Is Calvinism a heresy?

[John Mullally]

At risk of losing an ally, I think we are free to speculate, where God doesn't tell us explicitly, on how God does things, as long as we don't dogmatize our speculations.

We all speculate (i.e. believe something not expressly stated in scripture) . When I post a speculation, I will label it as such. I view many Calvinists (not most) as dividing the body of Christ over their Calvin-based speculation. Calvin did a hell of a lot of speculation as he stated God predestines many to eternal torment from the womb - where is that stated expressly in scripture (rather that contradicts 1 Timothy 2:4).

“…individuals are born, who are doomed from the womb to certain death, and are to glorify him by their destruction.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 23, Paragraph 6)​

So if God says that He declares (decrees is a synonym here, I think) because He will perform it, we shouldn't then say God does not declare nor accomplish what He declares.

When God declares a thing it will happen. But that is not the same as cause. For example, I don't think God caused Satan to be evil even though he rebelled and led many to hell. Love (and God is love) hopes all things (1 Corinthians 13). Jesus in Matthew 10:16 calls us to be wise as serpents, but as innocent as doves.

There are a myriad of stock brokers that crow that they predicted (same meaning as declared) the fall in 2008, but none say they caused it.

 

[Mark Quayle]

maxamir said:
Pro 16:33 The lot is cast into the lap, But its every decision is from the LORD.

God can prophetically declare the “end from the beginning” because He has neither an end nor a beginning, being timeless and eternal. The Bible does not state that God caused the end from the beginning, though Calvinists teach that that’s the only way God could infallibly know the end from the beginning.

Lousy logic: How would God declaring, (why bother to say, 'prophetically', btw? —do you have a problem with God decreeing the end from the beginning?), be dependent on our notions of his timelessness and eternity? It's not enough that the Bible says that he does so? Or are you only saying that it makes sense that he would declare the end from the beginning, because he is timeless and eternal?

Misrepresentation of Calvinism. It does not say that causing the end from the beginning is the only way God could infallibly know the end from the beginning. It only says that he does, and that it makes perfect sense that he would know the end from the beginning, since he causes the end from the beginning.

Again, through this whole mess, you refuse to admit that 'God is First Cause' necessarily means that NOTHING can happen apart from his causation.

Declaring and causing are not the same things. For example, according to 1 Corinthians 15:1, Paul makes known the gospel. So, does that mean that Paul caused the gospel? Or, instead does it mean that he is revealing what the gospel already is? This is why it is improper to automatically conflate declaring with causing.

Category error. For Paul or any creature, to declare is not the same as to cause. For God, who is not complicated by our assessments and definitions, decreeing IS causing, whether directly, or by secondary causes, (and tertiary etc). God is not like us.

maxamir said:
Pro_21:1 The king's heart is in the hand of the LORD, Like the rivers of water; He turns it wherever He wishes

This speaks of God’s ability to influence and effect outcomes, and it stands to reason that God could do this for any person and in any scenario, should God wish it. For example, I can turn my dog’s attention whenever I wish, but that doesn’t mean that I always do so. Establishing God’s ability over a king’s will doesn’t disprove free human agency, but rather establishes it. After all, what is there for God to overcome or guide if not the autonomous will of His subject? Why turn a will left that wants to go right if you’re already controlling the want of that will (as Calvinist's assert)?

You remind me of people who can only think in terms of Point-of-Sale, where each event is its own. You self-deterministic types keep ignoring the fact that God created, and that him creating necessarily implies detail, by chains of causation, if no other way. How you can come up with, for example, that God knowing the end from the beginning does not imply knowing the middle, is beyond me. What— does something happen to God, he did not know, when he started this ball rolling? Does the ball roll by some other principle that he did not himself cause? Is it steered by principles that he did not designate nor even intend?

"God's ability to influence", you say. It is only an ability? Look at how you think! God only 'inserts himself' into situations? Is not every motion of the smallest particle upheld by the word of his power? Is he unaware of each one, and only categorically upholds them, leaving them to their own devices, each one itself imbued with freewill, or directed by mere chance?

Monstrously, though, you allow him to control the king's will *gasp!*. If it is ok, and not unfair, and not unkind, and not contrary to the logic of freewill, for him to control the King's will, or as you put it, to "do this for any person and in any scenario, should God wish it", then why would it be a problem for him to do so with ALL individuals? Ironically enough, you yourself say that him doing so establishes free will! So says the WCF! So say I! Or did I read you wrong, and you do have a problem with him being unfair to the king?

If, according to Calvinists, God has brought all things to pass by His unchangeable decree, then what is it in the heart of this ruler that God is now turning or restraining except that which He has already decreed? For example, suppose the ruler of Proverbs 21:1-3 wanted to rape his servant but God restrains him from acting upon his lustful intention. From the Calvinist perspective, where did the ruler’s lustful intention originate? Did God not sovereignly bring about the ruler’s evil desire, and then by the same decree also restrain him from acting upon that desire? In such a case, God would merely be restraining His own determinations in a world where there are no autonomously free creatures. It is nonsensical to suggest God is restraining a will that He has already been meticulously controlling. The passage doesn’t make any sense unless there is free-will, in which under divine influence, a new course is being directed.

You are describing Point-of-sale mindset. Appearances. You seem to me to think that each step in life is its own, which, amazingly enough, works against your notion that God does not control the middle.

If God causes absolutely everything, then this is no problem at all, and all your paradoxes are self-constructed. God can take the king, or anyone, to whatever place he wishes, and then change their course yet again. Where's the problem with that? But apparently you think that is God working against himself.

Again, through this whole mess, you refuse to admit that 'God is First Cause' necessarily means that NOTHING can happen apart from his causation.

And still, you have not explained how it is not self-contradictory to claim that First Cause can cause another first cause, i.e. uncaused free will.

 

[John Mullally]

Lousy logic: How would God declaring, (why bother to say, 'prophetically', btw? —do you have a problem with God decreeing the end from the beginning?), be dependent on our notions of his timelessness and eternity? It's not enough that the Bible says that he does so? Or are you only saying that it makes sense that he would declare the end from the beginning, because he is timeless and eternal?

Perhaps you are the expert at lousy logic. We agree that God is uniquely timeless and eternal - why do you have a conniption over my word usage. Stick to the point which is whether God "declaring" "the end from the beginning" includes "causing" that.

Misrepresentation of Calvinism. It does not say that causing the end from the beginning is the only way God could infallibly know the end from the beginning. It only says that he does, and that it makes perfect sense that he would know the end from the beginning, since he causes the end from the beginning.

I don't misrepresent Calvinism as I go to the source - which is Calvin himself. Maybe your brand of Calvinism has drifted away from the Calvin. The Calvin represents God as being as malevolent as Satan as he says that God predestines some to hell, whereas scripture says that God desires all people to be saved (1 Timothy 2;4).

“…individuals are born, who are doomed from the womb to certain death, and are to glorify him by their destruction.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 23, Paragraph 6)​

​

The Calvin positions mankind as robots whose every thought and action is scripted by God.

“We hold that God is the disposer and ruler of all things, –that from the remotest eternity, according to his own wisdom, He decreed what he was to do, and now by his power executes what he decreed. Hence we maintain, that by His providence, not heaven and earth and inanimate creatures only, but also the counsels and wills of men are so governed as to move exactly in the course which he has destined.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 1, Chapter 16, Paragraph 8)​

“The devil, and the whole train of the ungodly, are in all directions, held in by the hand of God as with a bridle, so that they can neither conceive any mischief, nor plan what they have conceived, nor how muchsoever they may have planned, move a single finger to perpetrate, unless in so far as he permits, nay unless in so far as he commands, that they are not only bound by his fetters but are even forced to do him service” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 1, Chapter 17, Paragraph 11)​

​

Side note: You never did respond to my post (Post 952) that proved that Calvinistic determinism is false.

If God causes absolutely everything, then this is no problem at all, and all your paradoxes are self-constructed. God can take the king, or anyone, to whatever place he wishes, and then change their course yet again. Where's the problem with that? But apparently you think that is God working against himself.

If God causes absolutely everything, why is that not clearly stated in scripture? All I have heard are flimsy arguments based upon mixing many tangential scriptures with some assumptions.

Again, through this whole mess, you refuse to admit that 'God is First Cause' necessarily means that NOTHING can happen apart from his causation.

And still, you have not explained how it is not self-contradictory to claim that First Cause can cause another first cause, i.e. uncaused free will.

Your "first cause" argument is philosophical, and not based upon scripture. It assumes that all our actions are controlled by external events. It denies that we are sentient beings made in the likeness of God.

Genesis 4:6-8 shows the independence of Cain. He was his own person, though unfortunately acting contrary to the way in which God felt that he should. The fact that God reasoned with Cain, in that he must “master” the sin that was crouching at this door, shows that God believed that Cain could exercise his autonomous, selfdetermination in a positive manner. He should be able to control the murderous motives that he felt inside. The fact that God warned Cain what would happen if he failed to control himself shows that God believed that Cain possessed the power of contrary choice, that is, Cain did not have to murder Able, even though that is exactly what he eventually did.

Genesis 4:6 Then the Lord said to Cain, “Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast? 7 If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must rule over it.” 8 Now Cain said to his brother Abel, “Let’s go out to the field.” While they were in the field, Cain attacked his brother Abel and killed him.​

If God causes every man's thought and action, why does scripture commonly express God's dismay at man's behavior? Is God play acting (showing dismay over something He scripted per Calvinistic determinism) in order to perhaps encourage better compliance in the future? Play acting is a form of lying and God does not lie. Your argument over first cause implies that God is arranging external circumstances in order to manipulate man. Just because God can do something does not mean He does so - again you need a better argument.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Mark Quayle said:
Misrepresentation of Calvinism. It does not say that causing the end from the beginning is the only way God could infallibly know the end from the beginning. It only says that he does, and that it makes perfect sense that he would know the end from the beginning, since he causes the end from the beginning.

I don't misrepresent Calvinism as I go to the source - which is Calvin himself. Maybe your brand of Calvinism has drifted away from the Calvin. The Calvin represents God as being as malevolent as Satan as he says that God predestines some to hell, whereas scripture says that God desires all people to be saved (1 Timothy 2;4).

“…individuals are born, who are doomed from the womb to certain death, and are to glorify him by their destruction.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 23, Paragraph 6)The Calvin positions mankind as robots whose every thought and action is scripted by God.

“We hold that God is the disposer and ruler of all things, –that from the remotest eternity, according to his own wisdom, He decreed what he was to do, and now by his power executes what he decreed. Hence we maintain, that by His providence, not heaven and earth and inanimate creatures only, but also the counsels and wills of men are so governed as to move exactly in the course which he has destined.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 1, Chapter 16, Paragraph 8)
“The devil, and the whole train of the ungodly, are in all directions, held in by the hand of God as with a bridle, so that they can neither conceive any mischief, nor plan what they have conceived, nor how muchsoever they may have planned, move a single finger to perpetrate, unless in so far as he permits, nay unless in so far as he commands, that they are not only bound by his fetters but are even forced to do him service” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 1, Chapter 17, Paragraph 11)

Moving the goalposts, again. HOW does anything you say there concerning Calvin and Calvinism, to include the quotes, deal with or make any claim that the only way God knows the end from the beginning is because he causes the end from the beginning?

Side note: You never did respond to my post (Post 952) that proved that Calvinistic determinism is false.

My bad. I have never seen any post that proved that Calvinistic determinism is false. I should have realized that you would be the first in 6000 years to do so.

If God causes every man's thought and action, why does scripture commonly express God's dismay at man's behavior? Is God play acting (showing dismay over something He scripted per Calvinistic determinism) in order to perhaps encourage better compliance in the future? Play acting is a form of lying and God does not lie. Your argument over first cause implies that God is arranging external circumstances in order to manipulate man. Just because God can do something does not mean He does so - again you need a better argument.

What— you think that sin is not primarily against God? Sin hurts him.

You really need to come up with new material.




So: your post 952 that according to you "proves that Calvinistic determinism is false". A note: I thought I had answered it. I know I started to. But I'm guessing I gave up, as it is like being a mosquito in a nudist camp to answer your claims.

If someone literally causes another to do something, the one doing the causing is responsible for the action. The fact that God judges people for their sinful actions reflects the fact that either the man being judged sinned volitionally or that God is unjust. Under Calvinist determinism, we can never do anything volitionally - although we may imagine we do so. If God determines man's every action, it does not matter what mechanism God uses to do so - arguing over the exact method or man's disposition given to him by God is unimportant.

Be honest, now. What does 'responsible' mean, here, when God is the one who caused all fact, and the sinner is the one sinning? Do you complain that God bent their will where it would not otherwise have gone? Do you disagree that the sinner willing participates in his own sin?

But more to the point, do you have no notion of how much higher, or other, than us, God is?

And still, as before, you have not shown anything but your opinion of the Bible disagreeing, and ignored all the Bible claiming, that First Cause indeed does cause all things, just as logic also shows.

I believe that when God provides a way of escape to temptation, God intends that way of escape be taken. But due to man's free will, man does not always take the way of escape that God provides. You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink.

For argument's sake, let's assume Calvinistic determinism is true. In 1 Corinthians 10:13, Paul says that God is faithful to provide a way of escape from falling to temptation, but we know from experience, that even believers sometimes fall to temptation. 1 Corinthians was written to believers - so I will limit the scope of that scripture to believers. Per Calvinistic determinism, God predetermines every fall to temptation that believers make, but per 1 Corinthians 10:13 God is faithful to provide believer's a way of escape to every temptation. That shows a contradiction, as whenever God predetermines a believer's fall to temptation, God has blocked any way of escape to that temptation. This contradiction proves Calvinistic determinism is false.

How is your construction there any different from a hundred such examples? Don't wimp out on me, now. Even with your use of Scripture, this is pretty weak. You already should know my answer, because I wouldn't be surprised if you've heard it a hundred times: There is no contradiction. Does not the sinner fully participate in his own sin?


Mark Quayle said:
You don't even discuss the way that God uses a person's own preferences to bring about what God intended!

Simple: I don't agree to that statement. Again, I don't believe God intends for people to sin. 1 Corinthians 13 says that Love (and God is love) believes all things and hopes all things. When God hopes all things - he is hoping good things for people. I know we live in a fallen world, but think pure, lovely, and noble thoughts (Philippians 4:8).

So, I've been wrong all these years, and this life is only for this life, after all. Wow!

God is not us. God doesn't "hope", in the way we do.

 

[John Mullally]

Mark Quayle said:
Misrepresentation of Calvinism. It does not say that causing the end from the beginning is the only way God could infallibly know the end from the beginning. It only says that he does, and that it makes perfect sense that he would know the end from the beginning, since he causes the end from the beginning.

Moving the goalposts, again. HOW does anything you say there concerning Calvin and Calvinism, to include the quotes, deal with or make any claim that the only way God knows the end from the beginning is because he causes the end from the beginning?

You lecture me on lousy logic in post 1002. But most of your responses consist of phony outrage, being satirical, being dismissive, or rarely sanctimony. I don't see much logic other than your harping on a "first cause" that deems that God orchestrates our every action by arranging circumstances - but you supply no scriptural support on that.

Outrage: I covered "God knowing the end from the beginning" in Post 987 which you dismissed in post 1002 because you overreacted to the words (timeless and eternal) I used. Your habit of getting upset over nothing is not argument. Do you want to try again in responding to post 987 without the angst?

Moving the goalposts, again. HOW does anything you say there concerning Calvin and Calvinism, to include the quotes, deal with or make any claim that the only way God knows the end from the beginning is because he causes the end from the beginning?

Dismissive: I was addressing the fact that you say I misrepresent Calvin, so I took another opportunity to demonstrate that Calvin's own words are extremely polemic - thus most Calvinists have not come to terms with what Calvin states. If Reformed churches emphasized Calvin's polemic statements, they would empty their pews. Here is a link John Calvin Quotes – The Calvinism of John Calvin – Are Calvinists REALLY “Calvinists”?'

My bad. I have never seen any post that proved that Calvinistic determinism is false. I should have realized that you would be the first in 6000 years to do so.

Satirical: Calvinism has only been around for 500 years. About 90% of Christians oppose Calvinism so its not like many Christians believe him. Prior to Augustine no church leaders spoke about determinism.

What— you think that sin is not primarily against God? Sin hurts him.

So you think it is fair for God to be upset with man's sin when he causes it per Calvinist determinism? Thoughts like that should lead you away from Calvinism as it should occur to you that God is too holy to cause others to sin..

You really need to come up with new material.

Dismissive: I may have mentioned that up to 4 times on this forum. You have parroted your philosophical "first cause" argument without scriptural backing in somewhere between 200 and 2000 posts on this forum.

So: your post 952 that according to you "proves that Calvinistic determinism is false". A note: I thought I had answered it. I know I started to. But I'm guessing I gave up, as it is like being a mosquito in a nudist camp to answer your claims.

Satirical to the max.

Be honest, now. What does 'responsible' mean, here, when God is the one who caused all fact, and the sinner is the one sinning? Do you complain that God bent their will where it would not otherwise have gone? Do you disagree that the sinner willing participates in his own sin?

Responsible means able to respond positively. No one has been prosecuted for doing something when another stands over them with a gun to their head. The guy with the gun will be prosecuted for that action.

For argument's sake, let's assume Calvinistic determinism is true. In 1 Corinthians 10:13, Paul says that God is faithful to provide a way of escape from falling to temptation, but we know from experience, that even believers sometimes fall to temptation. 1 Corinthians was written to believers - so I will limit the scope of that scripture to believers. Per Calvinistic determinism, God predetermines every fall to temptation that believers make, but per 1 Corinthians 10:13 God is faithful to provide believer's a way of escape to every temptation. That shows a contradiction, as whenever God predetermines a believer's fall to temptation, God has blocked any way of escape to that temptation. This contradiction proves Calvinistic determinism is false.

How is your construction there any different from a hundred such examples? Don't wimp out on me, now. Even with your use of Scripture, this is pretty weak. You already should know my answer, because I wouldn't be surprised if you've heard it a hundred times: There is no contradiction. Does not the sinner fully participate in his own sin?

Dismissive: Nothing here addresses my argument. If my argument is weak you should be able to point out the flaw. That would give me an opportunity to respond. How about keying on scripture and logic instead of satire, dismissal, phony outrage, and sanctimony? God sees all.

So, I've been wrong all these years, and this life is only for this life, after all. Wow!

Satirical. Given I did not say anything about "this life is only for this life", you should seriously consider that you may have been wrong all these years. Why is it that you frequently lash out and no longer respond logically to other's posts?

God is not us. God doesn't "hope", in the way we do.

Dismissive: Only God's word speaks for God - your reasoning does not speak for God. God is love (1 John 4:8), Jesus calls us to love like God, and per 1 Corinthians 13 love hopes all things - thus God hopes all things.

 

[maxamir]

This is a good list, maxamir. Let's talk about them.

This is one of my favorite verses, because it explains exactly what God's decrees are about...His own pleasure. One of the things that Calvinists say is part of God's decree is the death of the wicked, right? But we also know what about the death of the wicked? That it ISN'T God's pleasure.
[Eze 18:23 KJV] Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord GOD: [and] not that he should return from his ways, and live?

God tells us 2 things here. 1. That He does not desire the death of the wicked, and 2. That He wants the wicked to repent and live.
Now, Calvinism says that God doesn't mean what He says in that verse...that He desires the death of the wicked because He decreed it. And Calvinism also says that only God can change a man's heart such that he turns from his sins and lives. Yet God says He doesn't like it when the wicked don't turn. Is God not powerful enough to do His pleasure? Won't His counsel stand and He will fulfill all His desires? Yet the wicked still die in their sins.

That means that God allows man's choices to trump even His own pleasure in at least some cases.


Does this mean that God has determined from eternity past everything that will happen to "a man"? Of course not. It means that while a man might make plans based on his own thoughts and desires, God is able to overcome the man's strength and purpose anytime He wants to. But does that mean God always wants to overcome a man's strength and purpose? No. Sometimes even the most evil of men are allowed to continue for awhile. Does that mean that God was directing Hitler's steps, causing him to exterminate 6 million Jews? If so, then Hitler was doing exactly what God wanted him to do, and if we are obeying God, then we aren't sinning, right? This is the confusion that Calvinism creates.



I had a friend who was an elder at a Reformed church I attended for awhile. He used this verse to justify asking advice from one of those Magic 8 Ball toys. You can see how he was...um...misinformed by what Calvinists use this verse for.

Have you ever turned a river of water? Even a little one? I have, as have most kids, playing in a stream. It's not too difficult to do it on a small scale. There are two ways to turn a river: 1. Dig lower where you want the river to flow, or 2. Build an embankment where you don't want it to flow. You can see how God does this, right? In Moses' time, he got Pharaoh to get mad at the Israelites so that when he finally let them go, it was obvious that he was defeated. And God did it by Moses' miracles and the lesser plagues. In Joshua's time, God helped the Israelites to defeat Canaanite cities by tearing down their walls and by stopping the sun. He put fear in their hearts by defeating Pharaoh and other nations.

I'm surprised that you think so little of God that in order for prophecies of Jesus (for example) to be fulfilled, God has to decree what you will have for breakfast tomorrow.

Can you provide me the scripture where God said Adam would die "on that day"? There are actually a couple of translations that say "on the day", but they are anomalous. Most say "in the day". Does "in the day" always mean "on the day" in scripture? It does sometimes, but certainly not always. Interestingly enough, the first time "in the day" is used is not when God told Adam he would die after eating of the tree, but it IS in the same chapter.
[Gen 2:4 KJV] These [are] the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens

How many days does "in the day" mean in Genesis 2:4? If it doesn't mean a single day in Gen 2:4, why would you think it has to mean a single day in Gen 2:17?

Have you ever looked up the phrase "in the day" in a modern english dictionary? The most recognizable usage is "back in the day". You no doubt think that "back in the day" means "one time during a single 24 hour period", right? Of course not. It means "during a particular phase or era". It means the same in both places in Gen 2. The first was the era of creation, 6 days. The second was the era of Adam, which turned out to be over 900 years long.

If Adam lost God's image, then why did God tell Noah to implement the death penalty for anyone who killed another man because God made man in His own image?
[Gen 9:6 KJV] Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.

I thought God loved and wanted to save "the world" (John 3:16). How is it that "the world" is how Jesus defines His followers in John 3:16, when He also said that "the world" would hate His followers? Are you saying that Jesus' followers are going to hate Jesus' followers? Maybe so, if this thread is any indication.

If God desires to save everybody, but some don't want to be saved, who gets to decide? Apparently the people, and not God.
[Luk 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!

And what do you think that means? I think it means that the religious leaders are not the ones that necessarily benefit from God's grace, but anyone who trusts in God can benefit.

Then why do you argue in forums such as this? You have no hope to convince me, unless I need no convincing. Calvinism is a useless doctrine. Those that get it don't need it. Those that need it won't ever get it.

I am here to give an answer to those who ask me questions and correct those who are in error. It is up to God if He chooses to use His truth to either harden you by handing you over to your own lusts in this cursed world and make you more accountable or to humble you sometime in the future. My hope is the latter.

God indeed has no pleasure in the death of the wicked who repent which is the context of the passage you quoted. God declares that the soul that sins shall die (Eze 18:4,20) and we know that the wages of sin is death (Rom 6:23) therefore if God does not judge sin by the death He proclaims for it then He would not be just, which is why Adam began to die physically when he died spiritually. God actually kills about 180,000 people every day which is around two people every second because He is holy and just and hates the evil that man stained this world with and must judge it, this is the foundation of why Christ came. Your view of God would have Him frustrated and crying over every person He kills because you think He is altogether like you (Psalm 50:21) and do not yet fear Him for who He truly is.

God in His sovereignty allows the wicked to be part of His plan for His elect to help refine them as all things work together for good to them, even the evil they experience from some as Joseph himself learnt (Exo 50:20). The wicked are a ransom for the righteous (Pro 21:18) and were created for the day of evil (Pro 16:4) and all those who die in their sin not trusting completely on the person and work of Christ will confirm themselves to be reprobates eternally and justly hated by God but according to you, God loves everyone including those He justly casts into Hell.

The Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ is the greatest goodness this world has and will ever know and those who undermine and pervert the Gospel as you do by robbing God of the glory of His salvation and giving it to the choice of man are committing the greatest evil in this world and are considered to be doubly accursed (Gal 1:8-9) with the blood of men upon you (Acts 20:26-27) and that is why I am lovingly warning you.

 

[John Mullally]

I am here to give an answer to those who ask me questions and correct those who are in error. It is up to God if He chooses to use His truth to either harden you by handing you over to your own lusts in this cursed world and make you more accountable or to humble you sometime in the future. My hope is the latter.

Obnoxiously sanctimonious - like many cults that say something similar. You reject the fact that God desires all people to be saved (1 Timothy 2:4). How is that God can be the savior of all people? Paul stated that with a reason in mind.

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.​

 

[zoidar]

Your "first cause" argument is philosophical, and not based upon scripture.

All arguments aside, I think this is the most relevant point.

 

[Derf]

That basically states that men who love God are under attack by those who hate God and man is calling upon God for aid and protection.

Interesting that you removed the quote of my actual question. I'll ask it again: whose enemies was the psalmist talking about?

However:
You stated that Christ engineered the betrayal of Judas.

And you have some kind of evidence that I'm wrong? All I'm doing is answering that such is part of why Judas betrayed Him.
John 6:70 KJV — Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?
Jesus knew from the beginning what Judas was like.
John 6:64 KJV — But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.
Jesus selected Judas knowing he would betray Him. But it doesn't say, "because he was predestined to do so from all eternity."

You said Christ knew Peter would deny Him because of subtle hints.

Those weren't my original words. Jesus knew Peter as intimately as He knew Judas, but there are no verses that tell us Jesus knew from the beginning that Peter would deny Him. All of the disciples had their loyalty tested that night. Peter, as the leader, had been especially targeted by Satan for "sifting".

You made these claims to disprove that Christ as God could know the future. (post 970)

Therefore, that means Christ tempted those two, actually compelled Judas and tempted Peter, through subtle hints. (forewarned Peter)

If Jesus knew that Judas would betray Him, how much compelling did Jesus need to do? "What you do, do quickly" is hardly a temptation when Judas has already accepted payment for His betrayal.

1) Then Christ was God compelling and tempting
2) Or Christ was not God, merely a man arranging
Which?

I thought you said "compelling" equals "tempting"?

""thou movest me against him" The way in which Satan moved God against Job was by ASKING God.
That is a What answer, What God and Satan did, not Why God withdrew His hand from Job or consented to Satan's request.

As you said, this could be a subject for another thread.

I am here to give an answer to those who ask me questions and correct those who are in error.

Oh. I thought you might also consider you could be the one in error. I guess that never happens.

It is up to God if He chooses to use His truth to either harden you by handing you over to your own lusts in this cursed world and make you more accountable or to humble you sometime in the future.

Sounds like He's already hardened you, based on my comment above.

My hope is the latter.

God indeed has no pleasure in the death of the wicked who repent which is the context of the passage you quoted. God declares that the soul that sins shall die (Eze 18:4,20) and we know that the wages of sin is death (Rom 6:23) therefore if God does not judge sin by the death He proclaims for it then He would not be just,

Then He would be judging Himself according to Calvinism, or He would not be just.

which is why Adam began to die physically when he died spiritually.

Or...why he died "in the day he ate."

God actually kills about 180,000 people every day which is around two people every second because He is holy and just and hates the evil that man stained this world with and must judge it, this is the foundation of why Christ came.

You mean to save the ones He could have saved without all that trouble, by decreeing that they never sin?

Your view of God would have Him frustrated and crying over every person He kills because you think He is altogether like you (Psalm 50:21) and do not yet fear Him for who He truly is.

Frustrated, like this:
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!
Or this:
Isaiah 5:4 KJV — What could have been done more to my vineyard, that I have not done in it? wherefore, when I looked that it should bring forth grapes, brought it forth wild grapes?
Or this:
Genesis 6:5-6 KJV — And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

God in His sovereignty allows the wicked to be part of His plan for His elect to help refine them as all things work together for good to them, even the evil they experience from some as Joseph himself learnt (Exo 50:20). The wicked are a ransom for the righteous (Pro 21:18) and were created for the day of evil (Pro 16:4) and all those who die in their sin not trusting completely on the person and work of Christ will confirm themselves to be reprobates eternally and justly hated by God

Don't forget--DECREED by GOD to be reprobate before they had done anything or even existed. You guys always forget that part.

but according to you, God loves everyone including those He justly casts into Hell.

Yep. That's what "justly" is all about.

The Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ is the greatest goodness this world has and will ever know and those who undermine and pervert the Gospel as you do by robbing God of the glory of His salvation

It's ok...He will just program you to give Him glory anyway. You don't even need Him to do anything just, merciful, or glorious.

and giving it to the choice of man are committing the greatest evil in this world and are considered to be doubly accursed (Gal 1:8-9)

Wow! Never saw that reference coming. Are we still on the same subject here?

with the blood of men upon you (Acts 20:26-27) and that is why I am lovingly warning you.

If the blood of men is on me, it is because God eternally decreed for it to be so, remember? I can't help myself. (That means the blood of men is really on God, in case you didn't catch it.)

You are "lovingly warning me" to do exactly what? How can I do different than God decreed me to do?

 

[Faithfulandtrue]

Well to be honest Catholicism is flat out heresy. Not true Christianity. It was created by a Roman leader Constantine to trick early Christians into worshipping false gods by putting a christian mask on them. Praying to "saints" is an act of worship and the word saint actually means Christian but not Christ. So that's like me praying to any of you. None of you can save or answer prayer only God. Also NO MAN has authority over God and His Word so the very idea of a pope is satanic. There's more to this discussion but I definitely wouldn't look to the cult of Catholicism as a backdrop of true Christianity.

 

[Derf]

When God declares a thing it will happen.

This is slightly off topic, but God made several declarations in the OT that didn't happen. I mentioned Hezekiah to someone else. God told him he would die of his illness, then God told him he would recover. Both of these were declarations. But only one came to pass (obviously, since they categorical opposites).

 

[QvQ]

All arguments aside, I think this is the most relevant point.

The First Cause Arguments are presented in Summa Theologiae.
Aquinas based this on Scripture.
The First Cause arguments by Aquinas are proof of God.

(This is in response to zoidar' response to John Mullin assertion that Mark Quayle's arguments of First Cause are philosophy, not based on scripture.)

 

[zoidar]

The First Cause Arguments are based on Summa Theologiae.
Aquinas based this on Scripture.
The First Cause arguments by Aquinas are proof of God.

(This is in response to zoidar' response to John Mullin assertion that Mark Quayle's arguments of First Cause are philosophy, not based on scripture.)

I haven't read Aquinas arguments, can't give any comment to it.

Did he hold to God decreeing every single detail in the universe? I think this is where I and John Mullin disagree.

 

[QvQ]

@zoidar
I hesitate to give a synopsis on Aquinas, not really qualified, however I will tell you my understanding.

Aquinas stated that God Created the Universe. He Caused it in the sense that he set it in motion. So as God created every thing, mass energy, and ordered the elements into all the forms in the world through forces like gravity. Yes, He decreed every detail. All of what He created is known to him, counted and accounted for.

All this creation was in motion and God was the First Cause of that motion. He set the planets on their path through His law (decree)
God knows where the planets have been, where they are now and where they are going. That is the law (decree) for all of creation.

Man is also in motion. Man is constrained to certain paths by his nature and his circumstanced (providence)
Aquinas seemed to believe in limited free will due to the constraints imposed by the various laws of God. (man's nature, gravity and the Ten Commandments, just to mention a few laws, (decrees.)

Does God decree everything to the smallest detail? Yes, He created and ordered it so it is counted and accounted for. He knows every atom and every elephant that is or ever will be.

He knows the future. If creation were static , without motion, then God and man would know the future. Where it was, where it is and where it is going would be exactly where it is was and shall be but things move and change position according to fixed laws (decree)

So man get confused by motion, about knowing the future of where things will be in the future because creation is not static. Everything is moving. However, God is not confused because He is the Creator and Cause of Motion. Motion is according to His laws (decree)

.God created man, set him in motion by God's decree so God know where man was, where man is and where man will be, right down to the hairs on his head which grow in and fall out, so keeping track of the number of hairs on your head would be a major chore for man, but it is only a minor detail to God
Now matter how much it all changes, it is the same to God, all of it, His creation, His decree. And He knows it, every single particle, where it is, where was and where it will be. And He knows that for the entire universe all at once.

(Just my understanding, I will not defend or debate any of it. Just posting for your information. Read the book)

 

[maxamir]

Interesting that you removed the quote of my actual question. I'll ask it again: whose enemies was the psalmist talking about?

And you have some kind of evidence that I'm wrong? All I'm doing is answering that such is part of why Judas betrayed Him.
John 6:70 KJV — Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?
Jesus knew from the beginning what Judas was like.
John 6:64 KJV — But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.
Jesus selected Judas knowing he would betray Him. But it doesn't say, "because he was predestined to do so from all eternity."

Those weren't my original words. Jesus knew Peter as intimately as He knew Judas, but there are no verses that tell us Jesus knew from the beginning that Peter would deny Him. All of the disciples had their loyalty tested that night. Peter, as the leader, had been especially targeted by Satan for "sifting".

If Jesus knew that Judas would betray Him, how much compelling did Jesus need to do? "What you do, do quickly" is hardly a temptation when Judas has already accepted payment for His betrayal.

I thought you said "compelling" equals "tempting"?



Oh. I thought you might also consider you could be the one in error. I guess that never happens.

Sounds like He's already hardened you, based on my comment above.

Then He would be judging Himself according to Calvinism, or He would not be just.

Or...why he died "in the day he ate."

You mean to save the ones He could have saved without all that trouble, by decreeing that they never sin?

Frustrated, like this:
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!
Or this:
Isaiah 5:4 KJV — What could have been done more to my vineyard, that I have not done in it? wherefore, when I looked that it should bring forth grapes, brought it forth wild grapes?
Or this:
Genesis 6:5-6 KJV — And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.


Don't forget--DECREED by GOD to be reprobate before they had done anything or even existed. You guys always forget that part.

Yep. That's what "justly" is all about.

It's ok...He will just program you to give Him glory anyway. You don't even need Him to do anything just, merciful, or glorious.

Wow! Never saw that reference coming. Are we still on the same subject here?

If the blood of men is on me, it is because God eternally decreed for it to be so, remember? I can't help myself. (That means the blood of men is really on God, in case you didn't catch it.)

You are "lovingly warning me" to do exactly what? How can I do different than God decreed me to do?

You are so judicially blinded that you do not realise that a persons actions confirm what God has decreed. If you die in your sin without the righteousness of Christ that comes by grace alone, blaming God for who He is and what He does, then you will prove yourself to be reprobate but as long as you breathe His air there is still hope for such even as you.

If I knew you were reprobate I would not waste my time with you but only God knows those He hates and I sincerely believe that God hears and answers prayer because He has decreed that prayer, so I will continue to pray that God gives you absolutely no peace until you are brought to wits end to see the great shame of your sin and your desperate need for His sovereign grace that He freely gives to those whom He chooses.

 

[Derf]

Answer the question, "If God is THE First Cause, and Omniscient and, of course, Omnipotent, how is it even possible that something could come to pass apart from his decreeing it to be so?"

I don't like it when others don't answer my questions, and I saw this when I went back through the posts, so I'll try to answer it.
First, if no one else ever gets to make a decision, then "First Cause" is really "Only Cause". If anyone else ever gets to actually make a decision (like whether to eat of a particular tree in a particular garden), then they are able to alter the course of future events.

You are correct that if God is Omniscient in the way most usually define the term, then He would know exactly what everyone would do under each of the intervening circumstances, and therefore He would be setting in motion a string of events that no one could alter. I don't know that He needs to be omnipotent to do that, because He's just setting in motion the events that He foresees. However, this is NOT Calvinism, at least not according to the Westminster Confession, which says that God does not know the future because He can foresee it, but foresees it because He decrees it. That means, expressly, that He is in the business of causing His decrees to come to pass, which means that Omnipotence is the more important quality, and Omniscience is a mere byproduct. So in the same way that God can remember (perfectly) what He has done in the past (everything), He also is capable of knowing what He plans to do in the future. In such a world, He is the ONLY actor/agent, because everybody is merely doing what He programmed them to do.

That's why I (and Arminians) reject Calvinism...because it proposes a useless world that, if we are allowed to reflect on it, denigrates God's existence, power, wisdom, and real glory. It is not glorifying to God, because any glory He gets from His creatures is merely a programmed "Hallelujah", or even "I love you, God." Imagine your own world where everybody that has ever "loved" you was merely repeating "I love you" to your face because you programmed them to do so. Every "attaboy" or "great job, Mark" was due, not to the fact that you actually did something worthy of praise (it's worthiness is not even up for discussion), but because you programmed everybody to be "yes men" sycophants. How glorious would that be?

Yes, there is a problem with God knowing the future exhaustively and people actually having the ability to respond to God, and that's why I don't think God created a world where every future act was completely settled before anyone else had any say in it. God wants us to "have our say". He wants us to glorify Him because we see His power, majesty, wisdom, faithfulness, justice, mercy, love, etc. And He knows that if we don't obey Him it is immeasurably bad for us to remain in His kingdom.

There's also a problem with taking so many bible passages and saying "God didn't mean what He said", or "You non-Calvinists don't understand God because He hasn't granted you understanding", as some are wont to do. My favorite, which you dismissed, is Hezekiah's illness, which God either decreed one way or the other, assuming He decreed it from the foundation of the world, but Isaiah delivered two opposite messages within a few minutes of time. The ONLY way for that to be possible without God lying to Hezekiah is if God changed His mind and decreed a new thing after Hezekiah prayed to Him. The ONLY way. And of course, I've labeled myself as a heretic here, in trying to show that Calvinism is unbiblical (which I think is more accurate than "heretical", since heresy is in the eye of the beholder).

 

[maxamir]

The question was, where in the Bible does it state that Adam died spiritually, ever?
For Adam, the death in trespass and sin happened when he trespassed and sinned, the wages of sin.
I am glad you answered with more verses as Adam was dead in trespasses and sins, according to the verse you posted.

God is Spirit (John 4:24) and the image and likeness of God in which Adam was created was spiritual not simply physical. God is holy and righteous and so was Adam as long as God's spirit was in him but when he fell he lost the image of God and His likeness wherein God's spirit was removed from him because Adam became cursed and died as God had warned (Gen 2:17). All of Adam's descendants have a spirit but it is dead as they bear Adam's cursed image (Gen 5:3) and what was once very good (Gen 1:31) had become only evil continually (Gen 6:5).

The good news of the Gospel is that man who was originally made in the image of God, and is not to be treated like an animal who never had His image (Gen 9:3-6) can once again bear God's holy image by grace in Christ Jesus who is the Image of God (2 Cor 4:4).

 

[Derf]

You are so judicially blinded that you do not realise that a persons actions confirm what God has decreed. If you die in your sin without the righteousness of Christ that comes by grace alone, blaming God for who He is and what He does, then you will prove yourself to be reprobate but as long as you breathe His air there is still hope for such even as you.

Not if God has decreed me to be reprobate. There's no such thing as hope for Calvin's reprobates.

If I knew you were reprobate I would not waste my time with you but only God knows those He hates and I sincerely believe that God hears and answers prayer because He has decreed that prayer, so I will continue to pray that God gives you absolutely no peace until you are brought to wits end to see the great shame of your sin and your desperate need for His sovereign grace that He freely gives to those whom He chooses.

You mean the sin of seeking to know God as He has revealed Himself in His word? I would sooner die than repent of that.

 

[maxamir]

Not if God has decreed me to be reprobate. There's no such thing as hope for Calvin's reprobates.

You mean the sin of seeking to know God as He has revealed Himself in His word? I would sooner die than repent of that.

The reprobate do not know they are reprobate until they are dead and as long as a person lives I can hope and pray for them as I do for you.

If you truly were seeking to know God you would listen to all of the Word of God and not just cherry pick some Scriptures that suit your man centred theology.

 

[Derf]

Romans 6: 23 For the wages of sin is death

So now you get to edit Paul's words and leave out the solution?
Romans 6:23 KJV — For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
If eternal life there is merely spiritual life, then why are we resurrected at all? Why will Jesus call us out of our graves into everlasting life, if it's merely spiritual life--no body required. But if Paul is describing the same kind of life Jesus talked about, then isn't it referring to the same kind of death Jesus talked about--where there's a body that goes into a grave? Your verse speaks against the idea of a spiritual death experience for Adam.