What about these men?

[EmSw]

You have no idea what you're talking about.

Let endurance have its perfect work, that you may be mature and complete, lacking nothing.

 

[Albion]

I have never understood the single predestinarian view - not hyper Calvinism - that God predestined the elect but passed over the non elect. I don't get it. This is no different IMO to the hyper view, that God predestined the reprobate ( I.e God is the author of sin).

The practical difference is nil, but there is a theological or philosophical difference.

Double Predestination keeps God in charge of everything and, therefore, it seems consistent and comprehensive. BUT it also means that God, whom we confidently argue is not the author of sin, becomes responsible for imposing sin upon the reprobate.

Single predestination solves that problem by leaving the person to his own devices, which in reality means that he will fail anyway since he does not have the benefit of God's grace or any way of avoiding the consequences of his sins. But at least we can't say that God did it to him.

 

[EmSw]

The practical difference is nil, but there is a theological or philosophical difference.

Double Predestination keeps God in charge of everything and, therefore, it seems consistent and comprehensive. BUT it also means that God, whom we confidently argue is not the author of sin, becomes responsible for imposing sin upon the reprobate.

Single predestination solves that problem by leaving the person to his own devices, which in reality means that he will fail anyway since he does not have the benefit of God's grace or any way of avoiding the consequences of his sins. But at least we can't say that God did it to him.

How do you know God isn't leaving you to your own devices? How do you know God has chosen you? What if God's predestination is to give you delusions of faith and salvation?

 

[Albion]

How do you know God isn't leaving you to your own devices? How do you know God has chosen you? What if God's predestination is to give you delusions of faith and salvation?

I was commenting on a difference between double and single predestination.

 

[Patmos]

The practical difference is nil, but there is a theological or philosophical difference.

Double Predestination keeps God in charge of everything and, therefore, it seems consistent and comprehensive. BUT it also means that God, whom we confidently argue is not the author of sin, becomes responsible for imposing sin upon the reprobate.

Single predestination solves that problem by leaving the person to his own devices, which in reality means that he will fail anyway since he does not have the benefit of God's grace or any way of avoiding the consequences of his sins. But at least we can't say that God did it to him.

Hi Albion

This does not work for me. No man choses to be born. We are told all men are born totally depraved; which they could not chose either. Having it forced on one that his only devices is to not just sin but to be born that way and to be totally unable to repent, or even comprehend what that meant, puts the responsibility on God alone.

As you said above, he does not have "any way of avoiding".

An analogy is a drowning man who would reach out for the life belt if some hooligan had not hidden/stolen it. The hooligan may not be responsible for pushes the man in the lake but he is responsible for his death.In the real world this is how some void a murder rap by pleading guilty to manslaughter.

(You might say the 'foresight/faith view' is no different, in essence IMO it is not.)

 

[EmSw]

I was commenting on a difference between double and single predestination.

Are you an Anglican Calvinist?

If so, which group of Reformed teachings do you believe?

 

[Albion]

Hi Albion

This does not work for me. No man choses to be born. We are told all men are born totally depraved; which they could not chose either. Having it forced on one that his only devices is to not just sin but to be born that way and to be totally unable to repent, or even comprehend what that meant, puts the responsibility on God alone.

As you said above, he does not have "any way of avoiding".

An analogy is a drowning man who would reach out for the life belt if some hooligan had not hidden/stolen it. The hooligan may not be responsible for pushes the man in the lake but he is responsible for his death.In the real world this is how some void a murder rap by pleading guilty to manslaughter.

(You might say the 'foresight/faith view' is no different, in essence IMO it is not.)

Hi, Patmos. Bear in mind that I was just commenting there, not promoting anything.

But as to the point you raise, it looks right at first to say that God isn't imposing anything on the person who didn't choose to be born and, worse, to be born depraved, sinful, and estranged from God. It's thanks to God that he's here at all. But OTOH, I suppose it can be argued that we are all born in that condition because Adam and Eve left us in this state. For his part, God made mankind to be good. It wasn't his fault that we aren't that way anymore.

 

[Albion]

Are you an Anglican Calvinist?

If so, which group of Reformed teachings do you believe?

I was merely clarifying the argument made by some who are called, rightly or wrongly, Hyper-Calvinists.

I myself am an Anglican (as you can see on my profile). I don't know any Anglicans who would correctly be called "Anglican Calvinists" and I think you'd have to look very carefully to find any.

 

[ClothedInGrace]

So, would you say, Calvinism is based upon truth and upon lies? Would you say some in Calvinism are telling lies? For what reason would you say God ordained these lies in His church?

Truth, because I believe Calvinism is true. God has clearly ordained that there be different interpretations of the scriptures for some reason or another. Do you believe that your interpretation is 100% accurate and that anyone who disagrees is a liar? I'm sorry to inform you EmSw, but the Church has not yet been made perfect; we all have misunderstandings of our own about what the scripture teaches, and we are all striving to find the truth.

 

[nobdysfool]

NF, which division of Calvinism is teaching the truth? Surely you know.

I don't waste my time trying to discern which group is correct, and which group is not. I follow what I have seen in the Scriptures, that is my core, that is my base, to follow Jesus, share the Gospel, and live my life to be pleasing to Him, and to follow His will for my life.

For some reason, that is not enough for you. Please tell me why you think you have the right to stick your nose into my life, and give me grief about what I believe, WHEN YOU DON'T REALLY KNOW WHAT I BELIEVE?

If you had been paying attention, I gave you a 10,000 foot overview of where I stand. But you didn't see it, did you?

Now, you're claiming that there are all these different "branches" of Calvinism, which to me is a stealth admission that you DON'T know what Calvinism is, so now you're trying to divide things up, in the hopes that somehow you can claim some sort of hollow "victory" over Calvinism in one small area which you will then magnify to claim that you have shot Calvinism full of holes, which would be a blatant falsehood. You are stirring up strife where there doesn't need to be any. Is the Holy Spirit leading you to do that? No, He is not. Your entire approach is off-putting, rude, and belligerent. You don't understand how to be approachable and persuasive. All you know is how to get in peoples' faces, and try to shame them. Is that like Jesus?

Get this through your noggin. We are not Pharisees, and you're not Jesus.

 

[Patmos]

Hi, Patmos. Bear in mind that I was just commenting there, not promoting anything.

Understood

But as to the point you raise, it looks right at first to say that God isn't imposing anything on the person who didn't choose to be born and, worse, to be born depraved, sinful, and estranged from God. It's thanks to God that he's here at all.

I do not think so. What is best, never to have existed or spend eternity in hell? What would you choose?

But OTOH, I suppose it can be argued that we are all born in that condition because Adam and Eve left us in this state. For his part, God made mankind to be good. It wasn't his fault that we aren't that way anymore.

Nope. Definitely not working for me. The immutable, all powerful God who predestined all things before the foundation of the world, made mankind good, as you say above. So where did he go wrong if it is not that way any more. Sounds like he was not all powerful after all and his predestination was not that effective.

And Abel also brought an offering--fat portions from some of the firstborn of his flock. The LORD looked with favor on Abel and his offering, Gen 4:4

By faith Abel brought God a better offering than Cain did. By faith he was commended as righteous, when God spoke well of his offerings. Heb 11:4

Born in sin because of Adam and Eve, and God commended Abel righteous!

Here is my, biased - Arminian, logic (not that I have all the answers).
for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, Rom 3:23
A baby leaves its mothers womb good. Should the baby not survive I do not believe God concludes "this human has not repented so off to hell with it, after all it sinned ..." Or, to put a different way, the baby is not condemned because of its ancestry, Ezekial comes to mind. Sure the baby grows and matures and at some point wilfully sins per Romans 3:23.

That is a short and brief outline that I am sure some want to shoot down in flames. I said above I do not have all the answers. For me this is a better interpretation than double predestination and also single predestination which to me is not much different than double.

Thanks for your reply to my original post.

 

[Patmos]

.....
I myself am an Anglican (as you can see on my profile). I don't know any Anglicans who would correctly be called "Anglican Calvinists" and I think you'd have to look very carefully to find any.

I did find one once a long time ago. He was a Rector at the time but has since become a Vicar. He lent towards the Calvinist framework but would never preach anything overtly TULIP from the platform. I grilled him hard and the bottom line was "its a mystery". I.e the same bottom line for me. Who has known the mind of God ?

I concur with you, one would have to look very hard to find one, even in High Anglicanism.

 

[Patmos]

What I'm saying is I don't blindly follow people. Spurgeon and Calvin aren't my authority; the Bible is.

Apologies for being picky.

 

[Albion]

I did find one once a long time ago. He was a Rector at the time but has since become a Vicar. He lent towards the Calvinist framework but would never preach anything overtly TULIP from the platform. I grilled him hard and the bottom line was "its a mystery". I.e the same bottom line for me. Who has known the mind of God ?

I concur with you, one would have to look very hard to find one, even in High Anglicanism.

Certainly it would be even harder among Anglo-Catholics. But I also take the claim, when I hear it, with the proverbial grain of salt for this reason...it's almost always put to me as it was here, i.e. "Calvinist." To me, agreeing with 4 or 5 of the TULIP points doesn't make one a "Calvinist" anyway. That's just one part of what makes a person a Calvinist, and you just about never run into an Anglican who's a Puritan these days!

 

[EmSw]

Truth, because I believe Calvinism is true. God has clearly ordained that there be different interpretations of the scriptures for some reason or another. Do you believe that your interpretation is 100% accurate and that anyone who disagrees is a liar? I'm sorry to inform you EmSw, but the Church has not yet been made perfect; we all have misunderstandings of our own about what the scripture teaches, and we are all striving to find the truth.

If God has ordained different interpretations, then this is the cause for much confusion, bitterness, and lies among believers. If God has ordained believers to believe and promote lies, then He goes directly against His commandment not to bear false witness.

No, I do not claim to be accurate in my interpretation, but I do not accuse God to be the reason for my shortcoming. I am urged to hide His word in my heart, urged to study for myself, urged to come to the Light, urged to hear, and urged to ask, seek, and knock. If I am incorrect, I am responsible, and do not blame God for ordaining me to interpret scriptures incorrectly.

You say God ordains that there be different interpretations, and then turn around and say we all have misunderstanding of our own. Which is it CIG, God's ordination or your own misunderstanding? If God has ordained you to misinterpret scripture, how will you come to the truth? Will you defy His ordination?

 

[EmSw]

I don't waste my time trying to discern which group is correct, and which group is not. I follow what I have seen in the Scriptures, that is my core, that is my base, to follow Jesus, share the Gospel, and live my life to be pleasing to Him, and to follow His will for my life.

Do you not test the spirits to see whether they are of God? If you do not, how do you know whether or not you are following false prophets?

1 John 4:1
Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.

For some reason, that is not enough for you. Please tell me why you think you have the right to stick your nose into my life, and give me grief about what I believe, WHEN YOU DON'T REALLY KNOW WHAT I BELIEVE?

I have no idea about your life. How can I 'stick my nose' in what I know nothing about?

If you want to play the victim, go right ahead. However, I wonder why you don't accept God's predestination about your life. You so much want to fight it. Why not blame God for what you are going through? It is His plan for you.

If you had been paying attention, I gave you a 10,000 foot overview of where I stand. But you didn't see it, did you?

Again, quit complaining and accept God's plan for you life. Don't blame me; I didn't plan this for you.

Now, you're claiming that there are all these different "branches" of Calvinism, which to me is a stealth admission that you DON'T know what Calvinism is, so now you're trying to divide things up, in the hopes that somehow you can claim some sort of hollow "victory" over Calvinism in one small area which you will then magnify to claim that you have shot Calvinism full of holes, which would be a blatant falsehood.

Do you not believe there are divisions among Calvinism? I am not dividing Calvinism; they do that themselves. Are you a hyper-Calvinist? If not, why did you not choose this 'branch' of Calvinism?

You are stirring up strife where there doesn't need to be any. Is the Holy Spirit leading you to do that? No, He is not. Your entire approach is off-putting, rude, and belligerent. You don't understand how to be approachable and persuasive. All you know is how to get in peoples' faces, and try to shame them. Is that like Jesus?

Can I not test the spirits to see if they are false prophets or not?

Again, quit playing the victim and accept God's plan for your life.

 

[com7fy8]

It is to see how the Reformed deal with those who leave Calvinist. It is my belief that either Total Ability (T) or Preservation of the elect (P) in TULIP is compromised.

EmSw, you say "Total Ability". To my knowledge - - according to Calvinist belief, "T" does not mean "Total Ability", but Total Depravity. And "Total Depravity" can be tailored to mean what it does not mean, so people can criticize TULIP people. What I have read in a Calvinist writing did not match with how certain people have represented Calvinists to mean by "Total Depravity".

So, I suppose "Preservation of the elect" can be misunderstood and misrepresented. If we disagree with something, I understand that God wants us to correctly represent what people believe while disagreeing with them.

So, have you given your understanding of "Preservation", along with an actual quote of the official Calvinist representation of it? Or, have you been disagreeing with third-party representations?

Speaking for myself, I do not personally know John Calvin so I could really know what he meant by what he has spoken or written. People writing history and interpretations could be not understanding him correctly, for all I know. So, I see what I get through prayer and the Bible, but knowing I am not perfect at prayer and receiving how God has me understanding things. So, I will simply offer what I have.

I think "total dependence" is more like it >

"Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think of anything as being from ourselves, but our sufficiency is from God," (2 Corinthians 3:5)

From this, I see that we humans do not have any ability of our own selves to wish or will or do or get anything really right. So, we are totally dependent on God and His grace which is the action of His own love effecting our nature and behavior and lives. No being less than God can produce all that is really right and of real love, and no being less than God is capable of oneself even wishing this, really and honestly. But God in us works what is right, for both willing and doing >

"for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure." (Philippians 2:13)

Even before Adam and Eve fell, while they still were perfect as creatures, it was not their nature to be and stay how God's love is. Only Jesus ever was meant to be the first truly perfect Human on this earth. We all have never had a chance.

This I see from reading the Bible and from how well I have seen humans getting themselves to even wish to be perfect in love; in any case, I have seen my own failure.

Now, is this what Calvinists mean by "T"? I can't speak for people I don't even know personally. But this to me means how I need to constantly and fully rely on God, at every moment submitting to Him . . . but how He in me has me succeeding in this, with no self-propulsion, at all!

About "P"erseverance of the saints > @EmSw > Em, you seem to say that if a person leaves Calvinism, this means the person has not persevered the way Calvinists believe the elect will persevere. Well, I consider that mainstream Calvinists might understand that a person who doesn't persevere either was not truly saved, in the first place, or the person is elect but change of beliefs, alone, would not mean the person has quit, but only changed in one's ideas. But I'll bet not all Calvinists, themselves, have the same ideas about this So, I would let each person speak for oneself, and not assume that certain people speak for everyone, only because they claim that all believe what they do.

I understand that if a person truly trusts in Jesus (Ephesians 1:12), this person will persevere. So, if one is not of God, the person could for a while think he or she is, or be pretending on purpose. And if the person becomes a Christian while understanding Calvinist people's teachings, the person could grow to learn more and better which is in the Bible, then leave behind any Calvinist items which do not match with how the person discovers the Bible.

Ones, by the way, can put on quite the drama that they are sincere. If you have ever watched a movie, perhaps you know how an actor can have you experiencing the actor to be someone who that actor is not, at all. So, you being convinced by how someone acts . . . or writes . . . means how much??

The Bible says there are people who have left because they never were children of God, in the first place > 1 John 2:19. But does this mean only changing from certain beliefs of a group? I think it means leaving Jesus Christ after making some indication of being a Christian. It is saying ones who leave God's people were never with Christ, really, in the first place, I consider > 1 John 2:19.

"But he who is joined to the Lord is one spirit with Him." (1 Corinthians 6:17)

If a person is "joined" spiritually to Jesus Himself, I understand the power of this union is almighty so the person can not get away from Jesus. And in this union, the power of the Holy Spirit wins out over how the person's own nature is, so that the person changes to become obedient and therefore incapable of disobeying God to the point of totally getting away from Him. But the person is not perfectly like Jesus, right away. We grow in God's love; but our union with Him Himself got us started, at the time we trusted in Jesus.

So, Biblical persevering of God's people means we keep on getting more of God's correction (Hebrews 12:4-11) of His love's perfection (1 John 4:17). And if we sin, we can get very homesick, very quickly; because sinning degrades us from Jesus Christ's "rest for your souls" (Matthew 11:28-30) which we are experiencing and appreciate so dearly and deeply. So, perseverance includes how we are growing in God's own love with His own Heavenly goodness in us > Romans 5:5. I do not know if John Calvin says anything about this, or if TULIP people do. But I find this in the Bible and my personal experience

 

[nobdysfool]

Do you not test the spirits to see whether they are of God? If you do not, how do you know whether or not you are following false prophets?


1 John 4:1
Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.

I do not follow any man. I follow Jesus and His Word.

I have no idea about your life. How can I 'stick my nose' in what I know nothing about?

You're always telling me and others what we believe.

If you want to play the victim, go right ahead. However, I wonder why you don't accept God's predestination about your life. You so much want to fight it. Why not blame God for what you are going through? It is His plan for you.

Stupid talk. You don't know what I believe. And, you don't understand predestination, either.

Again, quit complaining and accept God's plan for you life. Don't blame me; I didn't plan this for you.

More stupid talk.

Do you not believe there are divisions among Calvinism? I am not dividing Calvinism; they do that themselves. Are you a hyper-Calvinist? If not, why did you not choose this 'branch' of Calvinism?

No I am not a hyper-Calvinist. All your talk of 'branches' of Calvinism is idiotic.

Can I not test the spirits to see if they are false prophets or not?

Again, quit playing the victim and accept God's plan for your life.

The last person in this world I would ever take advice from is you. You are accusing me of things I have never said and do not believe. This is divisiveness on your part, on display. You are doing exactly what I said you do. You are proving me right.

.

 

[ClothedInGrace]

If I am incorrect, I am responsible, and do not blame God for ordaining me to interpret scriptures incorrectly.

You say God ordains that there be different interpretations, and then turn around and say we all have misunderstanding of our own. Which is it CIG, God's ordination or your own misunderstanding? If God has ordained you to misinterpret scripture, how will you come to the truth? Will you defy His ordination?

I don't blame God either, because God's ordination doesn't mean that I'm not responsible; men are responsible to seek the truth and if a person in their heart is rejecting the scriptures and not seeking the truth then they will be held accountable. God's ordination is the simple fact that everything that happens is within His control and predestined plan; it is not a command that a man can discover and then willingly defy. You said you have talked with many Calvinists, and yet you still don't know that we believe in the responsibility of men? I've not met a Calvinist who believes men aren't responsible, though I know some form of Hyper-Calvinism may believe this.

 

[Albion]

EmSw, you say "Total Ability". To my knowledge - - according to Calvinist belief, "T" does not mean "Total Ability", but Total Depravity. And "Total Depravity" can be tailored to mean what it does not mean, so people can criticize TULIP people. What I have read in a Calvinist writing did not match with how certain people have represented Calvinists to mean by "Total Depravity".

That's very true.

Now, is this what Calvinists mean by "T"? I can't speak for people I don't even know personally. But this to me means how I need to constantly and fully rely on God, at every moment submitting to Him .

My understanding is that we are, in our natural state, estranged from God and not deserving of salvation on account of anything that's of ourselves. "Total dependence" may be a way of saying it that doesn't stress our sinful condition, but I think you are saying approximately the same thing.

About "P"erseverance of the saints > @EmSw > Em, you seem to say that if a person leaves Calvinism, this means the person has persevered the way Calvinists believe the elect will persevere.

Yeh, I agree that this point that's stuck in his craw doesn't show an understanding of the meaning of TULIP and, IMHO, comes close to not even making sense.