Is Calvinism a heresy?

[Xeno.of.athens]

"Does God know who will be damned?"

The Catholic Church teaches that God knows all things, including who will be damned. However, this knowledge is not a determining factor in a person's salvation or damnation. Rather, the Catholic Church emphasizes that every person has the free will to choose whether to accept or reject God's grace, and that this choice ultimately determines their eternal destiny.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states, "God predestines no one to go to hell; for this, a wilful turning away from God (a mortal sin) is necessary, and persistence in it until the end." (1037) This means that while God may know who will ultimately choose to reject His grace, this decision is not imposed by God, but rather is made freely by the individual.

In addition, the Catholic Church teaches that God is a God of love, who desires all people to be saved. (1 Tim 2:4) This is why the Church offers the sacraments, such as the Eucharist and Confession, as means of receiving God's grace and assistance in choosing to follow Him.

In conclusion, while God knows all things, including who will be damned, the Catholic Church emphasizes the importance of free will in determining a person's eternal destiny. The Church encourages all people to respond to God's grace and to live a life of love and service to others, in accordance with His will.

 

[Mark Quayle]

"How does that pan out for the good that pagans and atheists do? Or is all their goodness filthy rags, nothing but wickedness all the time?"

( @DialecticSkeptic here eliminating "non-Calvinists" from what @Xeno.of.athens had written...)

Not that it changes the argument much, but it should be said, here, that the apparent 'good', and indeed everything rendered by the lost is, at least by motivation, evil. This is Total Depravity. It is not just "not good". It is done from a heart, a mind, at enmity with God.

If I missed something and this comment is redundant, I apologize.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Basically, yes. Xeno claimed that Roman Catholics believe, in contrast to Calvinism, that "individuals have the ability to make choices independently of divine or supernatural influence" (source). The problem was his claim that there's a contrast, because there isn't one. I was highlighting the falsehood of his statement by pointing out the fact that both Roman Catholics and Calvinists believe the same thing here. He was attempting to portray the Roman Catholic position as the better option, but when it comes to that question—whether humans can make choices apart from divine influence—both sides believe the same thing. How does that make Roman Catholicism better than Calvinism? It doesn't.

I don't know if it's on purpose or not but Xeno is kind of sneaky. As he did there, he tends toward ascribing some entirely biblical idea to Roman Catholicism and presenting it as being "in contrast to" the teachings of Calvinism when it's actually something that Calvinism likewise teaches. (The confusion is the result of the contrast often being false equivalence fallacies, wherein he says in essence, "Calvinism teaches [insert metaphorical apples here], whereas Roman Catholicism teaches [insert metaphorical oranges here].")

Exactly what "choices" does Xeno think humans can make independent of divine influence? And what does he mean by "divine influence" anyway? There is too much ambiguity and I worry that it's on purpose, but as it stands Calvinism likewise teaches that "individuals have the ability to make choices independently of divine or supernatural influence." Either Xeno must admit that Calvinism teaches truth there or he has to pursue greater precision, which runs the risk of exposing the biblical strength of Calvinism and weakness of Roman Catholicism.

-- DialecticSkeptic

I guess my point in bringing it up is, that to what I understand, Calvinism would say "individuals have the ability to make choices independently of divine or supernatural influence" only if it is meant in terms of man's (and particularly the lost's, (or the 'old man'-within-the-saved's), choice in rebellion). I don't think Calvinism would say that man makes any choices uncaused, since God is at the very least first cause, and causation is pervasive —and I think it is to that, that @Xeno.of.athens was referring.

Maybe I'm wrong, having, from outside it, arrived at a theology so closely resembling Calvinism that I've thought it hardly distinguishable; one of my joys in it is that it eliminates any of these "sort of"-type statements and such thinking. (One of the reasons the Westminster Confession is beautiful is that it makes clear statements, leaving little question as to its meaning. Where there is question as to meaning, it explains in-text and not even in the margins or footnotes. The confessions of many others, including the RC, seem (to me, at least), to make the attempt to walk the top wire of the fence, between this and that, or worse, to straddle the fence.) But "individuals have the ability to make choices independently of divine or supernatural influence", to me, sounds really 'iffy'. To me, it can only be a true statement in terms of the fact that God does not effectively cause the lost to do an absolutely good thing; —baaaugh! Even that feels like equivocation, or explaining nothing.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

( @DialecticSkeptic here eliminating "non-Calvinists" from what @Xeno.of.athens had written...)

Not that it changes the argument much, but it should be said, here, that the apparent 'good', and indeed everything rendered by the lost is, at least by motivation, evil. This is Total Depravity. It is not just "not good". It is done from a heart, a mind, at enmity with God.

If I missed something and this comment is redundant, I apologize.

By non-calvinists I had in mind, at the time of writing, Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists and any other non-christian major religion as well as religions that style themselves as christian but are not so regarded by Catholics, such as Jehovah's witnesses, Latter Day saints, Christadelphians, Christian scientists, as well as seriously unorthodox Pentecostal groups such as oneness Pentecostals and some other Pentecostal groups whose orthodoxy has been questioned for good reasons. I am sorry for the choice of word, it was laziness on my part that led to it.

 

[jameslouise]

Can you admit to the chain of causation being entirely effective and pervasive?

Sounds like a basic semantic play to me. In the middle of this chain is me, myself making a choice of my own, my will completely, utterly and entirely my decision, so nothing can be entirely effective without crushing or negating me, as there is an element of me in it. One side of the chain was entirely effective in presenting Christ to me, but cannot be entirely effective in my response.
Not sure if you mean pervasive or persuasive? through a whole of my being? I do not understand the question if pervasive yes to persuasive.

 

[jameslouise]

Thank you. Cheers.




How? Is it because an unregenerate sinner can use it as an excuse to further his rebellion against God? Or because it portrays God in ways that are contrary to Scripture? Pick one. I'm your huckleberry. Let's get into this.




Otherwise of what? If you want me to show you something, you need to specify what.




No, not "just" people in authority. I was very clear, so I don't know how you missed it (source). As I explained—and here I will put it in other words—Paul was basically telling Timothy, "Prayers are to be offered on behalf of all people, by which I mean don't forget about kings and other people in authority. They are part of ‘all people’."

Again, everyone whom the Father gives to Jesus will come to him—including kings and emperors. Everyone who believes in the Son will not perish but have eternal life—even kings and emperors.




It was your regenerated will.

Dialepticskeptic answers my point that Calvinism would have put me off and does put other people off Christianity.: How? Is it because an unregenerate sinner can use it as an excuse to further his rebellion against God? Or because it portrays God in ways that are contrary to Scripture? Pick one. I'm your huckleberry. Let's get into this.

No, it s because a God who selectively decides who will be saved is not fair by all human judgement and this is off putting. Please do not reply that we know God is fair and his ways are higher than ours,etc this I know-that scenario is not fair. I will also point out that that' the 'father of lights' (James 1:17) and the 'us as spirits referred to in Acts 17:29 that I keep banging on about are synonyms and referring to us before our arrival on Earth. So even worse He doesn't predestine some of his 'children' to be conformed either. That sound like a 'God is love' God tto you?


Dialepticskeptic No, not "just" people in authority. I was very clear, so I don't know how you missed it (source). As I explained—and here I will put it in other words—Paul was basically telling Timothy, "Prayers are to be offered on behalf of all people, by which I mean don't forget about kings and other people in authority. They are part of ‘all people’.

I am confused so, 1 Tim 2 :4 says God wants everybody to be saved? You agree now? then why did'nt he predestine them all to be then?


Dialepticskeptic Again, everyone whom the Father gives to Jesus will come to him—including kings and emperors. Everyone who believes in the Son will not perish but have eternal life—even kings and emperors.

Where in you chain does this 'giving' take place? It seems to me you are saying it is right at the beginning-at the predestination point-'one for you . one for him'. one for you , one for him... How about those that ' the Father gives me' meaning He does the giving just before/coincident with/or just after salvation. i.e we are looked on as being given when we are one body.

As it is my will before salvation that gets me saved can you give me your scripture reference on a 'regenerated will before salvation'.?

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Can you admit to the chain of causation being entirely effective and pervasive?

The chain of causation may play a role in the workings of the created universe, it cannot be seen as the sole or ultimate determinant of an individual's salvation or damnation because both divine grace and human free will play important roles in the path to salvation and neither grace nor human free will are determined by a chain of causation that has its roots in creation. If one objects that the Divine Decree is not rooted in creation then how can one object if it is countered that the grace of free will is also not rooted in creation and hence is not determined by a chain of causation?

 

[Mark Quayle]

The chain of causation may play a role in the workings of the created universe, it cannot be seen as the sole or ultimate determinant of an individual's salvation or damnation because both divine grace and human free will play important roles in the path to salvation and neither grace nor human free will are determined by a chain of causation that has its roots in creation. If one objects that the Divine Decree is not rooted in creation then how can one object if it is countered that the grace of free will is also not rooted in creation and hence is not determined by a chain of causation?

I'm not sure if I follow your reasoning there. It seems to assume that all things need not have begun at creation. For one thing, once again, you show free will as something akin to libertarian free will, or at least of possessing some modicum of 'uncaused by God'.

I'm not a deist, for several pretty obvious reasons, but one reason I say they are wrong is because of a worldview that seems, to me, much like you are describing there:

1. If a deist believes that all fact descends by way of causation, from first cause —God— then rationally, God was specific in his causation, or there are other principles at play that do not descend from God, and the Deist hasn't thought through the implications of the term, 'first cause'. It is not rational, to me, anyhow, to suppose that God can "just create" and that things somehow fall out however they do. Specificity, or particularity, descends from specific, or particular, causes.

2. This one is a little more obscure to most people: The Aseity of God, The Simplicity of God, Omnipotence, Immanence, Omnipresence, Omniscience, and in a way, all the things we ascribe to God, not to mention the idea of his being unencumbered by time, have brought me to the realization that for God to have spoken all things —reality, even— into being, and that with the fact that we confess that he upholds all fact, and (again, his immanence) that all fact is "in him", means that it is no different to him to create than to be creating. That is, it is only creatures who consider it necessary to distinguish one from the other. And so he speaks to us in our temporal manner of thinking, for our sakes

#2 above doesn't work a way around causation, but rather, establishes it. It also implies that God does indeed have all causation in-hand. (It also affirms many other things that are not particularly relevant here, not the least of which is what I think of as the monergism of sanctification (Christian growth). Divine Grace is part of that immanence. But free will —not so much. To me the term is, frankly, a construction of our minds. Our choosing is, however, directly within chains of causation, whether God intrudes to deliver a special ability or not.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

I'm not sure if I follow your reasoning there.

The chain of causation is not revealed in holy scripture (no passage that I am aware of gives an account of a general law of cause and effect even though causes and effects are linked at times in ordinary events), though it is assumed to be true regarding many ordinary events. Causation is an observed phenomena and as such appertains to created things. The creator, being outside creation yet imminant in it, is not discoverable in any chain of causation that can be observed; God's causation must be revealed for us to be aware of it. That being so, human free will is, generally speaking, not revealed to be subject to God's direct causation. So, the reasoning is that an argument from created things to the uncreated is not sound. Hence human free will is a mystery; it may be caused by God but this is never revealed as the norm for human will. And grace too, being a divine gift, is not encompassed any observable chain of causation.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Sounds like a basic semantic play to me. In the middle of this chain is me, myself making a choice of my own, my will completely, utterly and entirely my decision, so nothing can be entirely effective without crushing or negating me, as there is an element of me in it. One side of the chain was entirely effective in presenting Christ to me, but cannot be entirely effective in my response.
Not sure if you mean pervasive or persuasive? through a whole of my being? I do not understand the question if pervasive yes to persuasive.

Pervasive. Meaning there is no escaping the fact and influence of it. All things except first cause, are caused. God spoke all fact into being.

That doesn't mean that you have no will and don't decide or choose. You certainly do. But your choices are not made in a vacuum. When you do as you do, you, like all other sentient creatures, do precisely what God 'already' spoke into being, or if it sits nicer with you, what God already spoke into fact. The "chain of cause and effect" just makes it easier for us to accept that fact. Seems to insulate us from God or something.

The chain of causation is not revealed in holy scripture (no passage that I am aware of gives an account of a general law of cause and effect even though causes and effects are linked at times in ordinary events), though it is assumed to be true regarding many ordinary events. Causation is an observed phenomena and as such appertains to created things. The creator, being outside creation yet imminent in it, is not discoverable in any chain of causation that can be observed; God's causation must be revealed for us to be aware of it. That being so, human free will is, generally speaking, not revealed to be subject to God's direct causation. So, the reasoning is that an argument from created things to the uncreated is not sound. Hence human free will is a mystery; it may be caused by God but this is never revealed as the norm for human will. And grace too, being a divine gift, is not encompassed any observable chain of causation.

Yet according to Romans 1 we have no excuse. His nature is visible to us in what exists, and, for that matter, in existence itself. Between that, common sense, and John 1 and others, yeah, I think it is in there. But I'll keep an eye out as I read. I might find something a step or two beyond the many accounts of God causing —even causing what we don't like to attribute to him.

Problem is that the arguments and discussions I've had with so many people at this point —even the courteous ones— end up with a sigh, logic fading off into the distance in favor of "mystery" or the noisy attempts to wipe logic off against the supposed walls of, "It's either causation, or freedom! Not both!" and "That doesn't sound like my God, who LOVES his creation!" and worse. I don't wear down, but I grow tired of it.

Most the time anymore I feel like I'm in a crusade against insidious Self-Determination, not against mere lack of reason. Sorry, I don't mean to rant at you about it. You don't come across to me like them, full of mocking and misrepresenting and mantra-repeating and red herrings, goalpost moving, and self-invented narratives, some of which are even claimed to be infallibly from the Spirit of God.

Anyhow, so! I feel better now. Thanks for listening.

We can continue.

The fact that fallen humanity tends to consider God theoretically, combined with its self-important self-deterministic worldview, to me is reason enough to think that what it assumes as 'brute fact' is most likely not. Reason —that is, logic— of course, confirms that there is only one 'brute fact', from another direction of thinking and, to my mind, is at least as valid in showing that whatever it is that we call "freewill" is necessarily caused, and that we CAN know this. I think Romans 1, in saying that "they knew God", confirms that we can know at least that he exists, and has shown himself to the degree that 'existence' existing, makes plain.

Most of my arguments follow this, in my opponents' attempts to ignore causation, instead of disproving its pervasiveness, and continuing with a narrative based on assumptions like I mentioned above, that man is not responsible for his actions if they are fated. (Haha! Shakespeare would disagree!)

 

[rturner76]

Yes Calvinism is a heresy

 

[Mark Quayle]

Yes Calvinism is a heresy

Then to answer in kind, "Arminianism is a heresy".

Are we getting somewhere?

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Then to answer in kind, "Arminianism is a heresy".

Are we getting somewhere?

Arminianism is a Protestant phenomena.

I suspect there may be a communication failure.

Yes Calvinism is a heresy

The Church does not define Calvinism as a heresy but it does note that elements in Calvinism are errors that the Catholic church rejects.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Arminianism is a Protestant phenomena.

I suspect there may be a communication failure.

My bad. I had not noticed that @rturner76 was RC.

Nevertheless, his take on the beliefs/teachings of Calvinism (that they/it are/is heresy), to me imply that he agrees with the particular Arminian tenets that I object to. I do say Arminian, not as a denomination, but as a mindset of Self-Determination to the exclusion of God's sovereignty and immanence and what I consider their necessary implications.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

My bad. I had not noticed that @rturner76 was RC.

Nevertheless, his take on the beliefs/teachings of Calvinism (that they/it are/is heresy), to me imply that he agrees with the particular Arminian tenets that I object to. I do say Arminian, not as a denomination, but as a mindset of Self-Determination to the exclusion of God's sovereignty and immanence and what I consider their necessary implications.

Yes, I understand it to be so.

Catholic teaching is not Arminian insofar as Catholics are content with human freedom being a mystery as to its cause and as to its relationship with divine sovereignty.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

I will bow out of further discussion with you, but I thank you for your time and effort and the comments you've posted. I am bowing out because I am not here for a debate/fight style exchange. It seems that you want a debate. If I am mistaken then please accept my apology for any errors in my perception of your posts.

(The emphasis in the quote above was added by me.)

No, you're not mistaken. It is true that I want a debate (in a manner of speaking). You confidently allege that Calvinism contains doctrinal errors like double predestination. Naturally, as a Calvinist, I wanted to challenge that allegation. However, the evidence suggests that you want to make that allegation without being challenged. Let the readers take note of that!

Conclusion: Xeno has not substantiated his allegation that the doctrine of double predestination is in error, primarily because he would rather not defend it. Therefore, we have no reason to think that this is a doctrinal error in Calvinism.

The [Roman] Catholic Church teaches that God knows all things, including who will be damned. However, this knowledge is not a determining factor in a person's salvation or damnation. Rather, the [Roman] Catholic Church emphasizes that every person has the free will to choose whether to accept or reject God's grace, and that this choice ultimately determines their eternal destiny.

So, Xeno's answer to my question was essentially, "Yes, God knows who will be damned."

And therein lies the rub. If God creates on purpose those he knows will or won't be saved, then God is a determining factor in their end—his goodness, wisdom, and knowledge—for he could have chosen to not create them. With respect to double predestination,

• A. God predestined Jones for heaven if (i) he knew that she would die a repentant believer and (ii) created her on purpose; and
• B. God predestined Smith for hell if (i) he knew that she would die an unbelieving sinner and (ii) created her on purpose.

True, Smith died an unbelieving sinner of her own choosing. No one disputes that, not even Calvinists. But notice that this doesn't change anything I wrote above. Smith would not have existed at all if it weren't for God—and he did it with purpose. (He must have, for otherwise we are forced to suppose that some people are created without any divine purpose, and that would be heresy, effectively eroding the foundation of the Christian church. Imagine being unable to reassure anyone that they were created with divine purpose, because some people were not and we wouldn't know who was and who was not.)

... [W]hile God may know who will ultimately choose to reject his grace, [that] decision is not imposed by God, but rather is made freely by the individual.

Calvinists agree: God is not active in the damnation of unbelieving sinners the way he is active in the salvation of repentant believers. Again, Xenos was continuing to demonstrate agreement with Calvinist theology, leaving us to wonder where the alleged doctrinal error is supposed to be. We may never find out, though, because he would prefer not defending his allegation.

In addition, the [Roman] Catholic Church teaches that God is a God of love, who desires all people to be saved. (1 Tim 2:4) This is why the [Roman Catholic] Church offers the sacraments, such as the Eucharist and Confession, as means of receiving God's grace and assistance in choosing to follow him.

And Xeno continues demonstrating agreement with Calvinist theology, as we also teach that God is love and that he "desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth" (1 Tim 2:4, ESV). These are not differences between Calvinism and Roman Catholicism, but rather things that both sides teach and believe. In fact, the Reformed covenant community likewise regards the sacrament of the holy communion table and its elements as a means of grace, even protecting the table from being profaned by those who are not believing members of Christ's body, the holy catholic church. True self-examination is part of the form for the celebration of the Lord's Supper and it consists of three parts, the second and third of which precludes unbelievers (wherein one must "search his heart whether he also believes the sure promise of God" regarding the forgiveness of all his sins and his right-standing before God, all for the sake of Christ and the glory of God, and one's "sincere desire to show true thankfulness to God with his entire life," among other things).

Well, that is at least one difference, then: We don't offer the sacraments as "assistance in choosing to follow him," as Xeno said Roman Catholics do. One must be in a vetted state of sanctifying grace, that is, already following him. Or maybe Xeno was not being very careful with his writing, for I thought that was a fundamental criterion for receiving the Eucharist in the Roman Catholic Church, too.

It's kind of surreal. Xeno alleges doctrinal error in Calvinism and then proceeds to provide one example after another of beliefs which both Roman Catholics and Calvinists hold as true—when he's not comparing apples and oranges, that is.

In conclusion, while God knows all things, including who will be damned, the [Roman] Catholic Church emphasizes the importance of free-will in determining a person's eternal destiny. The [Roman Catholic] Church encourages all people to respond to God's grace and to live a life of love and service to others, in accordance with his will.

Calvinism also "encourages all people to respond to God's grace and to live a life of love and service to others, in accordance with his will." Again, Xeno is comparing apples and oranges. Watch this hand here, now look over there.

Listen, there is no denying "the importance of free-will in determining a person's eternal destiny"—so long as we never bother defining free-will in a biblical context. Moreover, what does Xeno mean by "determining" here? We may never know, for he is simply not inclined to defend his allegation. We know from what Xeno has said so far that God's will is a necessary condition for Smith's salvation but it's not a sufficient condition (i.e., God's will cannot guarantee X will happen). You see, desiring to save Smith, God can use all of his omnipotent might and infinite wisdom and knowledge and every aid of all the host of heaven to secure Smith's salvation and yet she can still be lost. So, what is the sufficient condition, the only thing that will guarantee her salvation? Her human faculty of free-will.

Turns out Jones does have room to boast: She chose God, so she is saved, while Smith did not, so she is not. Why does Jones get the credit rather than God? Because absolutely everything that God did for Jones he equally did for Smith, and it didn't secure the salvation of either one. God's will is a necessary condition—none can be saved without it. But it is not a sufficient condition. The one and only thing that makes a difference is the free-will choice of a sinful human—none are saved without it. That's why Jones can boast. If Smith is lost while Jones is saved, it wasn't God's will that made the difference.

(That raises a vexing question: If God desired Smith to be saved, then why was she lost? Because God refused to do the one thing that would guarantee her salvation, namely, give her a heart that seeks after him. Why would God refuse to do that? Because it would encroach on her free-will. So, on that system of doctrine, God values a human faculty as more sacrosanct than the image-bearer herself; he would sooner lose the image-bearer than encroach on her free-will. That system of doctrine is a catastrophic train wreck.)

The Calvinist system of doctrine describes a better hope and one that boldly communicates the biblical witness of God's promises. On this view, nobody can boast because, from start to finish, salvation is of the Lord—which he alone can and does guarantee. God will not fail to save any of his sheep—absolutely every single one will be found and saved. If anyone is lost, it is not because God was unwilling or unable to guarantee their salvation. Quite simply, those who refuse to believe (and are lost) are not his sheep, as Jesus said. On this view, God values human beings more highly than human faculties. And there are accounts of this in Scripture, where God happily encroached on human free-will because he valued a human being more highly (e.g., Gen 20:6, "I have kept you from sinning against me"). There are several examples in Scripture where God does encroach on human free-will, which means he can. And for that he is so highly to be praised because none would be saved if he didn't.

I can rest secure in the knowledge that my salvation does not depend on me in any way, giving all glory to God for all of it. My heart seeks after him because he gave me that heart. God is the reason I am in Christ Jesus. My righteousness is guaranteed by the faithfulness of Christ. I was created in Christ Jesus for good works which God prepared in advance for my doing. God is the one bringing forth in me, for the sake of his good pleasure, both the desire and the effort to continue working out my salvation with awe and reverence. There is just no room for boasting because, from start to finish, salvation is entirely of the Lord. (All of these are paraphrased scriptures. This is the biblical witness of God's promises.)

-- DialecticSkeptic

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

I guess my point in bringing it up is that, [as far as I understand things], Calvinism would say [that] "individuals have the ability to make choices independently of divine or supernatural influence" only [in the sense of man's fallen] choice in rebellion. I don't think Calvinism would say that man makes any choices uncaused, since God is at the very least first cause and causation is pervasive—and I think it [was that to which] @Xeno.of.athens was referring.

And I understood what you were saying in that respect (and fully agree with you). Man is not in any sense a primary cause of anything. A proximate secondary cause, sure, but never primary. Every facet of our existence is analogical (image-bearers); nothing is ever shared univocally between creatures and the Creator. (Two things are related analogically when they are similar, univocally when they are identical, and equivocally when they have nothing in common.) Calvinists believe that God is alone the first cause, that everything happens in relationship to him unchangeably and infallibly, and that God providentially orders things to happen through secondary causes, whether by ordinary or extraordinary means.

I think Xeno is at home in a system of doctrine where God refuses to encroach on human free-will. On that view, it seems God so highly values this human faculty that he is willing to risk losing the image-bearer herself to hell forever. So, yeah, I doubt Xeno would agree with a Reformed view of God's eternal decrees and his providentially ensuring the end or telos that he has ordained (e.g., WCF 5:1). My response was couched in terms of saving grace, not common grace. Unregenerate sinners make choices independent of saving grace all the time, as that grace is bestowed only on regenerated believers. And while by common grace God restrains the evil that unregenerate sinners would otherwise do, he is not a causal agent in their sinning. In other words—and this is the crux of what I was saying—the sinful choices unregenerate sinners don't make are the result of divine influence, whereas the sinful choices they do make are independent of divine influence. (For example, Scripture speaks of God preventing some people from sinning and abandoning others to their sins, the latter being what I think it means for God to "harden" their hearts, e.g., Deut 2:30.)

The Westminster Confession of Faith puts it this way (5:4): God's providential control reaches even to the sins of men, wherein they are "not simply allowed by God but are bound, ordered, and governed by him in the fullness of his wisdom and power so that they fulfill his own holy purposes. However, the sinfulness still belongs to the creature and does not proceed from God, whose holy righteousness does not and cannot cause or approve sin."

-- DialecticSkeptic

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

[Calvinism can and does turn people away from Christianity] because a God who selectively decides who will be saved is not fair by all human judgment, and this is off-putting.

Please explain how it is not fair.

Even worse, God doesn't predestine some of his "children" to be conformed, either.

Your argument is based on a single verse selected from the entire Bible (Acts 17:29)? That's very shaky ground, to put it nicely.

Paul was not saying that all human beings actually are God's offspring. The context of that sentence was established in the preceding sentence. After having said that "in him we live and move and have our being," Paul pointed out that this kind of idea is even reflected in some of their own poets when they say things like, "For we too are his offspring" (referring to the Greek poet Aratus and his hexameter poem Phenomena). So, in 21st century vernacular, Paul was essentially saying, "Even your view, wherein we are God's offspring, suggests that we shouldn't think of God as an idol designed by craftsmen from gold or silver or stone." Paul was making a case for the universal recognition of a general relationship and accountability to the one true God for all humanity. He is very clear throughout his other epistles who the children of God are—and it's not "everybody."

God's only begotten son is Jesus Christ, all his other children being adopted—and adoption into the family of God is a function of salvation. There is not a single child of God that he doesn't predestine to be "conformed to the image of his Son, that his Son would be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters." If anyone dies as an unbelieving sinner, you can be sure they were never adopted as his child.

I am confused.

Yes, you certainly appear to be.

So, 1 Timothy 2:4 says God wants everybody to be saved?

No, it does not. It says that God wants "all people" to be saved. What does Paul mean by "all people" here? He explains that in the first two verses. Again, Paul was basically telling Timothy, "Prayers are to be offered on behalf of all people, by which I mean don't forget about kings and other people in authority. They are part of ‘all people’. God wants all people to be saved, Timothy—as hard as it is to believe, that includes people in the ruling class."

If you are still confused, then I suspect it's because you are letting preconceived ideas color your reading of this passage. When allowed to speak on its own, it is very concise and clear.

Find me another verse that says God wants everybody to be saved. (There isn't one, which is why doing theology by proof-text is a bad idea—especially when it is a single verse.)

[When Jesus said, "Everyone whom the Father gives me will come to me," when do you suppose] this giving takes place? It seems to me [that] you are saying it is right at the beginning, at the predestination point ... [But what if] he does the giving just before/coincident with/or just after salvation?

The text does not seem to allow either "coincident with" or "just after," for Jesus said that these given ones "will" come (not "are" coming, nor "did" come). And is there any meaningful difference between the Father giving them to the Son just before versus long before? If so, please explain it.

As it is my will before salvation will that gets me saved can you give me your scripture reference on a regenerated will before salvation?

My apologies but I simply couldn't decipher what you were asking there. Could you repeat your question in a different way, please?

-- DialecticSkeptic

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

You confidently allege that Calvinism contains doctrinal errors like double predestination. Naturally, as a Calvinist, I wanted to challenge that allegation. However, the evidence suggests that you want to make that allegation without being challenged. Let the readers take note of that!

Calvinism is not monolithic. Calvinism is a theological movement that originated in the 16th century, and there are various interpretations and denominations that fall under the umbrella of Calvinism, such as Presbyterianism, Congregationalism, and Reformed Churches. These different denominations may hold slightly different beliefs, practices, and interpretations of Calvinist theology. So, while they share certain core beliefs, they are not all identical in their beliefs or practices.

In my reading it seems that double predestination is a belief held by the Protestant Reformed Church denomination. It is the belief that God has predetermined both salvation for the elect and damnation for the non-elect, based on his own sovereignty and not on any human merit or choice.

The Protestant Reformed Church denomination was founded by the Dutch theologian and pastor, Herman Bavinck. He was a key figure in the development of Reformed theology in the Netherlands in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Bavinck's extensive writings and preaching helped to shape the distinctive character of the Protestant Reformed Church and its commitment to the teachings of the Bible and the Five Points of Calvinism.​

​

Herman Hoeksema was a Dutch-American theologian and pastor who played a major role in the formation of the Protestant Reformed Churches in the Netherlands and the United States. Hoeksema was a disciple of Herman Bavinck and became a leading figure in the Dutch Reformed community, where he was known for his uncompromising stance on the sovereignty of God and his emphasis on the Five Points of Calvinism. He was also a key figure in the split of the Protestant Reformed Churches from the Christian Reformed Church in the early 20th century.​

​

Herman Hoeksema was a prolific writer and theologian, and he authored several books on Reformed theology and the Bible. Some of his most notable works include:​

• "Reformed Dogmatics"
• "Behold, He Cometh!: An Exposition of the Book of Revelation"
• "The Triple Knowledge"
• "The Voice of Our Fathers: A Fresh Look at the Canons of Dordt"
• "Belgic Confession: A Study"
• "Why Protestantism?"

These works continue to be widely read and highly regarded by members of the Protestant Reformed Church denomination and other Calvinist Christians.​

​

His works are a significant influence on the main Reformed denomination in the area where I live - it is called "The Free Reformed Church" of Australia.​

​

These denominations are part of the background from which I write about Calvinism. Yet I acknowledge that these denominations hold views that other reformed denominations do not. It is always very difficult to deal with Protestant beliefs, including Calvinist beliefs, because of the wide variety of interpretations present in the movements one wishes to investigate.​

From a Catholic perspective, the belief in double predestination (the idea that God has predetermined who will be saved and who will be damned) is considered to be at odds with the Catholic understanding of God's love and mercy for all people. The Catholic Church teaches that God's grace is freely offered to all and that individuals have the free will to accept or reject it. While Catholics respect each individual's beliefs, they respectfully disagree with the idea of double predestination and believe in a God who offers salvation to all.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Yes, I understand it to be so.

Catholic teaching is not Arminian insofar as Catholics are content with human freedom being a mystery as to its cause and as to its relationship with divine sovereignty.

Yes, but to me, that is the same thing Arminians say, "mystery", though true, Arminians are, for the most part, pretty definite in their 'logic', that if it is not libertarian freewill, it is robothood.