Jesus was not an Arminian

[JackSparrow]

...

None of the quotes say anything about God, by positive action, preventing someone from coming to Him in repentance. Sure you see the difference.

....

Really !!!!


"For all are not created in equal condition;"

creating is a positive action. Hardly just passing on by. Creating someone for destruction IS preventing .

I cannot follow your logic. Sometime you say God ordains ALL things. Other times deny it.

 

[Skala]

Hard line ? Most confessions and also Dortd quote or paraphrase Calvin. It was Beza who was the hard line Calvinist.

As with anything, you must define "double predestination" before you can start labeling people.

RC Sproul points out that predestination may be "double", but it is not equal/symmetrical.

It is true, based on the definition of the word "predestination" (a destination you are headed to) that every person is predestined to either heaven or hell. That's true no matter what one's soteriology is. Even for our Arminian/synergists, that is true. Every person is headed to one or the other no matter what one's soteriology.

If a Calvinist claims to believe "double predestination", it may simply mean that he understands this. Or it could mean that God predestines the reprobate to hell, but not in the same way he predestines the elect to heaven.

When he predestines the elect to heaven, it is because God intervenes and positively works and acts to save that man (who would have ended up in hell otherwise)

However when he predestines the reprobate to hell, it isn't because he positively intervenes and acts to force that man to go to hell - the man is already going there anyway because he is a fallen sinner. Instead, God simply lets him have his way and lets him remain in his unbelief and lusts.

Thus, the two situations are not symmetrical because in the one, God actively works to change a man's fate, in the other he simply lets the man do what he wants to - stay in rebellion.

Thus, I believe in double predestination. But I realize that the two are not symmetrical. In the one, God actively intervenes to save. In the other, he simply "gives them over to their desires" which is exactly what Paul said He would do.

Plan B is a straw man.

How?

Genesis leaves a lot unsaid. Hence I think it best NOT to be too dogmatic apart from remembering that God is not the author of sin.

You'd make a fine Calvinist, as we don't believe God is the author of sin.

 

[JackSparrow]

As with anything, you must define "double predestination" before you can start labeling people.

Stop right there Skala. Crimson mentioned Calvin being a double predestinarian. I did not label anyone.

 

[JackSparrow]

As with anything, you must define "double predestination" before you can start labeling people.

RC Sproul points out that predestination may be "double", but it is not equal/symmetrical.

It is true, based on the definition of the word "predestination" (a destination you are headed to) that every person is predestined to either heaven or hell. That's true no matter what one's soteriology is. Even for our Arminian/synergists, that is true. Every person is headed to one or the other no matter what one's soteriology.

If a Calvinist claims to believe "double predestination", it may simply mean that he understands this. Or it could mean that God predestines the reprobate to hell, but not in the same way he predestines the elect to heaven.

When he predestines the elect to heaven, it is because God intervenes and positively works and acts to save that man (who would have ended up in hell otherwise)

However when he predestines the reprobate to hell, it isn't because he positively intervenes and acts to force that man to go to hell - the man is already going there anyway because he is a fallen sinner. Instead, God simply lets him have his way and lets him remain in his unbelief and lusts.

Thus, the two situations are not symmetrical because in the one, God actively works to change a man's fate, in the other he simply lets the man do what he wants to - stay in rebellion.

Thus, I believe in double predestination. But I realize that the two are not symmetrical. In the one, God actively intervenes to save. In the other, he simply "gives them over to their desires" which is exactly what Paul said He would do.



How?



You'd make a fine Calvinist, as we don't believe God is the author of sin.

Crimson is right when he pointed out Calvin was a double predestinarian. Positively creating the reprobate.

Plan B is not an Arminian doctrine taught by Arminius nor Wesley.

Glad we agree on the author of sin issue.

 

[JackSparrow]

If my memory is correct, both nobdysfool and behe's boy said they were double predestinarians.

However correct me if I am mistaken. I am not searching back through my earlier posts.

 

[Skala]

Really !!!!


"For all are not created in equal condition;"

creating is a positive action. Hardly just passing on by. Creating someone for destruction IS preventing .

I cannot follow your logic. Sometime you say God ordains ALL things. Other times deny it.

My point remains, none of the people you quoted actually said that God prevents someone from coming to him in repentance.

What you are implying is that a man could want to repent and believe, but God is putting his hands out saying "NO! I DID NOT ELECT YOU!!"

That being said, the Bible is clear that God created everything, even the wicked for the day of evil (Prov 16:4)

And again we are told that some men "stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do" 1 Pet 2:8

Further, only if one is an open theist could he/she consistently say that God didn't create some men to end up in hell. Even in your own soteriology, Jack, you must admit this. Consider:

God knows all things, and knows the future
God knows that if he creates the human race, many will end up in hell
God have chosen to not create the human race, or he could have chosen to only create those ones who would not end up in hell
Despite knowing that some will end up in hell, God still decided to create even the people he knew would end up in hell
Thus by creating them, God sealed their fate
He could have chosen not to, but He did

No honest person can escape this.

 

[JackSparrow]

I am in red text

My point remains, none of the people you quoted actually said that God prevents someone from coming to him in repentance.
John Calvin said e.g this :

"We call predestination God's eternal decree, by which he compacted with himself what he willed to become of each man. For all are not created in equal condition; rather, eternal life is fore-ordained for some, eternal damnation for others." and much more besides just this qoute. JC's exponds that God DOES prevent man from repenting.

What you are implying is that a man could want to repent and believe, but God is putting his hands out saying "NO! I DID NOT ELECT YOU!!"
No, not me. John Calvin, WCF, Dordt etc.

That being said, the Bible is clear that God created everything, even the wicked for the day of evil (Prov 16:4)


And again we are told that some men "stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do" 1 Pet 2:8
And now you - Skala

Further, only if one is an open theist could he/she consistently say that God didn't create some men to end up in hell.

Even in your own soteriology, Jack, you must admit this. Consider:

God knows all things, and knows the future
God knows that if he creates the human race, many will end up in hell
God have chosen to not create the human race, or he could have chosen to only create those ones who would not end up in hell
Despite knowing that some will end up in hell, God still decided to create even the people he knew would end up in hell
Thus by creating them, God sealed their fate
He could have chosen not to, but He did

No honest person can escape this.

Yes Skala I do admit and agree with most of what you say. This is a big problem for both sides. I have quoted BB Warfield many times already who said much the same as you.

I am interested as you used he word fate as when I question theistic fatalism (not humanist fatalism ) most calvinist were not in favor.

IMO this is where both Calvinism and Arminianism run into difficulties. For me God is outside time. Outside our finite abilities. God has more choices than only Arminianism and Calvinism. It is a mystery and not given to man to know.

 

[cygnusx1]

I don't think God has any choices in an Arminian world ..... He seems absent almost always especially when you need him , then when he isn't absent He is passive , just watching .

Under the Calvinist world view God is everywhere

 

[JackSparrow]

I don't think God has any choices in an Arminian world ..... He seems absent almost always especially when you need him , then when he isn't absent He is passive , just watching .

Under the Calvinist world view God is everywhere

God is not limited by what you think. Especially as you have limited/zero knowledge of non Calvinist world views.

 

[cygnusx1]

Hard line ? Most confessions and also Dortd quote or paraphrase Calvin. It was Beza who was the hard line Calvinist.


Please elucidate the differences between permissive will vs decretive will.


Plan B is a straw man.

Genesis leaves a lot unsaid. Hence I think it best NOT to be too dogmatic apart from remembering that God is not the author of sin.
But then we have been here before.

How is plan b a straw man ?

Either God worked everything around His Son , including Adams fall or he did not .

Seems to me either God intended the first Adam to head up humanity and when that plan failed He then proceeded with plan b , or God had one plan that included Adams demise for the sake of Christ

 

[JackSparrow]

CX1 - Ill debate with skala as I believe you are trolling.

Apologies if I am mistaken.

 

[cygnusx1]

CX1 - Ill debate with skala as I believe you are trolling.

Apologies if I am mistaken.

You can debate with whom you like and I am free to post when and where I like in an OPEN FORUM , it's good to exercise my freedom , trolling is not just a label to stick at anyone you find difficult to agree with btw

 

[cygnusx1]

God is not limited by what you think. Especially as you have limited/zero knowledge of non Calvinist world views.

You have no idea what knowledge of none Calvinist world views I have .

And God is not limited by what you think or what you don't think either .

 

[JackSparrow]

You have no idea what knowledge of none Calvinist world views I have .

I have an idea based on what you post regarding non Calvinists.

And God is not limited by what you think or what you don't think either .

Quite right. As I have pointed out many times. God is infinite. Man is finite.

Now back to agreeing with Skala a few posts back

This also affirms.

Lesson 4 – The Decrees of God


"Ultimately we cannot truly solve the problem of sin’s permission since God has not revealed the details explaining what he says he has done. There is no question concerning the fact of its permission since that is directly revealed. The problem we face has to do with God’s employment of the evil deeds of creatures as a part of his certain plan. Even the Arminian concedes that God foreknows all things, including the advent of sin and its consequences. A.A. Hodge explains, “He (the Arminian) is unable as the Calvinist is to explain why God, notwithstanding that certain knowledge, did not change those conditions.”

 

[cygnusx1]

I have an idea based on what you post regarding non Calvinists.


Quite right. As I have pointed out many times. God is infinite. Man is finite.

Now back to agreeing with Skala a few posts back

This also affirms.

Lesson 4 – The Decrees of God


"Ultimately we cannot truly solve the problem of sin’s permission since God has not revealed the details explaining what he says he has done. There is no question concerning the fact of its permission since that is directly revealed. The problem we face has to do with God’s employment of the evil deeds of creatures as a part of his certain plan. Even the Arminian concedes that God foreknows all things, including the advent of sin and its consequences. A.A. Hodge explains, “He (the Arminian) is unable as the Calvinist is to explain why God, notwithstanding that certain knowledge, did not change those conditions.”

Permission is an act of the will , God chooses which sins to permit , He's in control

 

[Skala]

I am in red text

JC's exponds that God DOES prevent man from repenting

I think we are talking about two different things.

How can God be said to prevent someone from repenting if that person has no desire to repent to begin with? You can't really stop someone from doing something that they will never do and have no intention of doing in the first place.

Further, how does your own position escape this dilemma? Obviously, we both believe God created men who He knew would end up in hell. If you aren't an open theist, then your own view has just as many "problems" as these imagined Calvinism problems.

IMO this is where both Calvinism and Arminianism run into difficulties. For me God is outside time. Outside our finite abilities. God has more choices than only Arminianism and Calvinism. It is a mystery and not given to man to know.

You seem to think there's a middle ground. Can you explain how it differs from Arminianism?

As for Calvinism, there is no mystery. It's pretty simple and straightforward: God is God and He does whatever He pleases.

 

[crimsonleaf]

Sorry, been away for a couple of days.

I seem to have inadvertently given the impression that I was backing away from some of the things Calvin said. Unfortunately, irony comes across badly on the interwebz and my description of Calvin as a "hard-line Calvinist" was intended as a joke. I hope that I've cleared that up. I'll read on and keep up.

 

[JackSparrow]

.....
You seem to think there's a middle ground. Can you explain how it differs from Arminianism?

No I cannot. I do not go along with the view that God saves because he foreknew, as this for me raises more questions than it answers. So I am precluded from being an Arminian. Maybe I am the equivalent of a Christmas Calvinist.

As for middle ground. Is this Molinism ? I have been intending to look this up but so far have not had time to do so.

 

[cygnusx1]

^ it's not too difficult to ascertain .

Do you accept Total depravity , unconditional election , irresistible grace , and perseverance of the saints ?

No ?
Didn't think so ( except maybe OSAS) so a Christmas Calvinist you are not .

Molinism lacks biblical backing , it's a philosophical theorem where God is said to know only what can be known ,, hypotheticals are unknowns , so middle knowledge has God learning new info

Humans have middle knowledge , God doesn't

 

[JackSparrow]

^ it's not too difficult to ascertain .

Do you accept Total depravity , unconditional election , irresistible grace , and perseverance of the saints ?

No ?
Didn't think so ( except maybe OSAS) so a Christmas Calvinist you are not .

Molinism lacks biblical backing , it's a philosophical theorem where God is said to know only what can be known ,, hypotheticals are unknowns , so middle knowledge has God learning new info

Humans have middle knowledge , God doesn't

NO NO NO

The Arminian equivalent. I.E I do not accept all the points of Arminianism.

Flip