Is Calvinism a heresy?

[Mark Quayle]

No I do not harp on humility. As far as I can recall that is the first time I mentioned "humble" or "humility" on this forum. Speaking of the lack of humility is the Calvinist playground as they frequently chide others for lack of humility based upon what they believe - as you just did in Post 866. And in Post 870, I only stated "humble brag" concerning R. C. Sproul's quote because of your probing (box below) and what you said to Zoidar in Post 866.

Maybe you didn't pick up on it, but what I said in 866 was not meant as chiding, but as, at least to me, a humorous irony: That a person who agrees that one is not saved by works, is saved by coming humbly to Christ, (or words to that effect).

This (box below) is yet another example where you don't practice what you preach - as you well know I do not believe God predestines particular individuals for salvation but desires all be saved (1 Timothy 2:4) - and yet your argument presumes I believe God selects exacctly who will be saved. I do make a conscious effort not to do that to you.

I do NOT "presume [you] believe God selects exacctly who will be saved." In fact, I presume exactly the opposite. Must be I have a writing impediment, for you to get that out of it.

What difference is it what it 'sounds like' to you? What matters is the truth. Do you have some reason to believe that if God had not chosen you, you would have chosen him anyway?

My security is not from knowing I am saved, but from knowing that God will accomplish precisely what he set out to do, and that he is altogether just and faithful. Whether I am or am not to be a member of the body of Christ in the end, HE is still to be praised, as worthy of all praise, and worshiped as the only God that he is.

Post 876 is a lot of feigned upset and sanctimony while ignoring the opponent's arguments. You ignore what I questioned in the last paragraph of Post 870 while repeating that God always accomplishes what He wants. If that was true, why did Jesus lament over Jerusalem in Matthew 23:37-39? Sometimes His people breaks his heart.

While you are chiding me for feigned upset and sanctimony, I did not ignore the opponent's arguments.

I have responded at length to that tired old argument of yours, both from Scripture and from Reason. I don't need to keep repeating myself. But you do leave me wondering if you even read my longer posts, or if you just ignore them, acting as though I hadn't answered.

True that I haven't heard the one about Jesus heart being broken, and others of the kind, for a good while —several days at least, I think. I don't deny him lamenting and so on. I have even agreed, pointing out that he did not WANT to go through with his sacrifice, but that does not mean that what God has set out to do will indeed be accomplished in every detail.

Maybe I missed it, but did you answer my question that you quoted above? If so, maybe you can take a second look and see how I answered your questions too.

 

[Mark Quayle]

No.
Are you saying you are more interested in your systematic than what God tells us about Himself?

If God tells us He goes with plan B, are you going to call Him less than omnipotent, that He is not the almighty God?

Here's an example of where God did that:
1 Samuel 13:13-14 KJV — And Samuel said to Saul, Thou hast done foolishly: thou hast not kept the commandment of the LORD thy God, which he commanded thee: for now would the LORD have established thy kingdom upon Israel for ever. But now thy kingdom shall not continue: the LORD hath sought him a man after his own heart, and the LORD hath commanded him to be captain over his people, because thou hast not kept that which the LORD commanded thee.

The Lord would have established Saul (thats what God wanted to do...plan A), but now Saul's kingdom will not continue (God's contingency plan B).

What makes you think that establishing Saul was plan A? If Saul had been obedient and faithful, yes indeed God would have. But, (surprise), he was not, nor did God wrap his plans around Saul's faithfulness and obedience.

The same notion is seen in what I constantly hear, as though Scripture shows I am wrong about this. I have yet to hear the argument where God actually intended for something to happen and was unable to bring it to pass. All I get is the assumption that it was God's intention —or plan A.

Assumption, which goes against Scripture that says God does whatever he chooses, and will accomplish all he set out to do, and is omnipotent. Assumption, which goes against logic that says that as First Cause, EVERY detail that follows is caused specifically, since no other principle is able to step out of its particular causal sequence, nor is First Cause (the only "brute fact") subject to anything from outside of himself that he did not also cause specifically.

Yes, if one of the lost would have chosen Christ, they would be saved. They also would have been regenerated of the indwelling Spirit of God so that they would even be able to choose Christ. Don't be fooled. Nothing happens that God did not cause.

 

[Derf]

What makes you think that establishing Saul was plan A?

Because he was made king prior to David--plan A necessarily comes before plan B--and kingship involves passing the crown to your offspring. If it was always God's plan to dethrone Saul and not let his offspring reign, then the quote from 1Samuel 13:13 is a falsehood. If Samuel spoke a falsehood that the Lord didn't lead him to speak, Samuel is a false prophet. If Samuel spoke a falsehood God told him to speak, then God is a liar.

That's why it's plan A.

If Saul had been obedient and faithful, yes indeed God would have.

That's what I said. But you said it wasn't plan A, which is contradictory to "indeed God would have."

But, (surprise), he was not, nor did God wrap his plans around Saul's faithfulness and obedience.

No, He didn't. That allows for the contingency. God is able to accomplish His plans despite our attempts to foil them. However, if God decrees our attempts to foil them, then He is the real culprit behind Saul's dethronement--and Samuel lied.

The same notion is seen in what I constantly hear, as though Scripture shows I am wrong about this. I have yet to hear the argument where God actually intended for something to happen and was unable to bring it to pass. All I get is the assumption that it was God's intention —or plan A.

Saul's kingship was definitely God's intention, right? And God intended Saul to do well, right? Or did God intend for Saul to disobey Him?

Assumption, which goes against Scripture that says God does whatever he chooses, and will accomplish all he set out to do, and is omnipotent.

Your view assumes that sin is included in the category of "all He set out to do." God is, according to you, the author of sin. I think, and most Calvinists would agree, that such is unbiblical. Unfortunately, most Calvinists agree with you that man's sin is part of "all He set out to do."

Assumption, which goes against logic that says that as First Cause, EVERY detail that follows is caused specifically, since no other principle is able to step out of its particular causal sequence, nor is First Cause (the only "brute fact") subject to anything from outside of himself that he did not also cause specifically.

Are you saying God cannot create a creature that can cause something outside of God's will? Then sin doesn't exist, which is unbiblical.

Yes, if one of the lost would have chosen Christ, they would be saved. They also would have been regenerated of the indwelling Spirit of God so that they would even be able to choose Christ. Don't be fooled. Nothing happens that God did not cause.

What you've just described is a world where we are NOT made in God's image in any way, which makes your description unbiblical.

God made us to be causal agents. If, then, we are only following a path laid out by God for every action we take, and where we in no way can change one part of that path, then we cannot be made in God's image in any way except physical, and His physical image is "invisible", which we aren't.

 

[John Mullally]

Maybe you didn't pick up on it, but what I said in 866 was not meant as chiding, but as, at least to me, a humorous irony: That a person who agrees that one is not saved by works, is saved by coming humbly to Christ, (or words to that effect).

I am sure you have heard this from me before: From the Calvinistic perspective, any religion that teaches that salvation comes about by anything other than an “Irresistible Grace,” necessarily makes salvation into a works-based process, because (as it is reasoned) once you incorporate any act of the human will—even as little as a person’s submission in passive non-resistance—what is left is some element of human contribution in the process.

Effectively Calvinists turn even faith into works unless it comes out of a pre-faith unconscious regeneration (via Irresistible Grace). The red flag in this is that regeneration is not identified as occurring prior to faith in scripture. The Calvinist has to contemplate if their faith came from God regenerating them or from their own invention as our minds can play tricks on us. It leads to strong divisiveness with the non-Calvinists who point to promises in God's word concerning salvation as they will say the non-Calvinist is trying to be saved by works. I would think that God wants people to take Him at His word.

I do NOT "presume [you] believe God selects exactly who will be saved." In fact, I presume exactly the opposite. Must be I have a writing impediment, for you to get that out of it.

This is the question below. It is termed a "loaded question" because it contains a presumption (God chooses individuals for salvation) that you know I do not agree to. Loaded question - Wikipedia

Do you have some reason to believe that if God had not chosen you, you would have chosen him anyway?

True that I haven't heard the one about Jesus heart being broken, and others of the kind, for a good while —several days at least, I think. I don't deny him lamenting and so on. I have even agreed, pointing out that he did not WANT to go through with his sacrifice, but that does not mean that what God has set out to do will indeed be accomplished in every detail.

If God predetermined everything that happens, then it appears that the Father in the OT and Jesus in the NT do a lot play acting as both frequently show disappointment over humanity. When Jesus lamented over Jerusalem, He used terms that indicate that things could have turned out much better for Jerusalem.

 

[The Liturgist]

Thank you for your detailed post.

There are areas where I readily admit that i can be incorrect. This very well could be the case.
As way of explanation of my earlier comment: It's my understanding that Orthodoxy would hold a heretic to be someone who believes contrary to the fundamental tenets of the Orthodox faith to which they claim and show themselves unwilling to accept correction. If that is true Calvin could not be a heretic per say, since he lays no claim to Orthodoxy nor received correction from within.
I could be wrong.
That would still allow his teaching to be considered heresy and Calvin a heresiarch.
That could be mere semantics and again, I readily admit I could be in error.

That said, yes The Confession of Dositheus went point by point refuting Lucaris and the teaching of Calvin.

Thanks again - I always appreciate your insight.

I think you are quite correct in that the current prevailing interpretation of a heretic in Eastern Orthodoxy does seem to be limited to what we might call “first order heretics” in that they are commonly defined as members of the Orthodox church who have separated themselves by embracing a heresy. I think however most would agree that these heresies can emerge from outside the Church and make their way in, and we see this kind of intrusion of an alien theology very dramatically in the case of Iconoclasm, which from my reading of Orthodox history, and indeed I could be wrong, but I am pretty sure this is correct - Islam was regarded as a Christian heresy by St. John of Damascus, albeit one influenced primarily by Nestorianism or Arianism, but it was from Islam that we have a second order heresy in the form of iconoclasm, which if it had then been taken up by a church already defined as heretical, would not be of relevance to Orthodoxy, in that for example, the heresy that afflicted Zoroastrianism known as Yurvanism, which argued that both the good deity Ahura Mazda (which amusingly the Japanese car company Mazda claims to be named after) and the evil Angra Mainyu, rather than having co-existed in a state of mutual antagonism for some time, were both created by a neutral supreme deity, which obviously is a theology even more flawed than Zoroastrian dualism, is nonetheless not a concern to the Eastern Orthodoxy, for it is not an Orthodox heresy.

However iconoclasm is generally understood by Eastern Orthodox theologians as having infected the church from without, specifically from Islam, and the vector by which it infected the Church of Constantinople is through the military prowress of the Ummayid Caliphate and its spectacular victories over the Eastern Roman Empire, which superstitious Byzantine generals attributed to the Islamic iconoclasm being somehow the correct interpretation of the second commandment prohibitions (perhaps by this time the Rabinnical Jews had drifted away from the Iconodule Judaism attested to by the 2nd century Dura Europos synagogue, which along with the excavated house church and the ruins of Palmyra, were destroyed by ISIS barbarians, although what really made my blood boil was the savage Muslim fanatic with Al Nusra who, when the Al Qaeda affiliate conquered the Aramaic speaking Antiochian Orthodox town of Maalula, punched throufh an icon and wore it around his neck, and the terrorists then held the nuns as hostages for nine months).

 

[maxamir]

You mean that they do evil that even God didn't decree?

Then they don't "willingly repent", do they? If God made them willing, then they are forced to repent, which means they don't really repent, they just do as God programmed them to do. And before they "repented" they were doing what God programmed them to do. So I don't really understand how there's anything in what you describe that could be called "repentance" by those people.

Thanks for those very nice scripture citations. Why did you include them? Are you trying to point out that your theology is at odds with Jesus' words? Because for God to force someone to become willing is not for them to come willingly. Your theology contradicts itself, and the bible.

God decrees all things that come to pass before time began. Because you have yet to fathom this, you end up putting God in a box with yourself and do not understand His sovereignty over all things including the evil that He decreed to come into this world at the choice of man, under the temptation of the devil in order to demonstrate His holy hatred for evil and His holy love in saving His people from that evil in Christ.

The goodness of God is found not only in His mercy but also in His justice against all evil and the Gospel demonstrates this truth which is why the Scriptures declare that it is the goodness of God that leads His people to repentance (Rom 2:4). That goodness is found in God drawing His people to Himself with gentle cords and bands of love (Hos 11:4) by the Holy Spirit in the truth of the Gospel, showing them their desperate need of His righteousness.

The wicked have no desire for Christ and His righteousness, therefore it is God who has to initiate repentance within their hearts along with faith by regeneration which is founded only in free sovereign particular grace to His elect who are made willing in the day of His power (Psa 110:3) and only by the help of their God, return (Hos 12:6).

As long as you proudly think that salvation is dependent upon yourself or your supposed free-will, you will be kept in judicial blindness until you are humbled to submit to Him alone to whom salvation belongs. You do not yet see who you truly are, because you have not yet learnt who God truly is and therefore do not yet understand the wickedness of your own heart and need for His grace alone.

 

[maxamir]

Of course.

Perfectly repent? Either you repent or you don't. I don't see the Bible describe perfect repentance.

If I find out I can do nothing to deserve or earn salvation, and I go humbled to Christ, asking him to forgive me. Exactly what would there be for me to boast about?

Exactly, there is nothing in any of us to boast in because we all fall short of God's perfect standards and that is why we are commanded to look to the perfect person and work of Christ and not trust in anything of ourselves, including our faith or repentance.

 

[maxamir]

The only people who are saved or justified are those who obey God.

It’s called the obedience of faith.


But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith: Romans 16:26


This is the principle or law of faith.



James says it this way —


Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? James 2:21


The “work” that Abraham did was to obey God by offering his son Isaac on the altar.


Not the works of the law.
Not good works.
Not works that earn.


The “work” of obedience; the obedience of faith.





JLB

you fail to understand that obedience to God justifies that our faith is genuine before others but it is only faith that is granted by grace that justifies anyone before God.

Rom 3:24 being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,

Rom 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law.

Rom 4:2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God.
Rom 4:3 For what does the Scripture say? "ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS ACCOUNTED TO HIM FOR RIGHTEOUSNESS."

Therefore the only path to righteousness is by grace through faith in the blood of Christ.

Rom 5:9 Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him.

 

[maxamir]

Well I think we both know that I have my POV even if you also have your POV.

If you are 5 point Calvinist then you probably think that God predestined me to have this POV and that there is nothing I can do about it. Are you saying if I go back to page 32 I can change God's will for me?

I think context is everything.

2 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.

There we see BOTH groups. BOTH the saved "our sins" and the unsaved "the whole world".

1 John 2 sets the context where there are only two groups and BOTH groups are included as being those for whom Christ' is the "atoning sacrifice" for sins.

This is irrefutable.

That is a different context. He is the ransome for all mankind but as we see not ALL will accept it.

The 1 john 2 statement is not in reference to "but who will accept it". Rather it is without condition -

The first action is God making that atoning sacrifice "for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world."

The second action is how mankind responds to it.

"He is the light of the world" - BUT the "World loved darkness rather than light".

In the first case He is the light of all -- but not ALL accept it.

yep

Depends on context.

"OF ALL" does not mean ALL people in ALL nations.

It means there was a multitude from ALL nations.

IN Matt 7 the MANY go to hell and the FEW to heaven. But that does not mean that Jesus did not dies as the atoning sacrifice for BOTH groups just as 1 John 2 states.

Calvinism tries to work too hard at getting certain Gospel concepts to reduce down to "exaggeration and false-marketing" when in fact they are fully true as stated.

have you thought that it may be possible that God has decreed that He may use His word in these discussions to bring you to a clearer understanding of Scripture or are you too proud to accept any correction?

It seems that you have labelled Christ's atonement as an utter failure because you somehow believe that salvation is dependent solely upon a persons will to accept but the Scriptures plainly declare the true status of man seen in the image below as only loving evil and hating God whom they would never choose themselves. How can a person choose to accept that which he can not even see unless as Christ said he is first born again (John 3:3)?

If you believe otherwise and say Christ was successful on the cross for every single person (including those He justly casts into Hell (Luk 12:5)) then you must wear the heretical label of Universalist and not believe in Hell.

The Scriptures are plain that there are only two types of people in the world, the sheep and the goats, the wheat and the tares, the children of God and the children of the devil, the elect and the reprobate, the spiritually alive and the spiritually dead. The jewish world thought that they alone were the children of God failing to understand the promises given to Abraham that through him the whole world would be blessed, meaning not every single person as you seem to presume but people from all nations. To fail to understand this is to fail to truly understand the true context of John 3:16.and the rest of the Scriptures that point to this.

 

[Derf]

God decrees all things that come to pass before time began.

Which you know because of what bible verse(s)?

Because you have yet to fathom this, you end up putting God in a box with yourself and do not understand His sovereignty over all things including the evil that He decreed to come into this world at the choice of man, under the temptation of the devil in order to demonstrate His holy hatred for evil and His holy love in saving His people from that evil in Christ.

Until you can answer the first question, you have absolutely no support for this statement. And until you fathom that, you end up putting God in a box with yourself and do not understand His sovereignty over all things. That may sound eerily familiar, but if your statement is so baseless, I can used it to say the exact opposite of what you say, and mine is just as compelling.

The goodness of God is found not only in His mercy but also in His justice against all evil and the Gospel demonstrates this truth which is why the Scriptures declare that it is the goodness of God that leads His people to repentance (Rom 2:4).

Good. That can apply equally well to all people.

That goodness is found in God drawing His people to Himself with gentle cords and bands of love (Hos 11:4)

Which is talking about Ephraim, about to be removed from the land by the Assyrians. Are you saying that you expect God to deport you to Assyria?.

by the Holy Spirit in the truth of the Gospel, showing them their desperate need of His righteousness.

The wicked have no desire for Christ and His righteousness,

True, unless he repeats and sees his desperate need for Christ.

therefore it is God who has to initiate repentance

No, God initiates contact by sending His son to become a man, die, and rise again. Are you saying that such a sacrifice is not enough, but that God has to do something else?

within their hearts along with faith by regeneration which is founded only in free sovereign particular grace to His elect who are made willing in the day of His power (Psa 110:3)

Which is not at all what that verse says.

and only by the help of their God, return (Hos 12:6).

Which is not at all what that verse says, but exactly the opposite.

As long as you proudly think that salvation is dependent upon yourself or your supposed free-will,

Here's the Young's Literal Translation of
Psalm 110:3 YLT — Thy people are free-will gifts in the day of Thy strength, in the honours of holiness, From the womb, from the morning, Thou hast the dew of thy youth.

you will be kept in judicial blindness until you are humbled to submit to Him alone to whom salvation belongs. You do not yet see who you truly are, because you have not yet learnt who God truly is and therefore do not yet understand the wickedness of your own heart and need for His grace alone.

Which is hogwash that you use to make you feel better about your false doctrine. You should be ashamed of keading people astray and giving them no hooe, when the Gospel is clearly about giving hope to the world.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Because he was made king prior to David--plan A necessarily comes before plan B--and kingship involves passing the crown to your offspring. If it was always God's plan to dethrone Saul and not let his offspring reign, then the quote from 1Samuel 13:13 is a falsehood. If Samuel spoke a falsehood that the Lord didn't lead him to speak, Samuel is a false prophet. If Samuel spoke a falsehood God told him to speak, then God is a liar.

That's why it's plan A.

No. The poor logic continues. You make a rule that there can be multiple replacement plans. You don't know that.
Then you enumerate them according to their sequence, when there was only one real plan all along. God is not lying! Where's the lie, if I'm right? "God would have, but you disobeyed", is not the same as to say, "God had planned to, but you messed it up."

That's what I said. But you said it wasn't plan A, which is contradictory to "indeed God would have."

No. It is not contradictory to "indeed God would have." Saul did not, thus it is plain that God did not. If Saul had, it is rather obvious that God would have had a different plan from the one he did have.

I constantly find it amazing that people think we are the ones to derail God's almighty, omniscient plans. Not even Satan can do that.

No, He didn't. That allows for the contingency. God is able to accomplish His plans despite our attempts to foil them. However, if God decrees our attempts to foil them, then He is the real culprit behind Saul's dethronement--and Samuel lied.

Wrong again. The contingency is real. IF this, THEN that. Simple. And like it, IF not this, THEN not that. Where is the implication that it would have been possible for something different to happen, than what did happen? It is only a human assumption that says so. Don't judge reality by human mindset.

Saul's kingship was definitely God's intention, right? And God intended Saul to do well, right? Or did God intend for Saul to disobey Him?

Did God intend for Joseph's brothers to sell him into slavery?

Your view assumes that sin is included in the category of "all He set out to do." God is, according to you, the author of sin. I think, and most Calvinists would agree, that such is unbiblical. Unfortunately, most Calvinists agree with you that man's sin is part of "all He set out to do."

Just to make sure you aren't misrepresenting what I'm saying, I don't think God set out to sin. God did not sin, nor did he set out to sin. Just making sure that is not going to be taken wrong, here. God is NOT, according to me, the author of sin. There is a big difference between being First Cause, and planning that there be sin, from being the author of sin.

But that is a rather protracted argument. I'm just trying to point of that no, I do not think God is the author of sin. If you think you can prove that my theology comes down to that, have at it, but that is off the OP, I think.

But, FWIW, God causing that sin be, is how the Redemption became necessary, and, in fact, if not redeemed, there would be no Bride of Christ. Yes, this was planned.

Are you saying God cannot create a creature that can cause something outside of God's will? Then sin doesn't exist, which is unbiblical.

The faulty logic continues. Do you not see in the Bible at least two different uses of the term, "God's will", (and other terms to that effect)? God gives us instructions to follow —commands, things he tells us to do— these are his will for us to do. He also has what the Reformed refer to as his decree. This is his will concerning all things that will come to pass —his plans— in every detail. He has not shown us much of this, except in the past, and in the end, what little we can know about it from here: Heaven and being with him. These will not fail to be completed, accomplished. God is seeing to it.

The logic is faulty also because it is self-contradictory. God causes a creature to cause something God did not intend? Huh?

What you've just described is a world where we are NOT made in God's image in any way, which makes your description unbiblical.

How do you know what being made in God's image is?

God made us to be causal agents. If, then, we are only following a path laid out by God for every action we take, and where we in no way can change one part of that path, then we cannot be made in God's image in any way except physical, and His physical image is "invisible", which we aren't.

Not to denigrate the status of humans compared to brute beasts or robots, but really? I can't personally think of any effect that is not also a cause. So, you've said nothing in saying that we are causal agents. But the notion that we can do anything outside of God's intentions necessarily invokes cause by mere chance, which, by definition of "chance", is also self-contradictory.

If "freewill" is necessarily uncaused, it is also necessarily non-existent. Only God is uncaused.

 

[Derf]

No. The poor logic continues. You make a rule that there can be multiple replacement plans. You don't know that.

Huh? How does "plan B" equate to multiple replacement plans? I can see why you're having trouble with my logic when you can't count to 1.

Then you enumerate them according to their sequence, when there was only one real plan all along.

Which you don't know from scripture. Rather you say that as a fact, then try to wrestle scripture into your belief.

God is not lying! Where's the lie, if I'm right? "God would have, but you disobeyed", is not the same as to say, "God had planned to, but you messed it up."

In this case it is exactly the same. Thus, your view says, "God wouldn't have, because He will cause you to mess up." there is no contingency.

Here's another one:
Luke 13:34 KJV — O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings, and ye would not!

Jesus willed to do one thing, the people of Jerusalem willed another. How many times did the people thwart the will of God? OFTEN!

No. It is not contradictory to "indeed God would have." Saul did not, thus it is plain that God did not. If Saul had, it is rather obvious that God would have had a different plan from the one he did have.

Remember we're talking about a plan decreed before Saul existed. So the single plan must have been that Saul would mess up, and God knew Saul would mess up, so there is absolutely no possibility that Saul would not mess up. It's not a contingency, in that case.

By the way, how did God know Saul would mess up?

I constantly find it amazing that people think we are the ones to derail God's almighty, omniscient plans. Not even Satan can do that.

You find it amazing because you insert it into the description. Satan can't do it in your view because Satan's actions are completely controlled by God (He's sovereign, right?), so God fits in the camp of a divided kingdom, according to Jesus.
Matthew 12:25 KJV — And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand:

Wrong again. The contingency is real. IF this, THEN that. Simple. And like it, IF not this, THEN not that. Where is the implication that it would have been possible for something different to happen, than what did happen?

The phrase "contingency plan" requires the possibility of the other. From Definitions from Oxford Languages:
a plan designed to take a possible future event or circumstance into account.

If it was impossible for Saul to do well and remain the king and pass it on to his children, then God is disingenuous to throw it in Saul's face as if he somehow had a way to keep the kingdom. That makes God a liar.

This is your problem, that you change the meaning of words (contingency, sovereignty, etc.) to suit you. It makes a conversation nigh impossible.

It is only a human assumption that says so. Don't judge reality by human mindset.

Did God intend for Joseph's brothers to sell him into slavery?

Instead of them murdering him, yes. God is able to save us from harm. Did God want him enslaved? Only as a means to an end, as a way to use for good what men meant for evil. In other words, even though the brothers were trying to be rid of Joseph forever, God used those desires, protecting Joseph from death, to save the brothers from death.

Just to make sure you aren't misrepresenting what I'm saying, I don't think God set out to sin.

No, you don't think so, but your doctrine says so (and says not so at the same time). God set out to cause humans to sin, in your view. In doing so God became responsible for their sin. That's authorship.

God did not sin, nor did he set out to sin. Just making sure that is not going to be taken wrong, here. God is NOT, according to me, the author of sin.

Which is contradictory to the part where you say that God decrees sin. If your doctrine is self-contradictory, it's time to start questioning your doctrine.

There is a big difference between being First Cause, and planning that there be sin, from being the author of sin.

Not just planning, but planning on such a way that there is no way for the humans to avoid it. That's authorship.

But that is a rather protracted argument. I'm just trying to point of that no, I do not think God is the author of sin. If you think you can prove that my theology comes down to that, have at it, but that is off the OP, I think.

I have already. But here's the deal: if I'm right, that your view has God as the author of sin, then it proves that Calvinism is heretical, don't you think? This is spot on for the OP. If you need to prove that Calvinism is not heretical, then you are remiss in not providing that protracted argument.

But, FWIW, God causing that sin be, is how the Redemption became necessary, and, in fact, if not redeemed, there would be no Bride of Christ. Yes, this was planned.

So God had to fix a problem He intentionally caused? And if He had not caused a sinful humanity, then He could have just created a righteous bride? It makes no sense. It's a kingdom divided: God had to cause all sin to defeat sin.

Imagine that our government wants to stop all murders. And to do that they force 1/3rd of the people murder 2/3rds of the citizens, and then murder stops. Was it worth it?

The faulty logic continues.

That's what I'm saying about yours! I'm glad you agree.

Do you not see in the Bible at least two different uses of the term, "God's will", (and other terms to that effect)? God gives us instructions to follow —commands, things he tells us to do— these are his will for us to do. He also has what the Reformed refer to as his decree. This is his will concerning all things that will come to pass —his plans— in every detail.

Which makes Him the author of sin. If everything that comes to pass is His will, then He decrees/desires sinfulness in humans--His plans--in every detail. You said it yourself.

He has not shown us much of this, except in the past, and in the end, what little we can know about it from here: Heaven and being with him. These will not fail to be completed, accomplished. God is seeing to it.

I agree the ending is His plan. I agree the beginning was His plan. The middle is the part we are arguing about--whether EVERYTHING in the middle is His plan, or whether the middle part is humans trying to ruin His plan, and Him overcoming human sinfulness to make sure His plan comes to fruition. If part of His plan is overcoming His own plan, it's a divided kingdom, which He tells us cannot endure.

The logic is faulty also because it is self-contradictory. God causes a creature to cause something God did not intend? Huh?

Agreed. That's why your view makes God the intentional author of sin.

How do you know what being made in God's image is?

I'm asking you if there's anything left that can in any way be considered His image. If there's nothing, then your view is unbiblical on its face (which makes it heretical).

Not to denigrate the status of humans compared to brute beasts or robots, but really? I can't personally think of any effect that is not also a cause. So, you've said nothing in saying that we are causal agents. But the notion that we can do anything outside of God's intentions necessarily invokes cause by mere chance, which, by definition of "chance", is also self-contradictory.

How can cause by an agent be chance? If I set a pair of dice on the table showing 5 and 2, would you call it chance?

Here's what you are missing. If God makes a man who can choose good (what God wants) or evil (what God hates), and allows the man to decide without decreeing the decision, then God remains righteous, man retains responsibility for his own sin. Why is this idea so offensive to you?

If "freewill" is necessarily uncaused, it is also necessarily non-existent. Only God is uncaused.

Who said freewill is uncaused? My question is, if freewill is caused by God, and every resulting act of freewill is caused by God, where's the "free", and where's the "will"? Only God has it, and then you're saying that God freely willed sin (known as "authorship").

This is heretical, according to reformers, even, at least those who agree with the Westminster Confession.

 

[QvQ]

Huh? How does "plan B" equate to multiple replacement plans? I can see why you're having trouble with my logic when you can't count to 1.

Yes, it does require "multiple replacement plans." It would make all plans dependent on the "free will" choices of men.
That would be chaos, random, and chance, all plans being contingent on what any man's next "choice" would be.


I don't believe creation is ordered by man's sovereign free will with God dancing to man's tune.

Interesting question: IF Saul had not chosen to displease God, then Saul would have remained as King. Rewrite the entire Bible and every subsequent word would be dictated by the "free will" choices of the characters involved.
As then even God could not predict the future, He could only react and rewrite according to the sovereign free will of man.

 

[Derf]

Yes, it does require "multiple replacement plans."

But not in that instance. God only had to replace the one king. In the northern kingdom, you're right that God had to replace the kingly line several times. Is that a problem?

It would make all plans dependent on the "free will" choices of humans.

Why is that a problem for God?

That would be chaos, random, and chance, all plans being contingent on what man's next whim would be.

Are you saying God is incapable of dealing with such chaos? That seems like a small view of God.

Also, David sinned, premeditated murder and adultery just to name few and God did not replace David with a Plan B, assuming that the current plan is always Plan A to avoid "multiple replacement plans."

If God replaced Saul due to Saul's unworthiness or displeasing God, then it is illogical and capricious that God would not replace every king by the same standard.

Not if he makes it to the point where God tells him he will have an descendant sit on the throne forever. Yet, even David's line grieved God to the point where their line wouldn't continue. Somehow God was still able to bring forth the messiah from the line of David amidst all that chaos.

Saul was replaced by the Will of God, according to God's good pleasure, which is Plan A, always
I don't believe the universe is ordered by man's sovereign free will with God dancing to man's tune.

That's nice, but what we're trying to figure out is not what you believe, but what God believes about Himself and the universe, and what He has revealed to us in His word.

 

[QvQ]

That's nice, but what we're trying to figure out is not what you believe, but what God believes about Himself and the universe, and what He has revealed to us in His word.

Interesting question: IF Saul had not chosen to displease God, then Saul would have remained as King. Rewrite the entire Bible and every subsequent word would be dictated by the "free will" choices of the characters involved.
As then even God could not predict the future, He could only react and rewrite according to the sovereign free will of man

 

[John Mullally]

The faulty logic continues. Do you not see in the Bible at least two different uses of the term, "God's will", (and other terms to that effect)? God gives us instructions to follow —commands, things he tells us to do— these are his will for us to do. He also has what the Reformed refer to as his decree. This is his will concerning all things that will come to pass —his plans— in every detail. He has not shown us much of this, except in the past, and in the end, what little we can know about it from here: Heaven and being with him. These will not fail to be completed, accomplished. God is seeing to it.

Sometimes when Calvinists are faced with a conundrum, they will invoke two wills in God, in which there is a “Revealed Will” and a “Secret Will.” The former is intended for man, and does not necessarily reflect the deepest truth of God, while the latter is God’s sovereign will, which He always brings about, even when it contradicts the Revealed Will. Deuteronomy 29:29 states: “The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our sons forever, that we may observe all the words of this law.” Although there are some things that we must trust God with, that does not necessarily mean that they are in contradiction to God’s stated Word.

This claim also establishes an extra-biblical authority, since it requires a Calvinist to tell us whenever a given verse refers to the Revealed Will or the Secret Will. When God says that He “desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Timothy 2:4) and is “patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance” (2 Peter 3:9) and does not “have any pleasure in the death of the wicked” but rather would have it he “should turn from his ways and live” (Ezekiel 18:23), is that the Revealed Will or the Secret Will? When Jesus said to Jerusalem, “How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling” (Matthew 23:37), did He secretly mean that He never really wanted to do so, as part of a Secret Will in predestining them to Hell?

From the Calvinistic perspective, all of this is an apparent contradiction but not an actual contradiction, since our finite minds are incapacitated by the pollution of sin in the world. However, apparent contradictions are resolved with logic, while actual contradictions are resolved with Double-Talk, and that appears to be a Calvinist’s only real defense.

What a noted contemporary Calvinist taught concerning the two wills and contradictions:

Erwin Lutzer: “[Martin] Luther at this point made a distinction that was important to his theology: There is the revealed will of God and the secret, hidden purpose of God. On the one hand, God pleads with the sinner to believe; yet, on the other hand, he plans the damnation of many. This secret will is not to be inquired into but to be reverently adored. We should not ask why it is so but rather stand in awe of God.”​

​

Erwin Lutzer: “The revealed will was that all men be saved, but the hidden will was that the greater part of mankind be damned.”​

​

John MacArthur: “So God elects those that are saved; those that perish do so without any help from God. He is, as Phil [Johnson] said, passive. And you see that in Romans 9 where God is fitting vessels unto salvation. But vessels are being fitted unto damnation, and God is passive in that. It is also true that God does love humanity, and manifests that in common grace, as I said. Now, having said that you believe all of that, you now have a problem. And that is that your brain can’t handle all of that information and bring complete resolution. But that’s okay; because if you could, you wouldn’t be human. There are things that only God can understand. And I really do believe that. I’m very content with that. That’s one of the reasons I know the Bible is written by God, because men would fix it. If I wrote a book that had those contradictions, Phil [Johnson] would edit them all out. One of the bench marks of divine inspiration is the fact that you’re dealing with transcendence.”​

 

[Derf]

Interesting question: IF Saul had not chosen to displease God, then Saul would have remained as King. Rewrite the entire Bible and every subsequent word would be dictated by the "free will" choices of the characters involved.

Why don't you think that's what happened? The bible wasn't written before the events, except in some limited cases. Abraham didn't look in the bible to find out where God was leading him. Saul didn't check 1 Samuel to see whether God wanted him to be king. David didn't search through the book of Psalms to see what He should write.

As then even God could not predict the future, He could only react and rewrite according to the sovereign free will of man

He could predict any future He decided to get involved in, but not necessarily every detail about every person's future. Why would He want to? How do you have a real conversation with someone who only says exactly what you expect him to?

 

[zoidar]

Why don't you think that's what happened? The bible wasn't written before the events, except in some limited cases. Abraham didn't look in the bible to find out where God was leading him. Saul didn't check 1 Samuel to see whether God wanted him to be king. David didn't search through the book of Psalms to see what He should write.

He could predict any future He decided to get involved in, but not necessarily every detail about every person's future. Why would He want to? How do you have a real conversation with someone who only says exactly what you expect him to?

Many of your posts I find good and reasonable, but you don't think God knows everything? I don't see God knowing everything would contradict free will in any instance and I don't mean compatibilist "free will", but libertarian free will.

 

[QvQ]

Why don't you think that's what happened? The bible wasn't written before the events, except in some limited cases. Abraham didn't look in the bible to find out where God was leading him. Saul didn't check 1 Samuel to see whether God wanted him to be king. David didn't search through the book of Psalms to see what He should write.

Some limited Cases...Revelation?

 

[Derf]

Many of your posts I find good and reasonable,

Thanks for the positive comment.

but you don't think God knows everything?

Can you tell me why you think it's necessary?

I don't see God knowing everything would contradict free will in any instance and I don't mean compatibilist "free will", but libertarian free will.

Here's where I went with that question.
First, I considered whether God can look into the future to see what happens. That means the future is settled by someone besides God, and it isn't you or me that decide our actions (like what cereal you will eat tomorrow), because those decisions were made before you or I were created. That means there is somebody that knows more than God, which makes him more powerful than God. That drives me to the Calvinistic view of God, where He is the one that determines everything about the future, including what I have for breakfast tomorrow. But if He determines everthing, then He determines what sins I will commit, when I will commit them, and whether I "repent" of them. I'm not really involved, because all of this is determined before I'm even created.
If I'm not involved in deciding which sins I commit, and when, then how can I be responsible for any of them, much less be sentenced to die for them. We would all recognize such a judge as unfair to the extreme.

Nor does the bible say God knows everything about you from before the world was created.

So why do we hold to the idea? Comfort, maybe? Tradition, perhaps? The biggest reason is that we have this idea of God's omniscience that supersedes scripture.


If God knows something about the future, then that means it's because it is
1. Something He intends to accomplish
2. Something already thought about by an existing creature (including angels and Satan), or
3. Something that derives from 1 and/or 2 or something done in the past by God or another existing creature (like the path of planets and comets, or the result of Adam eating the fruit)

We can tell this by several scriptures that explain how God knows things about us. He searches our hearts, he has "eyes" that rove over the whole earth, or He tests us, like He did Abraham.

Plus, there are times when God changed what was going to happen after He told someone what it was that would happen. Like Hezekiah's death date, or Nineveh's destruction date. He can't do that if the times are decided long before, because then His statements--the ones He knows are incorrect--are lies.

Please let me know if some of that doesn't make sense.