Struggles with Calvinism

Butch5 · Nov 12, 2019

His student said:
Read carefully from your own post:

He "works" all things after the counsel of His will - including the results of our bad choices.

He "ordained" what comes to pass to come to pass.

The two statements are obviously different.

I don't have to choose between them. Both are true. An example follows.

Right up front since you seem prone to misrepresent other people's beliefs - God did not author the sins of Caiaphas - they were all his choice to do or not to do. Any charge that I or the Calvinists teach different are simply lies at this stage since we have said so many times and in so many ways that God does no violence to the relatively free will of men.

But He did ordain that those choices occur or come to pass in history according to the clear teaching that we find in the book of acts.

He also worked those evil choices together for good for those who believe on Christ - all according to His sovereign will to so work.

Both are true.

The only way to say that they can not both be true is to change one of the constructs (i.e. - "lie" about what is being said in one or both statements).

Of course that's quite common here. Hopefully you won't do so in your next post. You can of course. It is likely that God won't stop you. But that would be a sinful choice that God allows you to make (and that you were also predestined to make by the way even though you would not be coerced by God to do so).

It's either silly, ignorant, or evil. I choose to call you silly because you say such silly things.

Please explain how God didn't author Caiaphas' sins, yet ordained them.

Also, you didn't answer my other question. Have you considered the Ephesians passage in context?

His student · Nov 12, 2019

Tra Phull said:
How bout God "going down to Sodom to look and see" - do you agree it's anthropomorphic and God really did already know?

Of course.

And your point is what exactly?

Tra Phull · Nov 12, 2019

My point is that are agreements at times between Calvinists and silly free willers allegedly on high horses.

His student · Nov 12, 2019

Butch5 said:
Please explain how God didn't author Caiaphas' sins, yet ordained them.

Definition of ordain
transitive verb
to establish or order by appointment, decree
Definition of author
verb
one that originates or creates something

"Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone. But each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust. Then when lust has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and when sin is accomplished, it brings forth death." James 1:13-15

"this Man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death." Acts 2:23

Here is an example from real life - if it will help:

I can have "established or ordered by appointment" - Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to deliver a speech at a Republican dinner for the purpose of showing everyone attending the dinner what an ill informed child she is. (Sorry Democrats.

)

But that doesn't mean that I must have authored her speech or even forced her to say what she chose to say.

Butch5 said:
Also, you didn't answer my other question. Have you considered the Ephesians passage in context?

I'm assuming that you are talking about Ephesians chapter 1.

Of course I have.

I have been studying and discussing theology for over 60 years and this is a much discussed and important passage.

aiki · Nov 12, 2019

www.soteriology101.com
www.reasonablefaith.org - search "Molinism"

His student · Nov 12, 2019

Tra Phull said:
My point is that are agreements at times between Calvinists and silly free willers allegedly on high horses.

As I have said several times in this thread alone - there is some truth to be found in both Calvinist teaching and Arminian teaching.

To take a stand against "all things Calvinist" as we see happening here when at least some of what they believe is accurately stated is just a down right silly thing to do (to put it charitably).

Tra Phull · Nov 12, 2019

In the phrase "all things Calvinist" - does ALL really mean ALL?

twin1954 · Nov 12, 2019

Butch5 said:
Are you aware of Calvin's influence and authority. If Calvin had wanted to stop it he could have. He didn't.

So! What does that have to do with Calvinism? It is a red herring.

Kenny'sID · Nov 12, 2019

Dave L said:
My last article Do Dispensationalists share in the guilt of bloodshed related to Israel? Was 103 words.
Albert says;

"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough."

- Albert Einstein

God says;

“He who restrains his words has knowledge, And he who has a cool spirit is a man of understanding. Even a fool, when he keeps silent, is considered wise; When he closes his lips, he is considered prudent.” Proverbs 17:27–28 (NASB95)

“For a dream cometh through the multitude of business; and a fool’s voice is known by multitude of words.” Ecclesiastes 5:3 (KJV 1900)

“For in the multitude of dreams and many words there are also divers vanities: but fear thou God.” Ecclesiastes 5:7 (KJV 1900)

]

First, that was more than 2 paragraphs, and what do you think that means when you said you don't read past two paragraphs?

My understanding is fine, but is it any wonder some of us have to go to great depths to explain to those who don't understand what they read? Unless you are saying all those who use more than 2 paragraphs are fools, your post is completely irrelevant. Why? Because the verse states they have to be fools to begin with and not that using a lot of words makes one a fool. That is unless you feel anyone who makes a long post is a fool to begin with, something I would say would be quite foolish.

Some disciples go on and on with their books of the bible, are they all fools? Many more than "103 words"

Also, the Einstein quote had nothing to do with the length of a post, only explaining something simply, sometimes that takes few and sometime it takes many words.

This is JMO, but I think, even for your own sake, you'd a been better off just answering the question, the main reason for the post you replied to.

Butch5 · Nov 12, 2019

His student said:
Definition of ordain
transitive verb
to establish or order by appointment, decree
Definition of author
verb
one that originates or creates something

"Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone. But each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust. Then when lust has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and when sin is accomplished, it brings forth death." James 1:13-15

"this Man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death." Acts 2:23

I'm assuming that you are talking about Ephesians chapter 1.

Of course I have.

I have been studying and discussing theology for over 60 years and this is a much discussed and important passage.

Yes, they're different words. However, as I showed in my post, in both cases God is the one who does or does not control the events that take place. If God is writing the story you can't have Him not doing something and yet Him also ordaining that very thing.

Looking at the verses you've posted, you've got to find a way to reconcile them that doesn't cause contradiction. If the way they're reconciled causes contradiction you can't just say there's no contradiction. To say that God ordained Caiaphas' choices, yet Caiaphas had free choice in the matter doesn't work.You've already said that whatever God ordains comes to pass. If that's the case then there was nothing Caiaphas could do to avoid that sin. He didn't have a choice.

Regarding the passage in Ephesian 1, since you have considered it in context, can I assume that you understand that it is in a passage that is speaking of the Jews? In that context what is God's will?

Dave L · Nov 12, 2019

Kenny'sID said:
]

First, that was more than 2 paragraphs, and what do you think that means when you said you don't read past two paragraphs?

My understanding is fine, but is it any wonder some of us have to go to great depths to explain to those who don't understand what they read? Unless you are saying all those who use more than 2 paragraphs are fools, your post is completely irrelevant. Why? Because the verse states they have to be fools to begin with and not that using a lot of words makes one a fool. That is unless you feel anyone who makes a long post is a fool to begin with, something I would say would be quite foolish.

Some disciples go on and on with their books of the bible, are they all fools? Many more than "103 words"

Also, the Einstein quote had nothing to do with the length of a post, only explaining something simply, sometimes that takes few and sometime it takes many words.

This is JMO, but I think, even for your own sake, you'd a been better off just answering the question, the main reason for the post you replied to.

I write brief articles. But why read posts you know are going nowhere? Why take something on if you don't think it is worth the time?

Tra Phull · Nov 12, 2019

Do Dispensationalists share in whatever is a separate thread.

This is the second paragraph of my post.

twin1954 · Nov 12, 2019

Butch5 said:
Wow, we actually agree on a point. Context is of the utmost importance. It's context that shows the passages that are used to support Calvinism don't. There's not a false dichotomy in my statement at all. If God works all things according to what He wants to do that doesn't mean He works all things that happen. In the first instance the all things is qualified by "what He wants to" We know that God doesn't want sin so that wouldn't be part of his Paul statement. However, the Confession says all things whatsoever. There's a difference.

Regarding the passage you posted, can you elaborate? I have no idea what you're getting at.

The passage states that all things are of Him and to Him and for Him.

God doesn't want or wish or try. He purposes. Man wants because he may or may not be able to attain it. Not so with God.

Man wishes because he may or may not attain what he wishes for. Not so with God.

Man tries because he can only do so much. He is limited in his efforts. Not so with God.

In His infinite wisdom He purposed everything to bring to pass whatever He intends. He is never thwarted, never frustrated and never fails.

Daniel 4:34-35 (KJV) 34 And at the end of the days I Nebuchadnezzar lifted up mine eyes unto heaven, and mine understanding returned unto me, and I blessed the most High, and I praised and honoured him that liveth for ever, whose dominion [is] an everlasting dominion, and his kingdom [is] from generation to generation: 35 And all the inhabitants of the earth [are] reputed as nothing: and he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and [among] the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou?

Tra Phull · Nov 12, 2019

Dave L - I am having trouble finding the documentation for Calvin's commentary remark that Paul "fell off his horse in fear", but I know I read it in the past.

I am on a Kindle and it is pretty flaky for Internet.

His student · Nov 12, 2019

Tra Phull said:
In the phrase "all things Calvinist" - does ALL really mean ALL?

Excuse the expression. But what a silly post.

I'm pretty sure that your intent is to make fun of the Calvinist's use of that idea when it comes to their teaching on limited atonement - which I don't subscribe to.

Here is an example of the kind of thinking that is to be avoided by critics of Calvinism.

Some are trying very hard to twist and misrepresent the statement by Calvinists that God ordains all that occurs in history - even though it is an unavoidable truth consider the scriptures in their totality.

I maintain that the reason people won't receive even this unavoidable doctrine as the truth found in scripture is that to do so would mean agreeing with Calvinists on a very central issue. When a person has real and extremely important issues with Calvinists in other areas (as I do with so called limited atonement and unconditional election) it is difficult to show any weakness at all that might lead others who are new and weak to become full 5 point Calvinists themselves eventually.

But IMO it's something a real and fair theologian will do and let the Holy Spirit take care of the rest of it.

There is some truth in both Calvinist and Arminian teachings.

twin1954 · Nov 12, 2019

Tra Phull said:
In the phrase "all things Calvinist" - does ALL really mean ALL?

It means all things Calvinist. Trying to put your spin on it is just foolishness.

Dave L · Nov 12, 2019

Tra Phull said:
Dave L - I am having trouble finding the documentation for Calvin's commentary remark that Paul "fell off his horse in fear", but I know I read it in the past.

I am on a Kindle and it is pretty flaky for Internet.

Thanks for trying. I never heard that before.

Tra Phull · Nov 12, 2019

Is it true or not that the acronym TULIP was first coined around 1905?

Dave L · Nov 12, 2019

Tra Phull said:
Is it true or not that the acronym TULIP was first coined around 1905?

It was from the Synod held in Dordrecht in 1618–1619

Butch5 · Nov 12, 2019

twin1954 said:
So! What does that have to do with Calvinism? It is a red herring.

A red herring is logical fallacy. A logical fallacy is an error in reasoning. It's an error in an argument one is making. A question cannot be a logical fallacy. My statement, if Calvin had wanted to stop it, he could have, is not an argument. Thus there can be no fallacy in my post. I was not reasoning through an argument. My statement was merely to point out that Calvin had the pull to stop it if he wanted to.

Struggles with Calvinism

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Ecumenical Loose Canon

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Ecumenical Loose Canon

Baptist by the Bible

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Ecumenical Loose Canon

Baptist by the Bible

Ecumenical Loose Canon

Well-Known Member

Baptist by the Bible

Well-Known Member

Ecumenical Loose Canon

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Similar threads