The Bible or Calvinism

Mountainmanbob · Jul 20, 2017

Romans 8 and 9 if read and studied leads one to understand the calvinistic view.

God will save who he wishes and harden the ones he wishes.

Man will say, is that fair.
Be quiet little man.

M-Bob

zippy2006 · Jul 20, 2017

Hammster said:
That's cuz everyone deserves to be damned.

Zippy: That is, he decides not to save some before considering the question of whether they deserve to be damned--before considering their sin.
Hammster: That's cuz everyone deserves to be damned.

Here's a free lesson in logic, Hammster: if God decides to pass over an individual before considering whether their actions deserve damnation, he does not pass over them because they deserve damnation.

On Calvinism God decides the fate of all before anyone has done anything whatsoever--"before birth," so to speak (Romans 9:11-13 is given as justification). God saves "Jacob" before considering anything he has done or has not done. God passes over "Esau" before considering anything he has done or has not done. He does not pass over "Esau" because "Esau" deserves to be damned. Someone who has not done anything cannot have done something worthy of damnation.

Hammster · Jul 20, 2017

zippy2006 said:
it is utterly inconsistent to transfer the preparation for destruction to anything but God’s secret plan… God’s secret plan is the cause of hardening. (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 2, Chapter 23, Paragraph 1)

Can you give the proper reference? I cannot seem to find chapter 23 in book 2.

zippy2006 · Jul 20, 2017

Albion said:
There's your mistake. The reprobate--and you called him that--would be damned on his own merits, if there were no predestination.

His own merits? He can do nothing but sin without God's help, and God has refused to help him. It's like God damning you for failing to levitate. It has nothing at all to do with merit. As John Calvin and more astute Calvinists have pointed out, it is due solely to God's will.

Hammster · Jul 20, 2017

zippy2006 said:
Zippy: That is, he decides not to save some before considering the question of whether they deserve to be damned--before considering their sin.
Hammster: That's cuz everyone deserves to be damned.

Here's a free lesson in logic, Hammster: if God decides to pass over an individual before considering whether their actions deserve damnation, he does not pass over them because they deserve damnation.

On Calvinism God decides the fate of all before anyone has done anything whatsoever--"before birth," so to speak (Romans 9:11-13 is given as justification). God saves "Jacob" before considering anything he has done or has not done. God passes over "Esau" before considering anything he has done or has not done. He does not pass over "Esau" because "Esau" deserves to be damned. Someone who has not done anything cannot have done something worthy of damnation.

So you think there are some without sin who, under Reformed Theology would be damned?

zippy2006 · Jul 20, 2017

Hammster said:
Can you give the proper reference? I cannot seem to find chapter 23 in book 2.

Sorry, the proper reference is Book 3, Chapter 23, Paragraph 1. More:

But were I to concede that by the different forms of expression Paul softens the harshness of the former clause, it by no means follows, that he transfers the preparation for destruction to any other cause than the secret counsel of God. This, indeed, is asserted in the preceding context, where God is said to have raised up Pharaoh, and to harden whom he will. Hence it follows, that the hidden counsel of God is the cause of hardening.

Albion · Jul 20, 2017

zippy2006 said:
Here's a free lesson in logic, Hammster: if God decides to pass over an individual before considering whether their actions deserve damnation.

That is ridiculous. What human's actions deserve salvation if we keep God out of it? Well, none.

Our NATURE determines it. Do you suppose that it's an open question whether our nature, after Adam and Eve and the expulsion from the Garden, is perfect or not?

Hammster · Jul 20, 2017

zippy2006 said:
Sorry, the proper reference is Book 3, Chapter 23, Paragraph 1. More:

But were I to concede that by the different forms of expression Paul softens the harshness of the former clause, it by no means follows, that he transfers the preparation for destruction to any other cause than the secret counsel of God. This, indeed, is asserted in the preceding context, where God is said to have raised up Pharaoh, and to harden whom he will. Hence it follows, that the hidden counsel of God is the cause of hardening.

You should read the whole thing. This makes more sense in context.

zippy2006 · Jul 20, 2017

Albion said:
Only if you think he lived a perfect life, completely sinless, keeping all the Commandments all the time, would he be able to stand before God and say that he deserves eternal life.

If you find such a person, let us know. In the meantime, it is grossly incorrect to contend that the reprobate would be righteous except that God decided to not allow him to be so.

Hammster said:
So you think there are some without sin who, under Reformed Theology would be damned?

No, what I am saying is that it is unjust for the decree of reprobation to precede knowledge of foreseen demerits.

Without God's help, man falls into sin. So let's consider the case of the reprobate on Calvinism, chronologically (or at least according to logical priority):

God decides not to give him grace.
He falls into sin.
He is damned.

Now we might ask why he was damned. Is it because he fell into sin, or because God did not give him grace? While either answer is true, it is more accurate to say that it is because God did not give him grace. As soon as God decided not to give him grace, it was a foregone conclusion that he would fall into sin. The man had no choice in the matter.

It would be like if God made it mandatory for you to walk but gave you no legs. That would be an unjust command, because it is impossible for you to carry out. This is probably the most crucial problem with Calvinism.

Hammster · Jul 20, 2017

zippy2006 said:
No, what I am saying is that it is unjust for the decree of reprobation to precede knowledge of foreseen demerits.

Without God's help, man falls into sin. So let's consider the case of the reprobate on Calvinism, chronologically (or at least according to logical priority):

God decides not to give him grace.

He falls into sin.

He is damned.

Now we might ask why he was damned. Is it because he fell into sin, or because God did not give him grace? While either answer is true, it is more accurate to say that it is because God did not give him grace. As soon as God decided not to give him grace, it was a foregone conclusion that he would fall into sin. The man had no choice in the matter.

It would be like if God made it mandatory for you to walk but gave you no legs. That would be an unjust command, because it is impossible for you to carry out. That is probably the most crucial problem with Calvinism.

If you read more than just a snippet (I will assume you haven't and just found your snippets on a website), you will see that in other places he explains that all are sinners who deserve eternal damnation.

Albion · Jul 20, 2017

zippy2006 said:
No, what I am saying is that it is unjust for the decree of reprobation to precede knowledge of foreseen demerits.

But man's nature IS known in advance and, besides, it is obviously incorrect to think that God does not know the future.

Hammster · Jul 20, 2017

zippy2006 said:
God decides not to give him grace.

He falls into sin.

He is damned.

Hence the reason for my straw man Thread.

zippy2006 · Jul 20, 2017

Hammster said:
You should read the whole thing. This makes more sense in context.

Really? I just did, and it only confirmed my conclusion. Luther vacillated slightly on his emphasis on predestination (and double predestination). Calvin does not. He is very clear on this. What part of it do you believe mitigates what I already quoted?

For instance, he considers the possibility that damnation is due to human sin and actually rejects that possibility. Here he is considering his opponent's view, and note especially the last sentence:

It is frivolous in our opponents to reply, that God does not altogether reject those whom in levity he tolerates, but remains in suspense with regard to them, if per adventure they may repent; as if Paul were representing God as patiently waiting for the conversion of those whom he describes as fitted for destruction. For Augustine, rightly expounding this passage, says that where power is united to endurance, God does not permit, but rules (August. Cont. Julian., Lib. 5, c. 5). They add also, that it is not without cause the vessels of wrath are said to be fitted for destruction, and that God is said to have prepared the vessels of mercy, because in this way the praise of salvation is claimed for God, whereas the blame of perdition is thrown upon those who of their own accord bring it upon themselves.

Now he continues, assessing the whole view but especially the last sentence, especially the idea that reprobation has some cause beside God's will:

But were I to concede that by the different forms of expression Paul softens the harshness of the former clause, it by no means follows, that he transfers the preparation for destruction to any other cause than the secret counsel of God. This, indeed, is asserted in the preceding context, where God is said to have raised up Pharaoh, and to harden whom he will. Hence it follows, that the hidden counsel of God is the cause of hardening.

Calvin explicitly rejects the idea that the cause of hardening is something other than the secret counsel of God, namely the sin of the individual.

Hammster · Jul 20, 2017

zippy2006 said:
Calvin explicitly rejects the idea that the cause of hardening is something other than the secret counsel of God, namely the sin of the individual.

Which is it?

zippy2006 · Jul 20, 2017

Hammster said:
If you read more than just a snippet (I will assume you haven't and just found your snippets on a website), you will see that in other places he explains that all are sinners who deserve eternal damnation.

As I said in my last, it is true to say that sin is a cause of damnation. Calvin's scheme allows for that scriptural truth. But my objection holds. The truer cause is God's will, which precedes the sin and causes the sin (by refusing to grant grace).

Albion said:
But man's nature IS known in advance and, besides, it is obviously incorrect to think that God does not know the future.

You are missing the point. The crux is the order of execution of the decrees. No one has claimed God does not have foreknowledge.

zippy2006 · Jul 20, 2017

Hammster said:
Which is it?

What do you mean, "Which is it?"

Let's paraphrase Calvin, "Is the cause of the hardening the sin of the individual? No, it is not! The cause of the hardening is solely due to the secret counsel of God."

For Calvin, we are like plants and God's grace is like water. We shrivel up because God withholds water, and then we are cast into the fire because we have not borne fruit. Sinners belong in Hell just like dead plants belong in the fire, but the original cause of the sin/shriveling/hardening is lack of grace/water.

zippy2006 · Jul 20, 2017

Hammster said:
Hence the reason for my straw man Thread.

It's simply not a strawman. I've supported my position with Calvin's own words and I've confirmed the interpretation with a Reformed professor of theology. On Calvinism, predestination to life is prior to merit and predestination to death is prior to demerit (sin).

There are certain kinds of Calvinism which try to mitigate this problem by placing the Fall logically prior to predestination to death. For them, God reprobates souls prior to personal sin but not prior to Original Sin (infra- vs. supralapsarianism).

Hammster · Jul 20, 2017

zippy2006 said:
What do you mean, "Which is it?"

Let's paraphrase Calvin, "Is the cause of the hardening the sin of the individual? No, it is not! The cause of the hardening is solely due to the secret counsel of God."

For Calvin, we are like plants and God's grace is like water. We shrivel up because God withholds water, and then we are cast into the fire because we have not borne fruit. Sinners belong in Hell just like dead plants belong in the fire, but the original cause of the sin/shriveling/hardening is lack of grace/water.

Are you equating hardening with sin?

zippy2006 · Jul 20, 2017

Hammster said:
Are you equating hardening with sin?

To quote Calvin, I understand him to mean hardening as a kind of "preparation for destruction."

Hammster · Jul 20, 2017

zippy2006 said:
To quote Calvin, I understand him to mean hardening as a kind of "preparation for destruction."

Okay. So if hardening doesn't equal sin, then how is God hardening a sinner unjust?

The Bible or Calvinism

Goat Whisperer

Dragonsworn

Psalm 144:1

Dragonsworn

Psalm 144:1

Dragonsworn

Facilitator

Psalm 144:1

Dragonsworn

Psalm 144:1

Facilitator

Psalm 144:1

Dragonsworn

Psalm 144:1

Dragonsworn

Dragonsworn

Dragonsworn

Psalm 144:1

Dragonsworn

Psalm 144:1

Similar threads