Can Calvinism reconcile God ordaining Adam to sin, and still allow Adam to have a free will?

Dr. Jack · May 7, 2019

Hammster said:
It’s for His glory that He did that, though.

in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory- - Romans 9:23

Yes, to us, because He loves us!

Dr. Jack · May 7, 2019

Hammster said:
The reason for the videos is that it’s important to understand that God loves His glory more than He loves us. And His glory was most demonstrated on the cross. So the cross was the reason for creation. And the only way to get the cross was to have sin.

So He ordained or decreed or planned or whatever word you want to use, for sin to enter the world. It’s mere speculation as to how He did it. But He did, and He is not culpable.

Romans 3:23 says we fall short of the glory of God, (which is His complete holiness); and I agree that God's holiness is his greatest attribute. But ...
1) Faith is neither a work, nor a gift.
2) Salvation is a gift.

John Calvin said this about faith, mentioned in John 6:29:

"The work of God is this. They had spoken of works Christ reminds them of one work, that is, faith; by which he means that all that men undertake without faith is vain and useless, but that faith alone is sufficient, because this alone does God require from us, that we believe For there is here an implied contrast between faith and the works and efforts of men; as if he had said, Men toil to no purpose, when they endeavor to please God without faith, because, by running, as it were, out of the course, they do not advance towards the goal. This is a remarkable passage, showing that, though men torment themselves wretchedly throughout their whole life, still they lose their pains, if they have not faith in Christ as the rule of their life. Those who infer from this passage that faith is the gift of God are mistaken; for Christ does not now show what God produces in us, but what he wishes and requires from us." (Emphases added)

Why is that? Because the witness of God is so overwhelming, it cannot be ignored, it must be willfully denied.

I agree with nearly everything he said, other than that faith is recieved as a gift. But I believe God's motivation was His love for us, ... and yes, He was glorified ... I won't argue that point.

ICONO'CLAST · May 7, 2019

Dr. Jack said:
I have decided to present you another excerpt from the WCF to show you the problem we have with contradictory statements within the WCF.

"II. Although, in relation to the foreknowledge and decree of God, the first Cause, all things come to pass immutably, and infallibly; yet, by the same providence, he orders them to fall out, according to the nature of second causes, either necessarily, freely, or contingently.

III. God, in his ordinary providence, makes use of means, yet is free to work without, above, and against them, at his pleasure.

IV. The almighty power, unsearchable wisdom, and infinite goodness of God so far manifest themselves in his providence, that it extends itself even to the first fall, and all other sins of angels and men; and that not by a bare permission, but such as has joined with it a most wise and powerful bounding, and otherwise ordering, and governing of them, in a manifold dispensation, to his own holy ends; yet so, as the sinfulness thereof proceeds only from the creature, and not from God, who, being most holy and righteous, neither is nor can be the author or approver of sin.

- Westminster Confession: Chapter 5, Section 2-4

Notice in section II "he orders them to fall out", and in section IV, "that it extends itself even to the first fall, and all other sins of angels and men; and that not by a bare permission, but such as has joined with it a most wise and powerful bounding, and otherwise ordering, and governing of them, in a manifold dispensation, to his own holy ends".

So we have "ordering, and governing " of "the first fall, and all other sins of angels and men".

I am fully aware that the end of the statement says, "yet so, as the sinfulness thereof proceeds only from the creature, and not from God, who, being most holy and righteous, neither is nor can be the author or approver of sin".

How can one "order and govern" sin, and not be the "author or approve of sin"?

That is like me saying"I'm going to order and govern the death of my neighbor, to it's very end, yet not be the author or approver of that order".

Let a mob boss pull that off in court and see how it turns out!

1689 cof
Chapter 3: Of God's Decree
1._____ God hath decreed in himself, from all eternity, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably, all things, whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby is God neither the author of sin nor hath fellowship with any therein; nor is violence offered to the will of the creature, nor yet is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established; in which appears his wisdom in disposing all things, and power and faithfulness in accomplishing his decree.
( Isaiah 46:10; Ephesians 1:11; Hebrews 6:17; Romans 9:15, 18; James 1:13; 1 John 1:5; Acts 4:27, 28; John 19:11; Numbers 23:19; Ephesians 1:3-5 )
2._____ Although God knoweth whatsoever may or can come to pass, upon all supposed conditions, yet hath he not decreed anything, because he foresaw it as future, or as that which would come to pass upon such conditions.
( Acts 15:18; Romans 9:11, 13, 16, 18 )

3._____ By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestinated, or foreordained to eternal life through Jesus Christ, to the praise of his glorious grace; others being left to act in their sin to their just condemnation, to the praise of his glorious justice.
( 1 Timothy 5:21; Matthew 25:34; Ephesians 1:5, 6; Romans 9:22, 23; Jude 4 )

4.______These angels and men thus predestinated and foreordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed, and their number so certain and definite, that it cannot be either increased or diminished.
( 2 Timothy 2:19; John 13:18 )

Dr. Jack · May 7, 2019

ICONO'CLAST said:
1689 cof
Chapter 3: Of God's Decree
1._____ God hath decreed in himself, from all eternity, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably, all things, whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby is God neither the author of sin nor hath fellowship with any therein; nor is violence offered to the will of the creature, nor yet is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established; in which appears his wisdom in disposing all things, and power and faithfulness in accomplishing his decree.
( Isaiah 46:10; Ephesians 1:11; Hebrews 6:17; Romans 9:15, 18; James 1:13; 1 John 1:5; Acts 4:27, 28; John 19:11; Numbers 23:19; Ephesians 1:3-5 )
2._____ Although God knoweth whatsoever may or can come to pass, upon all supposed conditions, yet hath he not decreed anything, because he foresaw it as future, or as that which would come to pass upon such conditions.
( Acts 15:18; Romans 9:11, 13, 16, 18 )

3._____ By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestinated, or foreordained to eternal life through Jesus Christ, to the praise of his glorious grace; others being left to act in their sin to their just condemnation, to the praise of his glorious justice.
( 1 Timothy 5:21; Matthew 25:34; Ephesians 1:5, 6; Romans 9:22, 23; Jude 4 )

4.______These angels and men thus predestinated and foreordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed, and their number so certain and definite, that it cannot be either increased or diminished.
( 2 Timothy 2:19; John 13:18 )

You do understand the difference between Scripture andca Confession ... don't you?

Presbyterian Continuist · May 7, 2019

ICONO'CLAST said:
Because it does not make sense to you does not mean it is not true.

True. I am reading a text book on Reformed Theology to give me a better idea of what Calvinists teach. I am coming to the conclusion that Calvinists think they are the true church, and Calvin, just like the Roman Catholics of his time, imprisoned and burned good evangelical Christian who would not accept Calvinist teaching. Actually Calvin was totally intolerant of other's who held different doctrines, even if those doctrines were fully supported by Scripture.
In fact, Arminius taught religious tolerance, was more true to Scripture, and lived a more holy and Christian life than Calvin. A lot of people's perception of Arminius and his teachings came out of blatant lies put out there by Calvinists.

His student · May 7, 2019

Dr. Jack said:
Not at all, you subscribe to the WCF, that is part of that document.

I subscribe to some of the statements in the WCF and not some others and that quote is not the one we have been discussing. But - yes - I do subscribe to that quote as well as the other one - so I can and will address it.

Dr. Jack said:
Now pause for a moment and think about what you just said ... Since God knew in His omniscience that Adam would fall, why would it be necessary for God to create a paradigm for Adam to fall? It makes no sense.

Because God's Word creates and sustains all paradigms from the one where Adam made his choice, to the one where Hitler made his choices, to the one where you and I are making our choices.

Because only God has independent being in and of Himself. Any other thing (angel, planets, soil, water, gardens, trees, fruit, serpents, skin, hair, sparrows, brain tissue and the chemicals that flow over the synapses of your brain where with you have thought and reason (and in fact "all things") have their being in God. He "fills Heaven and earth".

The combination of all those things and more, in our immediate vicinity and across the globe and throughout recent history - combine to make up the "paradigm" in which we function. One thing missing or changed at all equals a different paradigm and perhaps a different decision for any individual when an option is presented to him. "If the miracles that were done in "X" were done in "Y", they would have...."

Come now - "why was it necessary for God to create a paradigm"

No kidding now - let us reason together "Dr." - no paradigm = no tree and no serpent and no Adam/no brain with which to make a choice of any kind.

God has a literal infinite "number" of paradigms He can choose to create and sustain at any time - just as He did in that Genesis account.

Exactly what God have you been studying all these years? It really does seem to me that it isn't the God of the scriptures.

By the way - you seem to think that the "God of Calvinism" had absolutely nothing to do on the day Adam sinned but "manipulate" Adam in order to get him to sin. I assure you that that is not the God of Reformed theologians.

And it would seem that you think that I believe that the omnipresent God is doing nothing else on earth at this time than manipulating me to type this post.

It's hard for us to get a hold on. But God has always chosen to furnish an exact paradigm at any time in history which will work together for good for His Son and His bride when He ends this age and moves on to other things where sin is not an issue.

Sustaining the existence and ordering the activities of Adam and I are really small potatoes in the overall second by second activities of the God who fills Heaven and earth (in His entirety and without division - another of those doctrines you need to revisit when you review your theological training).

The facts are that the statements in the WCF are very well thought out and clearly biblical. I suppose that if they had been given the task of writing a complete theological volume for every concept they addressed - they would have been able to do that as well. But that wasn't the task they were assigned.

They did not have the luxury that you have to just take a few small concepts from the scriptures and bring them into their brief statements while ignoring others. They had to consider every single concept that any one of the 150 or so people involved threw out there in the 5 years of so they were busy with the statements.

If someone said, "hey - what about the free will of man" - they had to bring it into their statement. If someone said, "hey - what about omniscience" - they had to bring it into their statement. If some said, "hey - what about God not being the author of sin" - they had to bring it into their statement.

I happen to think that they did a pretty good job of covering all of the bases in pithy statements that would be useful and stand the test of time.

The only way, in my opinion, that their statements can be refuted is to misrepresent what they are saying.

Anti-Calvinists, like most political liberals, always appeal to emotion and purely on scriptural grounds they fall of a way to refute the Reformed doctrines we have been discussing.

God only knows what theologians such as yourself would come up with. I've discussed these things with anti-Calvinists enough times over the last 70 or so years that I believe their document would have amounted to a few paragraphs where they burped out platitudes about free will over and over again and felt that it somehow answered the hard questions that serious study of the scriptures leave us with.

Listen - I'm getting tired of this. It's pretty much all been said. You said that Reformed theologians couldn't intelligently defend their doctrine in this area and I believe that I have proven you wrong.

Degrees and titles mean little to God.

As one who calls himself a theologian as you and I both do, you should accept what is good in Reformed theology (like the concepts we have been discussing) and reject what is bad. That's what I do.

I'm pretty sure that you'd be a much better theologian and more pleasing to God if you would do that.

By the way - I'd be willing to bet that our views on election are closer than you think.

Hammster · May 7, 2019

Dr. Jack said:
Yes, to us, because He loves us!

You really need to stop putting us above His glory.

Hammster · May 7, 2019

Dr. Jack said:
Romans 3:23 says we fall short of the glory of God, (which is His complete holiness); and I agree that God's holiness is his greatest attribute. But ...
1) Faith is neither a work, nor a gift.
2) Salvation is a gift.

John Calvin said this about faith, mentioned in John 6:29:

"The work of God is this. They had spoken of works Christ reminds them of one work, that is, faith; by which he means that all that men undertake without faith is vain and useless, but that faith alone is sufficient, because this alone does God require from us, that we believe For there is here an implied contrast between faith and the works and efforts of men; as if he had said, Men toil to no purpose, when they endeavor to please God without faith, because, by running, as it were, out of the course, they do not advance towards the goal. This is a remarkable passage, showing that, though men torment themselves wretchedly throughout their whole life, still they lose their pains, if they have not faith in Christ as the rule of their life. Those who infer from this passage that faith is the gift of God are mistaken; for Christ does not now show what God produces in us, but what he wishes and requires from us." (Emphases added)

Why is that? Because the witness of God is so overwhelming, it cannot be ignored, it must be willfully denied.

I agree with nearly everything he said, other than that faith is recieved as a gift. But I believe God's motivation was His love for us, ... and yes, He was glorified ... I won't argue that point.

I really don’t see how that is relevant to my post.

Dr. Jack · May 7, 2019

His student said:
I subscribe to some of the statements in the WCF and not some others and that quote is not the one we have been discussing. But - yes - I do subscribe to that quote as well as the other one - so I can and will address it.

Because God's Word creates and sustains all paradigms from the one where Adam made his choice, to the one where Hitler made his choices, to the one where you and I are making our choices.

Because only God has independent being in and of Himself. Any other thing (angel, planets, soil, water, gardens, trees, fruit, serpents, skin, hair, sparrows, brain tissue and the chemicals that flow over the synapses of your brain where with you have thought and reason (and in fact "all things") have their being in God. He "fills Heaven and earth".

The combination of all those things and more, in our immediate vicinity and across the globe and throughout recent history - combine to make up the "paradigm" in which we function. One thing missing or changed at all equals a different paradigm and perhaps a different decision for any individual when an option is presented to him. "If the miracles that were done in "X" were done in "Y", they would have...."

Come now - "why was it necessary for God to create a paradigm"

No kidding now - let us reason together "Dr." - no paradigm = no tree and no serpent and no Adam/no brain with which to make a choice of any kind.

God has a literal infinite "number" of paradigms He can choose to create and sustain at any time - just as He did in that Genesis account.

Exactly what God have you been studying all these years? It really does seem to me that it isn't the God of the scriptures.

By the way - you seem to think that the "God of Calvinism" had absolutely nothing to do on the day Adam sinned but "manipulate" Adam in order to get him to sin. I assure you that that is not the God of Reformed theologians.

And it would seem that you think that I believe that the omnipresent God is doing nothing else on earth at this time than manipulating me to type this post.

It's hard for us to get a hold on. But God has always chosen to furnish an exact paradigm at any time in history which will work together for good for His Son and His bride when He ends this age and moves on to other things where sin is not an issue.

Sustaining the existence and ordering the activities of Adam and I are really small potatoes in the overall second by second activities of the God who fills Heaven and earth (in His entirety and without division - another of those doctrines you need to revisit when you review your theological training).

The facts are that the statements in the WCF are very well thought out and clearly biblical. I suppose that if they had been given the task of writing a complete theological volume for every concept they addressed - they would have been able to do that as well. But that wasn't the task they were assigned.

They did not have the luxury that you have to just take a few small concepts from the scriptures and bring them into their brief statements while ignoring others. They had to consider every single concept that any one of the 150 or so people involved threw out there in the 5 years of so they were busy with the statements.

If someone said, "hey - what about the free will of man" - they had to bring it into their statement. If someone said, "hey - what about omniscience" - they had to bring it into their statement. If some said, "hey - what about God not being the author of sin" - they had to bring it into their statement.

I happen to think that they did a pretty good job of covering all of the bases in pithy statements that would be useful and stand the test of time.

The only way, in my opinion, that their statements can be refuted is to misrepresent what they are saying.

Anti-Calvinists, like most political liberals, always appeal to emotion and purely on scriptural grounds they fall of a way to refute the Reformed doctrines we have been discussing.

God only knows what theologians such as yourself would come up with. I've discussed these things with anti-Calvinists enough times over the last 70 or so years that I believe their document would have amounted to a few paragraphs where they burped out platitudes about free will over and over again and felt that it somehow answered the hard questions that serious study of the scriptures leave us with.

Listen - I'm getting tired of this. It's pretty much all been said. You said that Reformed theologians couldn't intelligently defend their doctrine in this area and I believe that I have proven you wrong.

Degrees and titles mean little to God.

As one who calls himself a theologian as you and I both do, you should accept what is good in Reformed theology (like the concepts we have been discussing) and reject what is bad. That's what I do.

I'm pretty sure that you'd be a much better theologian and more pleasing to God if you would do that.

By the way - I'd be willing to bet that our views on election are closer than you think.

Let me address the one point that concerns this thread ... (which isn't my education ... which you continue to insinuate is wanting) ... the Garden of Eden.

Did God put the tree, the serpent, and Eve in the Garden? Yes. But God also put other trees in the Garden as well.

When I walk into an icecream store that has multiple flavors of icecream, that means I have the option of choosing the flavor I want. What it doesn't mean, is that I must choose one particular flavor.

What you are not understanding is that while in God's indeterminate foreknowledge He knew Adam would sin, He did not order, decree, ordain, or predetermine Adam to sin, as the WCF states clearly.

Now I am fully aware that you think I need to go back to school and take Basic Doctrines 101, but the WCF isn't Scripture ... it's a "Confession". The funny thing is, I can read pretty well, and even if I wouldn't have a decent education, I can still use a dictionary.

Furthermore, as I have previously demonstrated, since we are discussing a document that pertains to the Scriptures, it is reasonable to apply the Scriptural meaning of words used in that document.

I in fact demonstrated that the word "decree" had an authoritative meaning that not only initiated the event which is decreed, but carries that event through to completion.

By additionally supplying the text of the fifth chapter of the WCF, we once again see the Reformed Theology position that God not only ordered sin, but governed it, and not in a passive manner.

Irregardless of the fact that the statement ends with words that try to dismiss God's culpability from sin He ordered, and actively governed to its completion, the latter cannot dismiss the former, for they are contradictory.

Many years ago when I was in my twenties a friend of mine used a saying, "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with "bullcrap".

When you begin to get into your rants concerning the paradigms of God, I honestly think you think you're the only person who has ever studied such topics. Interestingly however, after years of studying, I find such discourses as one who is trying to dazzle, but is only baffling.

God never intended the Gospel, or Theology to be difficult, (although it does take study, and God reveals truth in His time, as He sees fit.)

The Biblical narrative was to be taken at face value. And there is nowhere in that narrative that says that God ordered Adam's sin, or any other sin for that matter.

You may continue to make unprofessional personal attacks on my Theology and education if that makes you feel better; but it doesn't change the fact that the Bible nowhere says God ordered Adam's sin, but the WCF does. Only one of the two can be true ... I pick the Bible.

ICONO'CLAST · May 8, 2019

Oscarr said:
True. I am reading a text book on Reformed Theology to give me a better idea of what Calvinists teach. I am coming to the conclusion that Calvinists think they are the true church, and Calvin, just like the Roman Catholics of his time, imprisoned and burned good evangelical Christian who would not accept Calvinist teaching. Actually Calvin was totally intolerant of other's who held different doctrines, even if those doctrines were fully supported by Scripture.
In fact, Arminius taught religious tolerance, was more true to Scripture, and lived a more holy and Christian life than Calvin. A lot of people's perception of Arminius and his teachings came out of blatant lies put out there by Calvinists.

Calvinist teaching does not depend on Calvin at all. It has more to do with Jesus and the Apostles.

ICONO'CLAST · May 8, 2019

Dr. Jack said:
You do understand the difference between Scripture andca Confession ... don't you?

Here is a Hint;
The numbers at the bottom ...are scripture verses;
( Isaiah 46:10; Ephesians 1:11; Hebrews 6:17; Romans 9:15, 18;James 1:13; 1 John 1:5; Acts 4:27, 28; John 19:11; Numbers 23:19;Ephesians 1:3-5 )

( Acts 15:18; Romans 9:11, 13, 16, 18 )
( 1 Timothy 5:21; Matthew 25:34; Ephesians 1:5, 6; Romans 9:22, 23;Jude 4 )

Presbyterian Continuist · May 8, 2019

ICONO'CLAST said:
Calvinist teaching does not depend on Calvin at all. It has more to do with Jesus and the Apostles.

Dave Hunt in his book "What Love is This?" gives a very good balanced look at Calvinism. Calvin merely repeats Augustine, and there are so many holes in Reformed Theology and its supposed "Scriptural proof" that one could drive a London bus through them. For example, Calvin taught that Calvinism was the true church, and He had dissenters, although they were genuine evangelical Christians, imprisoned and burned at the stake. Arminius taught religious tolerance and did none of those things, and his teaching was totally Scriptural.

So, for Calvinism to be "Jesus and the Apostles" needs absolute Scriptural proof and not the twisting of Scripture to try and fit Calvinist theology. There is a truckload of Scriptures that totally destroy the theology of Total Inability and Unconditional Election.

Apologetic_Warrior · May 8, 2019

Oscarr said:
True. I am reading a text book on Reformed Theology to give me a better idea of what Calvinists teach. I am coming to the conclusion that Calvinists think they are the true church, and Calvin, just like the Roman Catholics of his time, imprisoned and burned good evangelical Christian who would not accept Calvinist teaching. Actually Calvin was totally intolerant of other's who held different doctrines, even if those doctrines were fully supported by Scripture.

Dear Oscarr, please read my posts from the thread: Calvin Murderer from about a year ago. Your understanding of Church history above is nearly completely inaccurate. I think this post is below you really, as I've read so many of your posts, usually thoughtful, kind, and respectful. It just pains me when I see this sort of misrepresentation. Would you like to read sources much closer to the source? The easiest way for me to hook you up is by downloading and installing the free theWord Bible software (better than e-Sword), and then download a book module I created which includes SIX biographies of Calvin (click on view other files from this member for more). I'd rather not debate over the man John Calvin here, he's completely off topic.

Oscarr said:
In fact, Arminius taught religious tolerance, was more true to Scripture, and lived a more holy and Christian life than Calvin. A lot of people's perception of Arminius and his teachings came out of blatant lies put out there by Calvinists.

I learned a few interesting facts about Jacobus Arminius a few years ago. Did you know he died as a teacher of Calvinism? His doubts about Calvinism arose from debates (see Dirck Volckertszoon Coornhert) in defending Predestination. The theology which is named after him, was taught privately in secret to students. He was not nearly so bold as those after him, especially today.

Apologetic_Warrior · May 8, 2019

Oscarr said:
Dave Hunt in his book "What Love is This?" gives a very good balanced look at Calvinism.

Balanced?

Hunt's book is anything but balanced....okay compose yourself A_W, be nice....

Oscarr said:
Calvin merely repeats Augustine, and there are so many holes in Reformed Theology and its supposed "Scriptural proof" that one could drive a London bus through them.

Is this the same Oscarr who told me he was a Presbyterian or Calvinist about a year ago? Whatever happened to your confidence? I know you would not have said this a year ago, :sigh:

another disappointment. I could lead you to web page after web page of Scripture proofs supporting Reformed Theology, but sorry to say, why bother, I know not why, but it seems clear you are unstable.

Oscarr said:
So, for Calvinism to be "Jesus and the Apostles" needs absolute Scriptural proof and not the twisting of Scripture to try and fit Calvinist theology. There is a truckload of Scriptures that totally destroy the theology of Total Inability and Unconditional Election.

I'll raise you, for every truckload you think is a truckload, I'll see you three truckloads, without the banana twist.

Dr. Jack · May 8, 2019

ICONO'CLAST said:
Here is a Hint;
The numbers at the bottom ...are scripture verses;
( Isaiah 46:10; Ephesians 1:11; Hebrews 6:17; Romans 9:15, 18;James 1:13; 1 John 1:5; Acts 4:27, 28; John 19:11; Numbers 23:19;Ephesians 1:3-5 )

( Acts 15:18; Romans 9:11, 13, 16, 18 )
( 1 Timothy 5:21; Matthew 25:34; Ephesians 1:5, 6; Romans 9:22, 23;Jude 4 )

Please list the exact verse that says God ordered Adam to sin, (in accordance with the fifth chapter of the WCF).

Hammster · May 8, 2019

Oscarr said:
Dave Hunt in his book "What Love is This?" gives a very good balanced look at Calvinism. Calvin merely repeats Augustine, and there are so many holes in Reformed Theology and its supposed "Scriptural proof" that one could drive a London bus through them. For example, Calvin taught that Calvinism was the true church, and He had dissenters, although they were genuine evangelical Christians, imprisoned and burned at the stake. Arminius taught religious tolerance and did none of those things, and his teaching was totally Scriptural.

So, for Calvinism to be "Jesus and the Apostles" needs absolute Scriptural proof and not the twisting of Scripture to try and fit Calvinist theology. There is a truckload of Scriptures that totally destroy the theology of Total Inability and Unconditional Election.

This is actually a straw man. You have given vague assertions without any real substance. And you played the Servetus card, which has nothing at all to do with Reformed Theology.

Presbyterian Continuist · May 8, 2019

Apologetic_Warrior said:
Balanced? Hunt's book is anything but balanced....okay compose yourself A_W, be nice....

Is this the same Oscarr who told me he was a Presbyterian or Calvinist about a year ago? Whatever happened to your confidence? I know you would not have said this a year ago, another disappointment. I could lead you to web page after web page of Scripture proofs supporting Reformed Theology, but sorry to say, why bother, I know not why, but it seems clear you are unstable.

<snip your repeated mantra from previous post>

I'll raise you, for every truckload you think is a truckload, I'll see you three truckloads, without the banana twist.

I sat down and actually read The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination and read that Calvin taught that God deliberately predestines the majority of the non-elect to be prevented from understanding the gospel, and then goes on to condemn them to hell. What sort of God would deliberately prevent people from receiving Christ and then punish them for not receiving them? It's like disabling someone from being able to run, and then punish the person for not being able to enter a running race! There is absolutely no Scripture anywhere in the Bible that God deliberately prevents anyone from being able to understand the gospel and to be saved.

I then wonder if a person deliberately libels God in that way is actually saved and part of the elect himself!

Yes, I was a member of the Presbyterian church for 22 years, but I kept to Charles Spurgeon's theology, and he rejected Total Inability and Unconditional Election. He could not see the point of persuading all the sinners he preached to, to receive Christ if the majority of his listeners were predestined to hell.

I have volume 1 of the works of Arminius, and I will read what he says. It is better to get the information from the "horse's mouth" rather than from subsequent followers who have perverted his original teaching, and from his opponents who have libeled him.

I have already found one significant contradiction, which I mentioned in a previous post, that the author of the Reform Theology said that it is not God's will to save everyone, where the Scripture says that God is not willing that any should perish. And, for Calvinism to be true in the T and U of TULIP, many Scriptures would have to read "the elect" instead of "whosever" "all", and other Scriptures that clearly point out that all who choose to receive Christ are saved, and that one does not have to be regenerated before he can have the faith to receive Christ.

There is absolutely no Scripture that says that. You are quite welcome to quote any Scriptures that support it, and I will show that the Scripture has been twisted to give the impression.

Hammster · May 8, 2019

Oscarr said:
And, for Calvinism to be true in the T and U of TULIP, many Scriptures would have to read "the elect" instead of "whosever" "all", and other Scriptures that clearly point out that all who choose to receive Christ are saved

Why do you say that? I’m Reformed, and I believe the whosoever verses.

Hammster · May 8, 2019

Oscarr said:
but I kept to Charles Spurgeon's theology, and he rejected Total Inability and Unconditional Election.

CHARLES SPURGEON
QUOTES ON CALVINISM

It is no novelty, then, that I am preaching; no new doctrine. I love to proclaim these strong old doctrines that are called by nickname Calvinism, but which are truly and verily the revealed truth of God as it is in Christ Jesus. By this truth I make my pilgrimage into the past, and as I go, I see father after father, confessor after confessor, martyr after martyr, standing up to shake hands with me . . . Taking these things to be the standard of my faith, I see the land of the ancients peopled with my brethren; I behold multitudes who confess the same as I do, and acknowledge that this is the religion of God's own church. (Spurgeon's Sovereign Grace Sermons, Still Waters Revival Books, p. 170).

I have my own opinion that there is no such thing as preaching Christ and Him crucified, unless we preach what nowadays is called Calvinism. It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else. I do not believe we can preach the gospel if we do not preach justification by faith without works; nor unless we preach the sovereignty of God in His dispensation of grace; nor unless we exalt the electing unchangeable eternal, immutable, conquering love of Jehovah; nor do I think we can preach the gospel unless we base it upon the special and particular redemption of His elect and chosen people which Christ wrought out upon the cross. (Charles Spurgeon, The New Park Street Pulpit, Vol. 1, 1856).

... and I will go as far as Martin Luther, in that strong assertion of his, where he says, ‘If any man doth ascribe of salvation, even the very least, to the free will of man, he knoweth nothing of grace, and he hath not learnt Jesus Christ aright.’ It may seem a harsh sentiment; but he who in his soul believes that man does of his own free will turn to God, cannot have been taught of God, for that is one of the first principles taught us when God begins with us, that we have neither will nor power, but that He gives both; that he is ‘Alpha and Omega’ in the salvation of men. (C.H. Spurgeon from the sermon "Free Will A Slave", 1855).

You must first deny the authenticity and full inspiration of the Holy Scripture before you can legitimately and truly deny election. (Charles Spurgeon, Sermons, Vol. 3, p.130).

When I was coming to Christ, I thought I was doing it all myself, and though I sought the Lord earnestly, I had no idea the Lord was seeking me. I do not think the young convert is at first aware of this. I can recall the very day and hour when first I received those truths in my own soul - when they were as John Bunyan says, burnt into my heart as with a hot iron; and I can recollect how I felt that I had grown all of a sudden from a babe into a man - that I had made progress in scriptural knowledge, through having found, once for all, the clue to the truth of God ... I saw that God was at the bottom of it all, and that He was the Author of my faith, and so the whole doctrine of grace opened up to me, and from that doctrine I have not departed to this day, and I desire to make this my constant confession, I ascribe my change wholly to God. (Charles Spurgeon, Autobiography: 1, The Early Years, Banner of Truth, pp. 164-165).

George Whitefield said, "We are all born Arminians." It is grace that turns us into Calvinists. (Charles Spurgeon, Sermons, Vol. 2, p. 124).

Calvinism did not spring from Calvin. We believe that it sprang from the great Founder of all truth. (Charles Spurgeon, Sermons, Vol. 7, p. 298).

We declare on scriptural authority that the human will is so desperately set on mischief, so depraved, so inclined to everything that is evil, and so disinclined to everything that is good, that without the powerful, supernatural, irresistible influence of the Holy Spirit, no human will ever be constrained toward Christ. (Charles Spurgeon, Sermons, Vol. 4, p.139).

I do not come into this pulpit hoping that perhaps somebody will of his own free will return to Christ. My hope lies in another quarter. I hope that my Master will lay hold of some of them and say, "You are mine, and you shall be mine. I claim you for myself." My hope arises from the freeness of grace, and not from the freedom of the will.

I believe that Christ came into the world not to put men into a salvable state, but into a saved state. Not to put them where they could save themselves, but to do the work in them and for them, from first to last. If I did not believe that there was might going forth with the word of Jesus which makes men willing, and which turns them from the error of their ways by the mighty, overwhelming, constraining force of divine influence, I should cease to glory in the cross of Christ. (C.H. Spurgeon, Sermons, Vol. 3, p. 34).

A man is not saved against his will, but he is made willing by the operation of the Holy Ghost. A mighty grace which he does not wish to resist enters into the man, disarms him, makes a new creature of him, and he is saved. (C.H. Spurgeon, Sermons, Vol. 10, p. 309).

I question whether we have preached the whole counsel of God, unless predestination with all its solemnity and sureness be continually declared. (Charles Spurgeon, Sermons, Vol. 6, p. 26).

Presbyterian Continuist · May 8, 2019

Hammster said:
This is actually a straw man. You have given vague assertions without any real substance. And you played the Servetus card, which has nothing at all to do with Reformed Theology.

All I have done is to compare the Scripture with what Calvin taught about election and predestination and found contradiction after contradiction.
I read 196 pages of the book that I referred to and gained a good view of Calvinistic doctrine. All Dave Hunt has done is to compare the teachings with clear Scriptural quotes to show that the "God" that Calvin teaches is not the God of the Bible. If the God of the Bible is love, the a God who deliberately predestines millions of souls to hell shows that He does not love those people at all. A God who is love does not deliberately do that.

Calvin is definitely not representing the Christ who said, "For God so loved the world (not just a predestined elect), that He gave His only Son that whoever (not just a selected few) should believe in Him, should not perish but have eternal life.

Why would God tell sinners, "Come let us reason together. Though your sins be as scarlet they shall be as white as snow", when He knows that most of whom He would say it to are already predestined to hell? Doesn't make sense.

I am now convinced that Total Inability and Unconditional Election is the invention of man and is not supported in the Bible at all.

Can Calvinism reconcile God ordaining Adam to sin, and still allow Adam to have a free will?

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Psalm 144:1

Psalm 144:1

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Pilgrim

Pilgrim

Well-Known Member

Psalm 144:1

Senior Veteran

Psalm 144:1

Psalm 144:1

Senior Veteran

Similar threads