarole. Which is why I have the doubts I do. Especially about Calvinism. Of which this board is so inconsistent about.

Ask a straight question .....

There's no lack of consistency here. There's simply a refusal on your part to release your own definitions, which themselves don't stand up to scrutiny.

Your experience is not based on the religious view of John Calvin. It's based on claimants to Calvinism you grew up with. That's radically different, one from another.

Were I you, I would toss Christ Himself due to the crimes of His followers in the Inquisition and the St. Bart's Day Massacre, as well as numerous other offenses throughout history. But that would be an ad-hominem attack in the extreme. This wasn't Christ.

And an Ulster Unionist was not Calvin.

 

[ConsumedByHisCall]

They're equivalent due to the following sequence of deduction:
God knows everything His creation will do.
God empowers everything His creation will do.
God's power and knowledge are perfectly organized by God's intent, or will.
=> God intends everything His creation will do.

Philosophical man made logic, but no biblical support for the concept of God's determination of all human choices. Permission maybe, but not predetermination.

God condemns of all sin with eternal torment.
All are born with sin through Original Sin.
=> God punishes the entire human race for their sin with eternal torment.
God intends everything in creation.
=> God intended to punish the entire human race for their sin with eternal torment.

Once again you leave out the so-called "genuine" appeal of his enemies to be reconciled, along with the many expressions of desire and patience for such a response.... I know that is a little pesky fact you'd rather not have to deal with, but non-the-less, it remains.

 

[heymikey80]

Philosophical man made logic, but no biblical support for the concept of God's determination of all human choices. Permission maybe, but not predetermination.

Logic is simply the description of the meaning communicated by words and concepts. So you're saying God's words are meaningless? Mkay. My response is that your answer is meaningless, and God's meaningful.

Once again you leave out the so-called "genuine" appeal of his enemies to be reconciled, along with the many expressions of desire and patience for such a response.... I know that is a little pesky fact you'd rather not have to deal with, but non-the-less, it remains.

Sure, enemies are converted. Enemies are reconciled. But not all enemies.

The sheriff may appeal as earnestly as he wishes, but the unchanging don't change.

Once again you leave out the fact that the logic is simple and it stands as deductive reasoning. I know this is a pesky fact you'd rather not have to deal with, but non-the-less, it remains.

 

[ConsumedByHisCall]

I'm saying that your man-made finite logic regarding an infinite's God's dealing with man is meaningless.

 

[Pinkman]

Once again you leave out the fact that the logic is simple and it stands as deductive reasoning. I know this is a pesky fact you'd rather not have to deal with, but non-the-less, it remains.

Logic ! Human logic even. I usually ask questions but I will assert something here.


God's logic is infinitely grater that any humans. Including Calvinists. In most of the posting of skala and mike. Logic is appealed to more often than not. Its mostly combated with - Scripture. Jesus love... God.

mike- Sure, enemies are converted. Enemies are reconciled. But not all enemies.

Scripture - With God, anything is possible

 

[Pinkman]

Summary of this thread - Understanding Calvinim

It seems that Hyper Calvinism is wrong. E.g Robot/puppet theory - God did not create sinners. Calvin's Terrible decree is also wrong.

No God passes over the sinners. Cyg tells us that "The Lord ministers to the reprobate".

The big problem with this is repeatedly ignored. When did he Lord ministers to the reprobate ? Cyg does not know or if he does he is not telling.

This sounds good as it gets around the other big problem of who is responsible for sin.

But it starts to sound like 'age of responsibility". Post start to fly over several threads to bury this idea.

We debate the other big problem. Babies dying in infancy. BB's terrible decree.

More Thread flooding. And we get back God decrees everything.

Umm - thought he permitted humans to sin and passed over them after ministering to them.

Apparently all Catholics are wrong ( mike80) . All Orthodox are wrong as well.

( Cynical thought. They used the original greek texts. Prots use Jerome's later Latin)

Oh -all non Calvinists are wrong as well, oh and hyper Calvinists, and even Spurgeon on his 1516 sermon.





So the $64 billion question to this thread - Understanding Calvinism - Do we now understand Calvinism ?


I think the world and his dog does.

I'm of to church now.

 

[Pinkman]

Scripture - With God, anything is possible

God bless you all

 

[cygnusx1]

Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God (John 1:13).

​

Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures (James 1:18).

​

And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped God, heard us: whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul (Acts 16:14).

​

The king's heart is in the hand of the LORD, as the rivers of water: he turneth it whithersoever he will (Prov. 21:1).

​

For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy (Rom. 9:15-16).

 

[Pinkman]

This Baby has just survived open heart surgery.
But any baby just like this one are in the calvinist mind

"Totally depraved".

"Speaking evil from the womb"

BB tells us in his most revolting " its a murderer, a thief".



No wonder why Calvinism is in the position it is.

 

[cygnusx1]

No God passes over the sinners. Cyg tells us that "The Lord ministers to the reprobate".

The big problem with this is repeatedly ignored. When did he Lord ministers to the reprobate ? Cyg does not know or if he does he is not telling.

.

start by reading Matthew 5 , then Romans 1-2 , then Jonah .

Got that ? good.

 

[rturner76]

Let's see what these scriptures say about it and I'll us the best context I can.

2 Timothy 3:15 (2 Timothy 3)

and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.


Here it talks about a learning involved with growing in faith as a relationship more than a predetermined outcome. It think it's the relationship with God that was the focus of Christ's message carried in the early days of Christianity.



Therefore I endure everything for the sake of the elect, that they also may obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.

How many see this verse, it's one of the proofs of a certain message, let's continue to read.

The saying is trustworthy, for:
If we have died with him, we will also live with him;
if we endure, we will also reign with him;
if we deny him, he also will deny us;
if we are faithless, he remains faithful—
for he cannot deny himself.
(2 Timothy 2:10-13 ESV)


this seems to be talking about a continual walk with Christ. Not a predetermined list, written on before time began. Salvation is coming either way, is it delivered to you, or do you deliver yourself to Christ in response to his already given sacrifice for you. The sacrifice has already been made.

 

[cygnusx1]

Let's see what these scriptures say about it and I'll us the best context I can.

2 Timothy 3:15 (2 Timothy 3)

and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.


Here it talks about a learning involved with growing in faith as a relationship more than a predetermined outcome. It think it's the relationship with God that was the focus of Christ's message carried in the early days of Christianity.



Therefore I endure everything for the sake of the elect, that they also may obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.

How many see this verse, it's one of the proofs of a certain message, let's continue to read.

The saying is trustworthy, for:
If we have died with him, we will also live with him;
if we endure, we will also reign with him;
if we deny him, he also will deny us;
if we are faithless, he remains faithful—
for he cannot deny himself.
(2 Timothy 2:10-13 ESV)


this seems to be talking about a continual walk with Christ. Not a predetermined list, written on before time began. Salvation is coming either way, is it delivered to you, or do you deliver yourself to Christ in response to his already given sacrifice for you. The sacrifice has already been made.

so you think if you stop walking your lost ?

 

[rturner76]

You are never lost in your walk with Christ