Does going against John Calvin mean going against God?

[Cormack]

So “does going against Calvinism mean going against God?” To the hardcore Calvinist yes, even the late R.C. Sproul taught young believers that if they didn’t buy into his definition of sovereignty, which means determinism, they might as well be atheists.

AKA ‘the fool hath said in his heart, “there is no Calvinism!”’

 

[Derf]

Many people do consider Calvinism “just the way it is,” so yes, to disagree with Calvin’s doctrine wouldn’t be much different than disagreeing with the plan of things that God’s already set in motion.

God would have provided the deterministic scheme of things while men like Calvin and Augustine have articulated those things to varying levels of success.

Though even in that scheme of things God would’ve been the one who predetermined the activities of even the most aggressive opponents of Calvinism, meaning there’s no such thing as meta disobedience to God, just a superficial resisting of his plan and stated purposes (while wholly conforming to his secret purposes.)

Sinners can’t be disobedient to God in any meaningful way, because (at least under Calvinism) they’re always operating in line with one of the wills of God, either his explicit will in obeying and believing, or his secret will by disobeying his commands as he always planned that they would.

So “does going against Calvinism mean going against God?” To the hardcore Calvinist yes, even the late R.C. Sproul taught young believers that if they didn’t buy into his definition of sovereignty, which means determinism, they might as well be atheists.

I agree with you, but I have to tout the opposite: Going against Calvinism is doing what God wants some of us to do, therefore
1. Going against Calvinism IS going against God, and
2. Going against Calvinism is NOT going against God.

If you agree with both those statements, congratulations, you’re a Calvinist!

 

[Cormack]

1. Going against Calvinism IS going against God, and
2. Going against Calvinism is NOT going against God.

Flawless logic. Surely godz ways are far above our puny popcorn kernel minds

 

[Gregory Thompson]

It probably was murder to the Egyptians. But the post that brought it up was asking why God didn't deal with Moses on it, thus, we're talking about whether it was murder in God's eyes.

So then, it is okay to kill people if God tells you to?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Sausage is evidence of a meat grinder. You can't have one without the other. I will probably never see the actually grinder that made my store-bought sausage, but the end product gives evidence for the process.

The outcome of UR is the evidence of the process that you claim does not exist. Here it is again.

Anyone who has knees to bow and a tongue to speak, in heaven and on earth and under the earth (in the realm of the dead), will whole-heartedly, and without reservation, acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord. No one can say that “Jesus is Lord,” except by the Holy Spirit. If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” you will be saved. Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living. (the reason for the bodily resurrection) Scriptural support below.

Philippians 2:10-11
that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11 and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.

1 Corinthians 12:3
Therefore I want you to know that no one who is speaking by the Spirit of God says,
“Jesus be cursed,” and no one can say, “Jesus is Lord,” except by the Holy Spirit.

Romans 10:9
If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart
that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

Romans 14:9
For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that
he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living.

Note on "acknowledge" in Philippians 2:11 from Strong's Concordance
S1843 eksomologéō (from 1537 /ek, "wholly out from," intensifying 3670 /homologéō, "say the same thing about") – properly, fully agree and to acknowledge that agreement openly (whole-heartedly); hence, to confess ("openly declare"), without reservation (no holding back).

Further reading: (Isaiah 45:23, Romans 14:11, Philippians 2:10, Revelation 15:4)

There will be nobody who is able to stand against the obvious, "when God shows up". They will be undone. Terrified. They will acknowledge the obvious, because they cannot do otherwise. THIS DOES NOT SAVE THEM.

You are claiming the gospel will be offered and "accepted" by those who are not regenerated.

You are also following a sequence of verses with a common theme, concerning those who are alive in this temporal life, not resurrected, as though the same principles apply after the resurrection.

Can you also explain why those who are condemned, and sentenced at the judgement, are not saved at that point, if they have acknowledged that Jesus is Lord?

But what I was getting at with my earlier comment is the fact that those who you say will be ultimately saved, have nothing but your sequence of verses and your use of other verses to show ultimate salvation —yet nothing showing God's use for them after they escape perdition (or however that works). You claim the grinder, but have no hamburger to show for it. So far, it sounds to me like confirmation bias

 

[Derf]

So then, it is okay to kill people if God tells you to?

Was it ok for the Israelites to kill the Canaanites?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Consider this.

Exodus 4:18-20 NRSV
Moses went back to his father-in-law Jethro and said to him, “Please let me go back to my kindred in Egypt and see whether they are still living.” And Jethro said to Moses, “Go in peace.” 19 The Lord said to Moses in Midian, “Go back to Egypt; for all those who were seeking your life are dead.” 20 So Moses took his wife and his sons, put them on a donkey, and went back to the land of Egypt; and Moses carried the staff of God in his hand.

What does that prove?

 

[Mark Quayle]

I think most people are looking at God through the wrong end of the binoculars.

The Bible says that Moses was a murderer. Did God seem the least bit concerned about that? Not even a side note while giving the Ten Commandments. God sent Moses back to Egypt. Was it to own up to his act of murder?

I don't remember the Bible saying Moses was a murderer. I remember him killing an Egyptian in defense of an Israelite.

 

[Cormack]

They will be undone. Terrified. They will acknowledge the obvious, because they cannot do otherwise.

Which is the antithesis of libertarian freewill, because when our theology removes the ability to do otherwise everything gets boiled down to the will of the only being who can make choices freely. Unless like many Calvinists you also believed that God doesn’t possess libertarian freedom in himself.

You are claiming the gospel will be offered and "accepted" by those who are not regenerated.

That’s an important addition because (under Calvinism) lost sinners can’t accept Gods cynical “offer” of believing and receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit without being regenerated first. Right?

Sinners according to Calvinists don’t believe in order to receive, instead the orders reversed. Sinners in the hands of an angry God can’t believe and they can’t love God until he believes in and loves them first. @Saint Steven doesn’t share your presupposition though, not so far as I’ve read.

According to Calvinism God hated sinful humanity an eternity before sinful humanity hated God, and now there’s no break in the deadlock until God behaves like God and shows his trademark mercy to the lost and incapacitated sinners.

Saint Steven’s faith, hope and doctrine is that God will behave like God and extend the opportunity for life, love and communion with Him, an opportunity that you believe he’s always denied to some and continues to deny going into forever.

If however there’s absolutely zero chance at life or forgiveness for these people, then God has forestalled and ultimately withheld the deepest depth of his mercy, which leads to the charge that God’s been hateful, capricious and arbitrary in how he’s dealt with humankind.

Calvinists being committed to their doctrines can’t agree with the above, nor can they refute the points since they follow logically from their own theology.

As we’ve exchanged before @Mark Quayle, and since I’ve read from most of the big name Calvinists, I know that the only reply they produce from here on out is to punt towards mystery and their own grand piety at having believed such sad things (e.g. moral incapacity to respond positively to God from birth.)

Not meaning to write about anyone in the topic (because it’s usually unhelpful,) Calvinists are often guilty of arrogance and theatre. They’ve used their ugly, counter intuitive beliefs to exalt themselves over their fellow man, and most shamefully above Christians (usually in the form of their spiteful treatment of the much maligned Arminians.)

 

[Saint Steven]

So then, it is okay to kill people if God tells you to?

WWAD?

What would Abraham do? - lol

 

[Saint Steven]

There will be nobody who is able to stand against the obvious, "when God shows up". They will be undone. Terrified. They will acknowledge the obvious, because they cannot do otherwise. THIS DOES NOT SAVE THEM.

That is NOT the definition of the word "acknowledge" in this scripture.

Note on "acknowledge" in Philippians 2:11 from Strong's Concordance
S1843 eksomologéō (from 1537 /ek, "wholly out from," intensifying 3670 /homologéō, "say the same thing about") – properly, fully agree and to acknowledge that agreement openly (whole-heartedly); hence, to confess ("openly declare"), without reservation (no holding back).

Philippians 2:10-11
that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11 and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.

 

[Saint Steven]

You are claiming the gospel will be offered and "accepted" by those who are not regenerated.

You are also following a sequence of verses with a common theme, concerning those who are alive in this temporal life, not resurrected, as though the same principles apply after the resurrection.

Can you also explain why those who are condemned, and sentenced at the judgement, are not saved at that point, if they have acknowledged that Jesus is Lord?

Nope. The regeneration will come first. Thus fitting your requirement. Imagine that. - lol

The sequence of verses are spiritual principles that apply no matter which side of the grave you are on. Did you expect that all the principles of spiritual life would vanish in the afterlife?

The condemnation is to be regenerated. Mercy is always a choice in sentencing. Is God merciless, or merciful? (mercy-less or mercy-full) I'll go with the latter.

And again, the acknowledgement that Jesus is Lord is the outcome of regeneration.

Besides, salvation is something God does, not something we do. Everyone is already saved, but not everyone has "realized" it yet. Salvation is an act of God, not an act of humankind. It is by grace that you HAVE BEEN saved. This is NOT of yourselves, but is the GIFT of God. (so none can boast)

 

[Saint Steven]

But what I was getting at with my earlier comment is the fact that those who you say will be ultimately saved, have nothing but your sequence of verses and your use of other verses to show ultimate salvation —yet nothing showing God's use for them after they escape perdition (or however that works). You claim the grinder, but have no hamburger to show for it. So far, it sounds to me like confirmation bias

On the contrary. There is plenty of evidence for the restoration of all of creation and the redemption of all humankind. Here's a short list below. Plenty more where that came from. (the Bible) Your "God's use" for humanity claim is what seems baseless to me. As if God needs us?

1 John 2:2
He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.

Romans 11:32
For God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.

Titus 2:11
For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people,

1 Timothy 4:10
That is why we labor and strive, because we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all people, and especially of those who believe.

1 John 4:14
And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world.

1 Corinthians 15:22
For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.

 

[Saint Steven]

What does that prove?

Moses was a murderer, but God made no issue of it. God protected Moses from human justice for his crime. Why was the sin of murder not dealt with?

Saint Steven said: ↑
Consider this.

Exodus 4:18-20 NRSV
Moses went back to his father-in-law Jethro and said to him, “Please let me go back to my kindred in Egypt and see whether they are still living.” And Jethro said to Moses, “Go in peace.” 19 The Lord said to Moses in Midian, “Go back to Egypt; for all those who were seeking your life are dead.” 20 So Moses took his wife and his sons, put them on a donkey, and went back to the land of Egypt; and Moses carried the staff of God in his hand.

 

[Saint Steven]

I don't remember the Bible saying Moses was a murderer. I remember him killing an Egyptian in defense of an Israelite.

Do you also not remember that killing people is murder?

 

[Saint Steven]

If however there’s absolutely zero chance at life or forgiveness for these people, then God has forestalled and ultimately withheld the deepest depth of his mercy, which leads to the charge that God’s been hateful, capricious and arbitrary in how he’s dealt with humankind.

Oh my. That's gold right there. Well said, my friend.

 

[Hmm]

Besides, salvation is something God does, not something we do. Everyone is already saved, but not everyone has "realized" it yet. Salvation is an act of God, not an act of humankind. It is by grace that you HAVE BEEN saved. This is NOT of yourselves, but id the GIFT of God. (so none can boast)

Calvanists would agree with that if you replaced "everyone and "humankind" with "the Elect". I suppose they need to diminish God's grace in this way so they can accommodate their beliefs in ECT and predestination - so it's logical, it's just that the logic is applied to faulty premises which leads to such strange conclusions.

 

[Saint Steven]

Bottom line: there's evidence that Moses was righteous in slaying the Egyptian, even if others didn't think he was.

But if he was in the right, why did he flee Egypt?

 

[Saint Steven]

Calvanists would agree with that if you replaced "everyone and "humankind" with "the Elect". I suppose they need to diminish God's grace in this way so they can accommodate their beliefs in ECT and predestination - so it's logical, it's just that the logic is applied to faulty premises which leads to such strange conclusions.

Yes, they "diminish God's grace". That's a great way to say it. Thanks.
Like accusing God of being miserly with grace. Bah, humbug!

 

[Hmm]

Yes, they "diminish God's grace". That's a great way to say it. Thanks.
Like accusing God of being miserly with grace. Bah, humbug!

It's the only way they can do it. If ECT and predestination (no free will) is more sacred to you than the idea that God is love and loves all equally, then you'll find it easy to discard the latter if it becomes an obstacle to your preferred doctrines. Calvanists know, like anyone else, that the idea of predestination to hell is not a loving action but instead of giving this up they choose (oddly, as they have no free will) instead to abandon the simple biblical truth that God loves all and is not willing that any should perish.