The Bible or Calvinism

zippy2006 · Jul 20, 2017

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

Because it is the first thing in the sinner's life that leads infallibly to damnation. Hardening leads inevitably to sin and away from repentance.

Suppose Joe is not one of the elect. The Calvinist wants to say that his damnation is a result of his sin. That's fine, so far as it goes. The problem is that his sin is a result of his hardening, and his hardening is a result of God alone.

According to Calvin, God made Joe for damnation. Before Joe had even drawn a breath God had decided not to grant him the grace necessary to be saved. Calvin would say God hardens him, but the problem persists even on the weaker view of negative reprobation ("God merely passes over Joe"). Now Joe will grow up. And when he grows up he will sin. And when he sins he will be damned. But his fate was sealed before he drew that first breath. Sin is just a consequence of God's decision not to give him grace (or repentance, or baptism--whatever you like).

Hammster · Jul 20, 2017

zippy2006 said:
Because it is the first thing in the sinner's life that leads infallibly to damnation. Hardening leads inevitably to sin and away from repentance.

Suppose Joe is not one of the elect. The Calvinist wants to say that his damnation is a result of his sin. That's fine, so far as it goes. The problem is that his sin is a result of his hardening, and his hardening is a result of God alone.

According to Calvin, God made Joe for damnation. Before Joe had even drawn a breath God had decided not to grant him the grace necessary to be saved. Calvin would say God hardens him, but the problem persists even on the weaker view of negative reprobation ("God merely passes over Joe"). Now Joe will grow up. And when he grows up he will sin. And when he sins he will be damned. But his fate was sealed before he drew that first breath. Sin is just a consequence of God's decision not to give him grace (or repentance, or baptism--whatever you like).

I think I understand where you're coming from. But I'm not sure where Calvin says that sin is the result of God hardening. And God not granting someone grace does not make Him unjust.

zippy2006 · Jul 20, 2017

Hammster said:
I think I understand where you're coming from. But I'm not sure where Calvin says that sin is the result of God hardening. And God not granting someone grace does not make Him unjust.

The key question is this: "When does God know that someone will be damned?" For Calvinism, the answer is, "Before they sin (or do anything meritorious or unmeritorious)." For traditional Christianity, the answer is, "After they sin."

For the Calvinist, God places the damned on the road to perdition long before they sin or even exist. That is what is considered unjust: God deciding that some will be damned even before they do anything wrong.

Edit: I should note that this is not a question of foreknowledge. I speak in temporal metaphor. You might rephrase the original question as, "Does God know that someone will be damned before he foresees their sin, or only after he foresees their sin?"

Hammster · Jul 20, 2017

zippy2006 said:
The key question is this: "When does God know that someone will be damned?" For Calvinism, the answer is, "Before they sin (or do anything meritorious or unmeritorious)." For traditional Christianity, the answer is, "After they sin."

For the Calvinist, God places the damned on the road to perdition long before they sin or even exist. That is what is considered unjust: God deciding that some will be damned even before they do anything wrong.

Your post would be solid if there was even a chance that there might be someone who would never sin. But since everyone sins, both elect and reprobate, your assertion falls flat.

RisenInJesus · Jul 20, 2017

DeaconDean said:
Here again, you and others, want to hang, kill, burn, crucify John Calvin for a "standard" that was nearly world-wide acceptable in the 1500's.

Today, in the 3rd millennia, Servetus would just be "run out of town" so to speak.

You people kill me.

You rant, rave, persecute one person, yet you never say one world about the thousands and thousands and thousands that were put to death by a certain church.

To put as plain as I can, you guys use a "double standard" just because you don't like a person.

Well, there is scripture for that too:

"A double minded man is unstable in all his ways." -Jas. 1:8 (KJV)

God Bless

Till all are one.

I have no desire to hang, kill, burn, or crucify John Calvin. It is this kind of behavior of his which is so abhorrent because the fact is that a believer in Jesus Christ is called to a different standard than that which is acceptable in the world of whatever time period. There is no acceptable excuse for one claiming the name of Christ to align themselves with the civil government in using force or violence to make others conform to their doctrine or executing someone when they don't. If by the thousands put to death by a certain Church, you are referring to the Roman Catholic Church, I see this as evil in the same sense. John Calvin's behavior was no less wicked than that of the Catholic Popes. Show me one example of Jesus, Paul, or any of the apostles demonstrating such atrocious treatment of others, even false teachers. From my research one of the main reasons John Calvin was so set against Servetus was not so much because of the truly serious heretical views held by him, but because Servetus was in such opposition to Calvin's view over infant baptism and regeneration, a belief from his history in Catholicism.

"Furthermore, Calvin never tells of the moment that he renounced the false gospel of Catholicism and believed the true gospel. He extols the sacraments, says they can be performed only by the clergy (including Roman Catholic), and accepts infant baptism by a Catholic priest as efficacious. If he ever renounced Catholicism’s false gospel, when did this occur? And how could he have, considering that he banned from Geneva(1537) and persecuted the Anabaptists who, though raised Catholics, believed the biblical gospel and as a result were born again and baptized as believers?

The fact that Calvin was only baptized once—as an infant—and that he persecuted as heretics those who were baptized as believers, contradicts entirely what you think the quotations you cite mean. Moreover, one of the two charges (brought to the court by Calvin himself) for which Servetus was burned at the stake was his rejection of infant baptism for salvation. Calvin goes into great detail justifying this charge against Servetus and repeatedly scorning Servetus for rejecting the efficacy of infant baptism for salvation."
Question: [TBC's] statement that John Calvin taught that Infant Baptism saves betrays a regrettable ignorance of Calvin’s beliefs....I request you publish this clarification of our Protestant, Reformed position.

Hammster · Jul 20, 2017

RisenInJesus said:
I have no desire to hang, kill, burn, or crucify John Calvin. It is this kind of behavior of his which is so abhorrent because the fact is that a believer in Jesus Christ is called to a different standard than that which is acceptable in the world of whatever time period. There is no acceptable excuse for one claiming the name of Christ to align themselves with the civil government in using force or violence to make others conform to their doctrine or executing someone when they don't. If by the thousands put to death by a certain Church, you are referring to the Roman Catholic Church, I see this as evil in the same sense. John Calvin's behavior was no less wicked than that of the Catholic Popes. Show me one example of Jesus, Paul, or any of the apostles demonstrating such atrocious treatment of others, even false teachers. From my research one of the main reasons John Calvin was so set against Servetus was not so much because of the truly serious heretical views held by him, but because Servetus was in such opposition to Calvin's view over infant baptism and regeneration, a belief from his history in Catholicism.

"Furthermore, Calvin never tells of the moment that he renounced the false gospel of Catholicism and believed the true gospel. He extols the sacraments, says they can be performed only by the clergy (including Roman Catholic), and accepts infant baptism by a Catholic priest as efficacious. If he ever renounced Catholicism’s false gospel, when did this occur? And how could he have, considering that he banned from Geneva(1537) and persecuted the Anabaptists who, though raised Catholics, believed the biblical gospel and as a result were born again and baptized as believers?

The fact that Calvin was only baptized once—as an infant—and that he persecuted as heretics those who were baptized as believers, contradicts entirely what you think the quotations you cite mean. Moreover, one of the two charges (brought to the court by Calvin himself) for which Servetus was burned at the stake was his rejection of infant baptism for salvation. Calvin goes into great detail justifying this charge against Servetus and repeatedly scorning Servetus for rejecting the efficacy of infant baptism for salvation."
Question: [TBC's] statement that John Calvin taught that Infant Baptism saves betrays a regrettable ignorance of Calvin’s beliefs....I request you publish this clarification of our Protestant, Reformed position.

#CalvinismDefeated

zippy2006 · Jul 20, 2017

Hammster said:
Your post would be solid if there was even a chance that there might be someone who would never sin. But since everyone sins, both elect and reprobate, your assertion falls flat.

That doesn't affect my argument at all. For the Calvinist, God places the damned on the road to perdition long before they sin or even exist. That's unjust. Suppose there are 10 million people who never sin. It's still unjust. Suppose everyone sins. It's still unjust.

RisenInJesus · Jul 20, 2017

Hammster said:
#CalvinismDefeated

I guess you are trying to be sarcastic. I understand that just because John Calvin may have had some serious issues, it doesn't necessarily invalidate what is called Calvinism in the present day, but when one who lived out their beliefs as John Calvin did (and who derived those beliefs from Catholic Augustine) it certainly causes me to question the integrity of his teachings in light of the scriptures.

Hammster · Jul 20, 2017

zippy2006 said:
That doesn't affect my argument at all. For the Calvinist, God places the damned on the road to perdition long before they sin or even exist. That's unjust. Suppose there are 10 million people who never sin. It's still unjust. Suppose everyone sins. It's still unjust.

How is it unjust for God to determine not to show grace to sinners?

Hammster · Jul 20, 2017

RisenInJesus said:
I guess you are trying to be sarcastic. I understand that just because John Calvin may have had some serious issues, it doesn't necessarily invalidate what is called Calvinism in the present day, but when one who lived out their beliefs as John Calvin did (and who derived those beliefs from Catholic Augustine) it certainly causes me to question the integrity of his teachings in light of the scriptures.

Which is fine. I have a whole thread where you can quote and question his teachings. If you think his personal history is relevant, you can explain how he's wrong because of it.

zippy2006 · Jul 20, 2017

Hammster said:
How is it unjust for God to determine not to show grace to sinners?

It is unjust to decide to send someone to Hell before they have done anything wrong. Do you disagree?

jimmyjimmy · Jul 20, 2017

Albion said:
Dean, it's because people are especially sensitive to the idea that they might not be the 'masters of all they survey.'

People simply resent the idea that they themselves might not hold all the decision-making in their own hands, especially as it concerns something as personal as their own eternal fate--not even if it means that it's God himself who is in charge.

They wouldn't admit that this is the cause of their opposition, and they probably don't think that it is. Nevertheless, the attitude you're speaking of is ultimately traceable to human pride.

Albion, I believe you have nailed it. Human pride is shocked and offended by the idea of God's sovereignty in election. . . I know that mine was.

Absolutely fantastic post.

Hammster · Jul 20, 2017

zippy2006 said:
It is unjust to decide to send someone to Hell before they have done anything wrong. Do you disagree?

I'm sure God is omniscient. He doesn't learn.

zippy2006 · Jul 20, 2017

Hammster said:
I'm sure God is omniscient. He doesn't learn.

But you didn't answer the question. Is it unjust to decide to send someone to Hell before they have done anything wrong?

Apparently you think that maybe God foresees someone's future sin and predestines them to Hell based on that foreknowledge. But that's heresy according to Calvinism. That's predestination to death based on foreseen demerits. Calvin himself answers such a charge, as I pointed out here.

Hammster · Jul 20, 2017

zippy2006 said:
But you didn't answer the question. Is it unjust to decide to send someone to Hell before they have done anything wrong?

Apparently you think that maybe God foresees someone's future sin and predestines them to Hell based on that foreknowledge. But that's heresy according to Calvinism. That's predestination to death based on foreseen demerits. Calvin himself answers such a charge, as I pointed out here.

God doesn't foresee sin. He knows it happens. And while the hidden counsel of God may be the cause of hardening, it isn't the cause of sin. That's why I asked you if you thought they were the same thing. You treat them as if they were.

RisenInJesus · Jul 20, 2017

Hammster said:
Which is fine. I have a whole thread where you can quote and question his teachings. If you think his personal history is relevant, you can explain how he's wrong because of it.

I think John Calvin's personal history is relevant to a certain extent, but I think the fact that the the teachings of Calvinism today (TULIP) contradict the scriptures (from my perspective) is more important. I saw your thread and it does look interesting, but overwhelming. I just can't imagine spending so much time reading and studying all the writing of men... confessions, institutes, canons, catechisms which supposedly explain the doctrines of the Bible rather than the Bible itself. They always say that those who want to know real money from counterfeit money study the real money, not the counterfeit. So I think the scriptures are sufficient enough to study and know the truth. When I have read the various confessions, institutes, etc. the scripture below always comes to mind...

Now this I say lest anyone should deceive you with persuasive words. For though I am absent in the flesh, yet I am with you in spirit, rejoicing to see your good order and the steadfastness of your faith in Christ. As you therefore have received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in Him, rooted and built up in Him and established in the faith, as you have been taught, abounding in it with thanksgiving. Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ. Colossians 2:4-8

Hammster · Jul 20, 2017

RisenInJesus said:
I think John Calvin's personal history is relevant to a certain extent, but I think the fact that the the teachings of Calvinism today (TULIP) contradict the scriptures (from my perspective) is more important. I saw your thread and it does look interesting, but overwhelming. I just can't imagine spending so much time reading and studying all the writing of men... confessions, institutes, canons, catechisms which supposedly explain the doctrines of the Bible rather than the Bible itself. They always say that those who want to know real money from counterfeit money study the real money, not the counterfeit. So I think the scriptures are sufficient enough to study and know the truth. When I have read the various confessions, institutes, etc. the scripture below always comes to mind...

Now this I say lest anyone should deceive you with persuasive words. For though I am absent in the flesh, yet I am with you in spirit, rejoicing to see your good order and the steadfastness of your faith in Christ. As you therefore have received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in Him, rooted and built up in Him and established in the faith, as you have been taught, abounding in it with thanksgiving. Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ. Colossians 2:4-8

So you'd rather make dishonest assessments of Reformed Theology than to make an honest argument? You say you don't have the time to read and study men, but look how much time you spent on the Servetus issue.

RisenInJesus · Jul 20, 2017

Hammster said:
So He does have an elect people.

Thanks.

Yes, the point or question isn't whether God has a chosen people, but how does a person become one of the elect and what does elect mean? The scriptures show that people are included or excluded from the “people of God” on the basis of their response to God, especially His promised Messiah. All of the “people of God” are those who trust in God’s provision for salvation--Messiah. All of those who are excluded from the “people of God” are those who reject the promised Messiah. In the Old Testament the “people of God” expressed faith by trusting God on the basis of the Abrahamic covenant and conducted themselves on the basis of the Mosaic covenant. The “people of God” in the New Testament trust in God on the basis of the New covenant and faith in Jesus Christ. All who respond to God in faith are then God's people and elect to serve Him, one another, and be a light to the world.

zippy2006 · Jul 20, 2017

Hammster said:
God doesn't foresee sin. He knows it happens. And while the hidden counsel of God may be the cause of hardening, it isn't the cause of sin. That's why I asked you if you thought they were the same thing. You treat them as if they were.

For the Calvinist, hardening is the infallible cause of sin, just as predestination to death is the infallible cause of hardening.

I twice asked a question which you did not answer, "Is it unjust to decide to send someone to Hell before they have done anything wrong?" I take it that by not answering you admit that it is unjust, yet you resist acknowledging it.

On Calvinism God decides to send certain people to Hell before they have done anything wrong. That is the most obvious problem with Calvinism. Hopefully now you understand the legitimate objection to Calvinism.

Hammster · Jul 20, 2017

RisenInJesus said:
Yes, the point or question isn't whether God has a chosen people, but how does a person become one of the elect and what does elect mean? The scriptures show that people are included or excluded from the “people of God” on the basis of their response to God, especially His promised Messiah. All of the “people of God” are those who trust in God’s provision for salvation--Messiah. All of those who are excluded from the “people of God” are those who reject the promised Messiah. In the Old Testament the “people of God” expressed faith by trusting God on the basis of the Abrahamic covenant and conducted themselves on the basis of the Mosaic covenant. The “people of God” in the New Testament trust in God on the basis of the New covenant and faith in Jesus Christ. All who respond to God in faith are then God's people and elect to serve Him, one another, and be a light to the world.

So to one of the chosen, one must choose God? Doesn't that make Him the elect/chosen? Words mean things.

The Bible or Calvinism

Dragonsworn

Psalm 144:1

Dragonsworn

Psalm 144:1

Well-Known Member

Psalm 144:1

Dragonsworn

Well-Known Member

Psalm 144:1

Psalm 144:1

Dragonsworn

Pardoned Rebel

Psalm 144:1

Dragonsworn

Psalm 144:1

Well-Known Member

Psalm 144:1

Well-Known Member

Dragonsworn

Psalm 144:1

Similar threads