The Witness of the Apostles Refutes Calvinism, Predestinationism

[MuffinTheMan]

"...for if he does come, and my authority be of any avail, I shall never suffer him to depart alive."

John Calvin, speaking of Michael Servetus

Acroe, clearly you have a bone to pick here against "Calvinists," so I have a few things to say.

First, John Calvin was not perfect--big shocker.

Second, you may be surprised to know that none of us here (that I know of) worship John Calvin or even believe in the doctrines of grace because of John Calvin. Many of us have come to understand the doctrines of grace by actually studying Scripture--not the works of John Calvin.

Third, you also may be shocked to know that not all of us agree with John Calvin in everything he believed. He happened to hold the view of paedobaptism, and I'm sure I'm not the only "reformed" member here who disagrees with this view of baptism. We also might happen to disagree on when it is or is not appropriate to kill someone.

It would be nice if we could focus on what Scripture teaches instead of what various theological systems teach (especially when these systems are constantly misrepresented).

 

[Arcoe]

Acroe, clearly you have a bone to pick here against "Calvinists," so I have a few things to say.

First, John Calvin was not perfect--big shocker.

Second, you may be surprised to know that none of us here (that I know of) worship John Calvin or even believe in the doctrines of grace because of John Calvin. Many of us have come to understand the doctrines of grace by actually studying Scripture--not the works of John Calvin.

Third, you also may be shocked to know that not all of us agree with John Calvin in everything he believed. He happened to hold the view of paedobaptism, and I'm sure I'm not the only "reformed" member here who disagrees with this view of baptism. We also might happen to disagree on when it is or is not appropriate to kill someone.

It would be nice if we could focus on what Scripture teaches instead of what various theological systems teach (especially when these systems are constantly misrepresented).

Thank you Muffin for stating the obvious. Every man has free will in choosing to believe what they desire. Not even those who vehemently oppose free will can escape choosing from their own free will.

As far as John Calvin, these are the words he actually said after regeneration; a person who believes wrong, lives wrong. I am glad you don't worship Calvin, but his very thoughts are tightly interwoven within your beliefs. Since you don't worship Calvin, then I'm sure the words in my signature do not bother you in the least.

I have to respectfully disagree with you, in that you understand the doctrines of grace by studying the Bible. Who would understand the majority of Calvinists' doctrines except he heard or read it explained from another source?

I have heard of NO ONE, in all my 50+ years of living and being around thousands of believers, come to understand John 3:16 as God loving only the elect and that Jesus died for them only. I am fairly sure no Calvinist alive today came to this conclusion either, except he first heard or read it explained from another source.

How does one come to the conclusion that God chose only certain ones to obtain salvation, and not others, leaving them to go to hell without remedy? You will not get that studying only the Bible; you must hear or read it from man's words.

Who, from reading the Bible alone, would come to the same conclusions as TULIP? Who? I can guarantee no one on this board reached the conclusions of TULIP reading only the Bible.

 

[Damian Newman]

What you are proposing now is middle knowledge and while philosophically speaking I could accept such a thing, it's just something that we do not find in Scripture, I'm not saying I understand God, far be it from me a lowly person to say such a thing, I am saying that based on what God has revealed through Scripture this is what is true.

Am I? I didn't even know of such a thing. Well, I suppose I must be a Molinist now. I'm happy to be ignorant of the philosophical and theological world of man, though, and keep myself aligned with Christ alone.

What you believe God has revealed through Scripture is not going to be what I believe, nor is it going to be for many other people.
'Scripture doesn't say that, it says this' is the most often repeated statement of believers I've noticed. I suspect this has gone on for centuries. I'm going to take note of this ongoing past division and avoid repeating the same mistake. I don't mean to offend you, by the way.

Read on in Psalm 139:

"For You formed my inward parts; You wove me in my mother’s womb. I will give thanks to You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; wonderful are Your works, and my soul knows it very well. My frame was not hidden from You, when I was made in secret, and skillfully wrought in the depths of the earth; Your eyes have seen my unformed substance; and in Your book were all written the days that were ordained for me, when as yet there was not one of them." - Psalm 139:13-16

It seems to me that it's talking about God ordaining David's conception and birth, and knowing his life before it happened. I don't see how this says God knows all because He has determined everything that will happen, rather than God just being all knowing.
I'm not a scholar, though, so I won't pretend I know for sure. I just believe God knows everything - determined and undetermined futures included.

Calvinism and the like are trying to explain the unexplainable. They are stepping in waters that are far beyond what any of us can understand. The best they can do is cram it into a system, made by man for man, so our little minds won't burst. But in doing so they will inevitably leave out some things, and thus, won't have the real truth of the matter. Partial truth isn't good, and the whole truth is only found looking through humble eyes that can accept the mystery of God.

"O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!"

The Bible contains the living Word of God. Reading it, we should let it speak to us in the way it should: spiritually - not philosophically or theologically. God wants us to be concerned about the teachings He has sent to us, not the vain studies of wise men, especially those that place our infinite Creator under their uninspired discernment.

The Word of God is for us to live for and through. It's a guide, a survival book if you will. It's meant for our lives today. The testimony of the Lord Jesus Christ is simple, and it's a shame that believers have been caught up in cyclical, empty, and unrewarding arguments that so many non-believers practice themselves. The arguments in this thread alone almost mirror the types of self-righteous debates non-believers have over philosophical issues, including the argument of God's non-existence.

I'm not saying that I'm better than any of you, however, or even that you should stop studying such things. I just think that man-made doctrines, philosophy and systematic theologies don't mix with God's Word.

 

[Keachian]

Who, from reading the Bible alone, would come to the same conclusions as TULIP? Who? I can guarantee no one on this board reached the conclusions of TULIP reading only the Bible.

While I will admit that you are right for me, I did have to have help in understanding it. I will say this, that in part looking back on it my mind was actively fighting against the Holy Spirit in denying him, denying what he has done in me bringing me to God on high. I relented as I rightly should have, can you not see that you are fighting against the Holy Spirit?

 

[gmm4j]

Along with knowing everything that is, God also knows all things possible. The knowledge of what could have been or could be is proof that foreknowledge is not causative. It also proves man’s ability to choose. For example: God foreknew that Adam would choose to disobey and that the Fall would take place, and He permitted it to happen, but He did not cause it. Free actions do not take place because they are foreseen, but they are foreseen because they will take place. Unless of course you believe as John Calvin, who has been quoted as saying that God predestined the fall of Adam.

“Again they object: were they not previously predestined by God’s ordinance to that corruption which is now claimed as the cause of condemnation? When, therefore, they perish in their corruption, they but pay the penalties of that misery in which Adam fell by the predestination of God, and dragged his posterity headlong after him. Is he not, then, unjust who so cruelly deludes his creatures? Of course, I admit that in this miserable condition wherein men are now bound, all of Adam’s children have fallen by God’s will. And this is what I said to begin with, that we must always at last return to the sole decision of God’s will, the cause of which is hidden in him.” (Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion, 3:23.4)

Instead, Scripture reveals the will of God.

Genesis 2:16-17
And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."

Genesis 3:17
To Adam he said, "Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat of it,'

Scripture shows that God knows the consequences of all possible decisions, but He does not directly cause a person to make one decision over another. The choice is yours.

1 Samuel 23:9-12
When David learned that Saul was plotting against him, he said to Abiathar the priest, "Bring the ephod." 10 David said, "O LORD, God of Israel, your servant has heard definitely that Saul plans to come to Keilah and destroy the town on account of me. 11 Will the citizens of Keilah surrender me to him? Will Saul come down, as your servant has heard? O LORD, God of Israel, tell your servant." And the LORD said, "He will." 12 Again David asked, "Will the citizens of Keilah surrender me and my men to Saul?" And the LORD said, "They will."

In this instance God gives David insight into what would happen if David chose to stay in Keilah. Because David asked, God gave him inside information that would enable him to make a wise decision, but God did not make David choose one option over the other. The things that God said could have happened did not because David chose to leave.

Matthew11:21
Woe to you, Korazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes.

Matthew 11:23
And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted up to the skies? No, you will go down to the depths. If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom, it would have remained to this day.

Isaiah 48:18-19
If only you had paid attention to my commands, your peace would have been like a river, your righteousness like the waves of the sea. 19 Your descendants would have been like the sand, your children like its numberless grains; their name would never be cut off nor destroyed from before me.

Again, God has knowledge of the possible as well as the actual and He certainly foreknows the future.

 

[crimsonleaf]

I have heard of NO ONE, in all my 50+ years of living and being around thousands of believers, come to understand John 3:16 as God loving only the elect and that Jesus died for them only. I am fairly sure no Calvinist alive today came to this conclusion either, except he first heard or read it explained from another source.

Both Calvinists and Arminians believe that the elect are those who believe in God.

Scripture doesn't say:

(Joh 3:16) "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that the world should not perish but have eternal life."

It says:

(Joh 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."

God gives a condition for salvation. Now you have to explain why, if God loved the whole world, He then creates the majority of its population in the certain knowledge that they'll go to hell.

Because THAT's the question that I'VE never heard answered by a non-Calvinist...

 

[Arcoe]

Both Calvinists and Arminians believe that the elect are those who believe in God.

I won't disagree, but I said no one reads John 3:16 as meaning God only loves only the elect of the world.

Scripture doesn't say:

(Joh 3:16) "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that the world should not perish but have eternal life."

No, it doesn't say that, but all those in the world, of whom He loved each and every one of them, who believe will not perish.

It says:

(Joh 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."

Again, I've heard no one but a Calvinist say He loves only the elect.

God gives a condition for salvation. Now you have to explain why, if God loved the whole world, He then creates the majority of its population in the certain knowledge that they'll go to hell.

Everyone He loves in the world will have an opportunity and the ability to meet that condition. So the blame is squarely on man's shoulders. Dismissing the free will of man, necessitates interpreting 'God loves the world' as something other than what He said.

Because THAT's the question that I'VE never heard answered by a non-Calvinist...

You have now.

 

[Keachian]

Arcoe, you're not actually dealing with how Calvinists view John 3:16,

God loves world, God sends son, elect believe, elect do not perish.

The whole reason we even "insert" elect believe into what is going on is that the passage doesn't deal with who can and cannot believe and so the abuse of this text by synergists to say that all have the ability to believe needs to be addressed.

 

[gmm4j]

"Jesus loves the little children,
All the children of the world,
Red and yellow, black and white,
They are precious in His sight,
Jesus loves the little children of the world."

Herman: Well, that song was quite obviously written by an Arminian.
Calvin: Why do you say that?
Herman: Well, the song says that Jesus loves "all" the little children of the "world". That is what Arminians believe, that Christ died for all and loves the world in such a way that He truly desires all to believe in Christ and be saved.
Calvin: Oh, well you have just misunderstood the context of the song.
Herman: What do you mean?
Calvin: Well, the context plainly demonstrates that "all" doesn't mean "every child without exception."
Herman: It doesn't?
Calvin: Of course not. Look at the one line that says, "Red and yellow, black and white".
Herman: Okay
Calvin: Well, it seems obvious to me that when he says "all the children of the world" he only means all the different colors of children in the world. You see, he is really concerned about racism and guarding against the false teaching that Jesus might only love red children and not any of the others, etc.
Herman: Is that right? I never realized that?
Calvin: Well, most people don't, but that is just because they pay no attention to context. That is why God gave us Reformed theologians to explain these things. I could give you a good book by a Calvinist where he spends about twenty pages explaining why "all the children of the world" really means "only a relatively few children from among all the various races of the world".
Herman: Wow, it is amazing to me that I never realized that before. I think I would like to read that book. Thank God he didn't leave us on our own to interpret songs like this or we might come to some really bizarre conclusions. Imagine, if I had never talked to you I would have gone on just foolishly believing that the song was saying that Jesus actually loved "all" the children of the "world". Thanks for your help.
Calvin: No problem. That's what I'm here for.

 

[Arcoe]

Arcoe, you're not actually dealing with how Calvinists view John 3:16,

God loves world, God sends son, elect believe, elect do not perish.

The whole reason we even "insert" elect believe into what is going on is that the passage doesn't deal with who can and cannot believe and so the abuse of this text by synergists to say that all have the ability to believe needs to be addressed.

I don't have to insert anything; I take it as it is written.

 

[vette 10]

"Jesus loves the little children,
All the children of the world,
Red and yellow, black and white,
They are precious in His sight,
Jesus loves the little children of the world."

Herman: Well, that song was quite obviously written by an Arminian.
Calvin: Why do you say that?
Herman: Well, the song says that Jesus loves "all" the little children of the "world". That is what Arminians believe, that Christ died for all and loves the world in such a way that He truly desires all to believe in Christ and be saved.
Calvin: Oh, well you have just misunderstood the context of the song.
Herman: What do you mean?
Calvin: Well, the context plainly demonstrates that "all" doesn't mean "every child without exception."
Herman: It doesn't?
Calvin: Of course not. Look at the one line that says, "Red and yellow, black and white".
Herman: Okay
Calvin: Well, it seems obvious to me that when he says "all the children of the world" he only means all the different colors of children in the world. You see, he is really concerned about racism and guarding against the false teaching that Jesus might only love red children and not any of the others, etc.
Herman: Is that right? I never realized that?
Calvin: Well, most people don't, but that is just because they pay no attention to context. That is why God gave us Reformed theologians to explain these things. I could give you a good book by a Calvinist where he spends about twenty pages explaining why "all the children of the world" really means "only a relatively few children from among all the various races of the world".
Herman: Wow, it is amazing to me that I never realized that before. I think I would like to read that book. Thank God he didn't leave us on our own to interpret songs like this or we might come to some really bizarre conclusions. Imagine, if I had never talked to you I would have gone on just foolishly believing that the song was saying that Jesus actually loved "all" the children of the "world". Thanks for your help.
Calvin: No problem. That's what I'm here for.

wow so much nonesense

 

[Keachian]

I don't have to insert anything; I take it as it is written.

No you don't, you insert the idea that all have the ability to believe, while the verse says that all who do believe will be saved. There is a nuanced difference between the two ideas.

 

[janxharris]

Both Calvinists and Arminians believe that the elect are those who believe in God.

Scripture doesn't say:

(Joh 3:16) "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that the world should not perish but have eternal life."

It says:

(Joh 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."

God gives a condition for salvation. Now you have to explain why, if God loved the whole world, He then creates the majority of its population in the certain knowledge that they'll go to hell.

Because THAT's the question that I'VE never heard answered by a non-Calvinist...

God's conscience will be clear if every man (without exception) had a real chance to believe and be saved. That God knows everything cannot be used as evidence against Him that He is unjust.

The Calvinist has an infinitely more difficult question to answer: if God withholds that without which salvation is impossible He is unjust is He not?

Thankfully, this obviously isn't the case.

 

[janxharris]

wow so much nonesense

Would you expound on where the nonsense is please?

 

[JackSparrow]

wow never heard that before

Read Calvin's institutes.

BTW how was your holiday ?

 

[Keachian]

God's conscience will be clear if every man (without exception) had a real chance to believe and be saved.

God's actions are just, no matter what the actions, his conscience is clear because his actions are just, why are you subjecting God to your reasoning? His ways are higher than our ways.

That God knows everything cannot be used as evidence against Him that He is unjust.

So why do you use it in that way? You say above that God's conscience will be clear if every man has a chance to believe and be saved, that to me is saying that God would be unjust if he didn't do so. So in essence because God knows who is and who isn't going to come to saving faith, men do not have a real chance and so by your reasoning he is unjust.

The Calvinist has an infinitely more difficult question to answer: if God withholds that without which salvation is impossible He is unjust is He not?

God is just, God is the definition of Just, all notions of justice, all notions of mercy, all definitions of all of morality have God as the true north standard, he is not held to some objective standard apart from himself, he IS the standard.

 

[JackSparrow]

That way of stating it doesn't answer my question, no offense intended: Do Calvinists believe that God knows all by already determining all that will be?

I welcome an answer from all, Calvinists and non-Calvinists alike.

Yes.

John Calvin states

God ... arranges all things by his counsel, in such a way that individuals are born, who are doomed from the womb to certain death...

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.”

Westminster Confessions, Dort etc confirm.

 

[janxharris]

God's actions are just, no matter what the actions, his conscience is clear because his actions are just, why are you subjecting God to your reasoning? His ways are higher than our ways.

You don't seriously stand by this do you? I think, perhaps, that you mean that whatever God does, it will be seen to be moral, even if it did not once appear to be so.

So why do you use it in that way? You say above that God's conscience will be clear if every man has a chance to believe and be saved, that to me is saying that God would be unjust if he didn't do so. So in essence because God knows who is and who isn't going to come to saving faith, men do not have a real chance and so by your reasoning he is unjust.

?

It would be obviously unfair if God, for no good reason, withheld that which was necessary for a man's salvation - especially if, as is the case, He urges mankind to turn to Him and believe (and does so, endlessly, throughout scripture).

Of course, God has not actually withheld salvation but, in your view and doctrine, what was the reason for withholding salvation progmonk?

God is just, God is the definition of Just, all notions of justice, all notions of mercy, all definitions of all of morality have God as the true north standard, he is not held to some objective standard apart from himself, he IS the standard.

God is just but the doctrines of Calvin paint an awful picture of Him. If Calvin were proven correct in his estimation of God then that would indeed be a awful day.

 

[janxharris]

God's actions are just, no matter what the actions, his conscience is clear because his actions are just, why are you subjecting God to your reasoning? His ways are higher than our ways.


So why do you use it in that way? You say above that God's conscience will be clear if every man has a chance to believe and be saved, that to me is saying that God would be unjust if he didn't do so. So in essence because God knows who is and who isn't going to come to saving faith, men do not have a real chance and so by your reasoning he is unjust.


God is just, God is the definition of Just, all notions of justice, all notions of mercy, all definitions of all of morality have God as the true north standard, he is not held to some objective standard apart from himself, he IS the standard.

And the question:
If God withholds that without which salvation is impossible He is unjust is He not?

 

[JackSparrow]

And the question:
If God withholds that without which salvation is impossible He is unjust is He not?

Also not truthful. E.g

Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.