Calvinist limited love for mankind

Mark Quayle said:

You apparently haven't read the rest of Calvinism's teachings, in particular I reference the "two wills" of God: his command, and his secret will, or his plan.

Also you neglect the title of what Calvin writes in, "The Instrumentality of the Wicked Employed by God..." God uses means to accomplish his ends. He uses the sinfulness of the Devil and his minions, and the sinfulness of humanity and of the individual, though meant to obstruct God's way, to accomplish what he has set out to do from the beginning. God indeed controls all things. Yet we know he does not sin, nor does he even tempt anyone. No, he leaves the tempting to others, and even to the individual to temp himself.

How it makes sense for God to allow evil, yet not control it, is beyond me. You would have him merely curb it, and not direct it?

Does, "As a watercourse in the hand of God is the heart of the King; he directs it wherever he pleases." mean to you only that God leads only the person that follows?

Click to expand...

Oh, I get all that. Smoke screens really don't conceal anything.
Calvin: "The Instrumentality of the Wicked Employed by God..."
You: "He uses the sinfulness of the Devil and his minions, and the sinfulness of humanity and of the individual, though meant to obstruct God's way, to accomplish what he has set out to do from the beginning."

The Bible:
Proverbs 6:16-19
There are six things that the Lord hates, seven that are an abomination to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that make haste to run to evil, a false witness who breathes out lies, and one who sows discord among brothers.

So, in your scheme, God causes all these things he claims to hate, but it's ok, because he uses secondary means to cause what he hates.

Reality: If God were to move us to sin he would be turning us away from him, away from our ultimate end or goal, “for man sins through wandering away from [God] who is his last end” (Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles 3.162).
God moving us to sin would entail a failure on God’s part, and God can’t fail, it follows that God can’t move us to sin.

Newsflash: God is not controlling everything. That is not his role in human affairs.
2 Peter 3:9 states that “God wills that none would perish but all would come to repentance.”
You see if God was in control of everything then His will would always be done, and verses like this would not be in the Book.

Is there anywhere in the Bible we see God wanting people to sin?
Of course not – God wants us to be holy.
But he's the ultimate Sovereign, you say! Yes and that used to confuse me too, because I didn't understand what Sovereign means.
Sovereign in the dictionary means to “possess supreme or ultimate power.” it doesn’t not necessarily mean that it’s being used in every situation in the world to control everything.
The Bible paints a different picture for us. A picture of a God who is so secure in His position and power that He comfortably gave us control knowing we’d screw up. He could do this because He is so good at working things out for good and seeing His overall purposes come to pass. This to me describes a God who is infinitely more powerful, not less-so.
What a relief this knowledge is, because it frees us from believing everything is God's fault. Who told us that anyway?
Remember the objector in Romans 9, Calvinists' favorite chapter in the whole Bible? What does he say? "Why did God make me like this?" Newsflash: He didn't. We chose our sin, God doesn't choose it for us.

12Blessed is the man who perseveres under trial, because when he has stood the test, he will receive the crown of life that God has promised to those who love Him. 13When tempted, no one should say, “ God is tempting me. For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He tempt anyone. 14But each one is tempted when by his own evil desires he is lured away and enticed. 15Then after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death. 16Do not be deceived, my beloved brothers. 17Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, with whom there is no change or shifting shadow.

Look at this beautiful picture that James paints of God, so very different than the Calvinist picture. God doesn't tempt everyone (he sure would be to blame for tempting you if he controlled the devil) You fall when you follow your own lusts. God isn't to blame. God only gives good and perfect gifts. Everything good comes from him. He isn't changing, he isn't darkness mixed with light. He is all light, thank God!

Mark Quayle said:

Did they not choose, and that according to their own will?

And does not God have the right to do with them as he pleases, since they are his creation?

Furthermore, he has treated them according to what they agree to do. They have drawn up a legal contract, so to speak, where they will behave thus, and reap the rewards. He is not unfair, then in giving them what they deserve.

Click to expand...

Nonsense. In your system, we can agree to nothing that God didn't already cause us to agree with. It's all gibberish to say we have a choice. Be honest, for goodness sake! We can't deserve what we have no chance of escaping from. In your system, the damned have one choice, death. Nothing they do can every change that.

renniks said:

Sovereign in the dictionary means to “possess supreme or ultimate power.” it doesn’t not necessarily mean that it’s being used in every situation in the world to control everything.

Click to expand...

I’ve even heard the gospel coalition agree to this definition. Determining everything isn’t the same as being sovereign over creation.

Read your GAY king James people, jk even the earthly king mentioned in the preface is called the “dread sovereign.” Sovereign and determinism aren’t the same and never have been.

That idea belongs in the sin bin alongside all of the other Calvinist catchphrases that are getting debunked in here.

Mark Quayle said:

You sound like an unbeliever here; you may as well say the Devil was being obedient by fulfilling God's will by his rebelling. Of course he was doing exactly as God had planned, but God uses his rebellion to accomplish what God set out to do from the beginning. That is not obeying God's will ("revealed will", or "command").

Click to expand...

Oh, for Pete's sake, such a schizo god you have. yes, in your system, the devil is indeed being obedient by fulfilling God's will. That's exactly what Calvinism teaches!

Mark Quayle said:

The ironic thing is that science and philosophy both agree on this one thing, that the law of causality demands all things except first cause are the result of causes. As I have said before, there are no little first causes walking about the earth. Yet you demand autonomy, which by definition is not caused. I will attribute your lack of logic to lack of thinking, rather than to presumptive self-importance.

Click to expand...

It just gets worse.. now you are promoting science above scripture in order to make your system work. What a tangled web we weave when we set out to deceive! Yes, we are little causes. We cause stuff to happen. We need to accept and live with the fact that our choices matter.
In fact, if they don't, nothing matters and we are just unwitting pawns. But the Bible paints the opposite picture, over and over again. Once you throw a miracle into science, all this nonsense about causation changes.

“The Christian admits that the universe is manifold and even miscellaneous, just as a sane man knows that he is complex. The sane man knows that he has a touch of the beast, a touch of the devil, a touch of the saint, a touch of the citizen. Nay, the really sane man knows that he has a touch of the madman. But the materialist's world is quite simple and solid, just as the madman is quite sure he is sane. The materialist is sure that history has been simply and solely a chain of causation, just as the interesting person before mentioned is quite sure that he is simply and solely a chicken. Materialists and madmen never have doubts.”

― G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy

In the beginning how did sin and wickedness enter into the world if it wasn't by Gods choosing and plan? Did he get taken by surprise or make a mistake in creation?

Cormack said:

So, @nolidad, when you’re shown to write an inaccurate and misleading comment, namely...

if one does not accept what is called Calvin, then by default they accept the teaching of Jacob Armenius.​

your natural response isn’t to retract or correct your inaccurate and misleading statement, your natural response is to ignore your previous error, expand the scope of the topic and begin writing further inaccurate, misleading and disparaging statements about other belief systems.

Click to expand...

Or: which was my intent which is that Christians who have any convinvictions on the five points of contention- ( for I was referring to them exclusively- I f they do not hold to Calvins view, they hold to Armenius' view!

A muddled view of one of the points is an Armenian view! Just like calling Jesus just a very moral man- is taking the athiest view of jesus vs, the biblical view.

I confine my argument here to the five points in contention! All argumetns I have seen so far are either accepting Armenius or Calvin on that point!

If you can show a different view other than predestination or free will- show it! They cannot be meshed!
total depravity- versus critical wounding- show it!
only the elect get saved versus Armenius view- show it
irresistilble grace vs. resisitng saving grace- show it!
Eternal security vs. one can lose salvation- show it.

So if I believe the five points of Armenianism are biblically wrong- I am supposed to somehow support them?

Are we not to disparage abortion? Murder? adultery? blasphemy? Are we to accept Islam as a valid system to save a soul lest we disparage their belief system???

Let me correct and strte clearly what I had in mind with my post:
"if one does not accept what is called Calvin, then by default they accept the teaching of Jacob Armenius."

For this thread I am only and exclusivey referring ot the five points proposed by both at teh councul of Dort!

Cormack said:

A simple definition reads “a state or feeling of active opposition or hostility.” The question is who felt enmity, hostility, or was in active opposition to the other first, God or the creation.

Under Calvinism it’s obviously God on both counts. God is making a forever plan against these non existent plebs “before they’ve done anything good or bad.”

If you insist that enmity and feelings of enmity aren’t the same (and you’re able to explain the idea) you should.

So far however enmity, the order of who had enmity first and the origin of both parties enmity is clearly explained under Calvinism.

God had enmity first, he authored the sinners enmity, then punished the sinner for being hateful and filled with enmity.

Madness of the highest order, my friend.

Click to expand...

Wrong again. Calvinism doesn't have God as the author of sin. He uses means to accomplish his ends. Sin is against God, God is not against God.

Cormack said:

By Gods decree, that’s the term on Calvinism.

The “natural fact” is contingent upon Gods decree before the world began, so there’s no use in anybody punting to the natural state of man or punting to mans choice to reject God or anything else because they’re all content in the decree of God.

You’ll remember my earlier quote from John Calvin, Adams fall into sin and the ruin of his children was arranged by God.

Your “slavery to sin” is part of the decree of God according to Calvinism, everything else (e.g. secondary causes, original sin, inability) is just window dressing for the decree, Gods divine decree to have eternal enmity towards a subgroup of mankind.

Click to expand...

Yes, it was all arranged by God. You will not be able to refute the claim that God, who by definition KNEW all things before creating, still created, and therefore, "caused" it all.

Cormack said:

I’ve actually shared 3 objections on the insincere offer of the gospel, with only 1 of those objections to do with the absurdity of commanding people to do things they can’t actually do. Not accepting that should necessarily implies could is just another issue of simple logic that the crazy world of Calvinism faces (or refuses to face in this case.)

So far you’ve ignored two of the points but interacted with this idea, although there’s nothing logical, sensible or even coherent about your stance here.

If a father punished his 2 week old child for not cleaning his room or doing his taxes you’d rightly call the father a dummy. An immoral dummy!

Why in the name of all that’s holy are you commanding that child to do something they clearly have no ability to do. God’s a loving Father, He uses the language Himself, the character above who commands an infant to do things they can’t isn’t a loving father.

When Pharaoh removed building material in the days of Moses, even the Jews complained they didn’t have the raw materials to do the things being asked of them.

Asking for bricks to be made by your slaves when you don’t provide (or have removed the building materials) is madness.

Commanding an incapable sinner to obey commands is as illogical as ordering you to build a house while I remove all of the much needed materials and tools.

There’s no “logic” on the Calvinists side here, there’s only men invoking mysteries we don’t need to rescue their philosophy, promoting themselves and trapping the confused in a net of absurd double speak.

Two loves, two calls, two conversions, two wills, the pattern is two faced and allows for anything.

Click to expand...

So you deny what Scripture teaches, "[they] do not submit to the law of God, nor can they do so." Are they not commanded? And do they obey? CAN they obey?

But what two valid points (on the Calvinist "insincerity of the Gospel") did I miss?

Mark Quayle said:

Yes, it was all arranged by God. You will not be able to refute the claim that God, who by definition KNEW all things before creating, still created, and therefore, "caused" it all.

Click to expand...

You’re ignoring that enmity question, Mark. You wrote that enmity isn’t simply a feeling but are now refusing to define your terms. Knowing all things doesn’t mean God causes everything, thinking that knowledge = causation is called the “model fallacy.“ Google the idea.

Mark Quayle said:

Wrong again. Calvinism doesn't have God as the author of sin. He uses means to accomplish his ends. Sin is against God, God is not against God.

Click to expand...

Nathan the prophet disagrees here. God disagrees by way of the prophet too.

Mark Quayle said:

So you deny what Scripture teaches, "[they] do not submit to the law of God, nor can they do so." Are they not commanded? And do they obey? CAN they obey?

Click to expand...

There are simply better ways to interpret that verse.

Mark Quayle said:

But what two valid points (on the Calvinist "insincerity of the Gospel") did I miss?

Click to expand...

I believe they were 1. That there’s no gift to receive so offering a gift is dishonest, and 2. The reason people are incapable of accepting the fake gift to begin with is not simply because of an incapacity to accept Gods offer of salvation, rather the entire scheme (incapacity included) was deterministically brought about by God before the universe began.

So the 3 arguments altogether would be:

1. incapacity to accept a gift.

2. no sacrifice was made for them so they have no gift (dishonest offer that also makes the Christians dishonest ambassadors.)

3. Gods authored their incapacity, unbelief, enmity and giftlessness.

So it’s not just that they don’t want the gift, the reality is that God doesn’t want them to want the gift.

I think the obvious point here is that Calvinists have mysteries, everything that sticks in their jaw and makes them uncomfortable is put in the mystery box.

But we can’t be cruel about that because Christians have mysteries too.

The main question is.... which mysteries are you prepared to live with?

As a Christian, I won’t live with the mystery that maybe Jesus didn’t die for me. I know He did.

Calvinists live and accept this other mystery... they say “Jesus may not be my saviour from sin, we don’t know. Maybe Jesus didn’t die for me. I’m just glad God is using me for now.

All of my mysteries, things like the incarnation and how God made the universe from nothing, they’re wonderful mysteries I love to think about.

A Calvinist mystery is how can God cause all of the sin but not be the author of sin.

See I don’t like that mystery I would feel very uncomfortable if that was one of my mysteries.

I applaud your passion for defending your beliefs, @Mark Quayle. Still, these objections against Calvinism are valid, they’re fair minded, evenhanded and biblically based.

Cormack said:

I think the obvious point here is that Calvinists have mysteries, everything that sticks in their jaw and makes them uncomfortable is put in the mystery box.

But we can’t be cruel about that because Christians have mysteries too.

The main question is.... which mysteries are you prepared to live with?

As a Christian, I won’t live with the mystery that maybe Jesus didn’t die for me. I know He did.

Calvinists live and accept this other mystery... they say “Jesus may not be my saviour from sin, we don’t know. Maybe Jesus didn’t die for me. I’m just glad God is using me for now.

All of my mysteries, things like the incarnation and how God made the universe from nothing, they’re wonderful mysteries I love to think about.

A Calvinist mystery is how can God cause all of the sin but not be the author of sin.

See I don’t like that mystery I would feel very uncomfortable if that was one of my mysteries.

Click to expand...

The Calvins I`ve had issue with were very sure of themselves. I`m sure there are plenty of Calvins who worry for their salvation but the alpha Calvinists did a good job of giving me serious reservations about their doctrine. They displayed a lack of charity towards sinners and I think that attitude is a mistake.

1 Peter 4:18 tells us that the righteous are scarcely saved. If that is true then the only difference between sinners and us is the righteousness of Christ given to us. It is the wedding garment in the parable of Jesus.

Cormack said:

You’re ignoring that enmity question, Mark. You wrote that enmity isn’t simply a feeling but are now refusing to define your terms. Knowing all things doesn’t mean God causes everything, thinking that knowledge = causation is called the “model fallacy.“ Google the idea.

Click to expand...

Give me your take on this verse.

Hebrews 4:3

For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world.

Cormack said:

70x70 chances to forgive? Sure, I mean, I’ll tease “hammer” but he’s nice and friendly and will make himself available for discussion of course. He’s not a bad guy, but he’s not going to provide a good answer (in my experience.) Good guys provide bad answers all the time.

Try this question on for size....

Under some forms of Calvinism, Jesus didn’t die for everyone.

Does God love the people he didn’t die for?

Click to expand...

Not only does God not love the non-elect, He actually hates them, says the hard core 5 pointer Calvinist.

Their proof text is Romans 9 where God loves Jacob, but hates Esau.

But that passage doesn’t really teach that God actually hated Esau.

Shalom.

RickReads said:

The Calvins I`ve had issue with were very sure of themselves. I`m sure there are plenty of Calvins who worry for their salvation but the alpha Calvinists did a good job of giving me serious reservations about their doctrine. They displayed a lack of charity towards sinners and I think that attitude is a mistake.

1 Peter 4:18 tells us that the righteous are scarcely saved. If that is true then the only difference between sinners and us is the righteousness of Christ given to us. It is the wedding garment in the parable of Jesus.

Click to expand...

Lack of charity is an understatement.

Years back in AOL Christian Forum chat room (same name, coincidentally) I ran into some very hostile and nasty hard core 5 pointers.

They were very sarcastic, snotty, arrogant, and hateful towards anyone who didn’t buy into Calvinism.

Over time I learned that their attitude came from Romans 9, that God hates the non-elect, aka those predestined to hell, and therefore since God hates them, so do Calvinists.

And of course if you weren’t a TULIP believer, you prove yourself to be of the un-elect, and that’s why they were so hateful.

BTW I found out that Westboro Baptist Church, that was in the news so often for their hateful rhetoric, is a hard care Calvinist church.

Now I know where that hate originated.

RickReads said:

The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.

Click to expand...

It follows that since God sees the end from the beginning, that He would know who used their freewill to receive Christ and be saved.

The only problem is Exodus 32:33 God blots names out of His book, and Revelation 22:19 names can be removed from the book of life.

Shalom.

Bible Highlighter said:

I consider Calvinism as about as crazy as believing in a Flat Earth. Why would God give us commands and get upset at those who disobeyed His commands if He has the power to just snap His fingers and make them mindless puppets to do His will? If God saves some (based on no condition), why doesn't He save them all? It appears really heartless to let others perish if God has the ability to save men by some kind of forced election.

In addition, why is there a judgment if Calvinism is true? That would be like kicking a dog across the room like a football because it is sick and it has uncontrollable pooping problem (When the master can simply take the dog to the vet and help it any time). But the master does not care. He just wants to kick the poor animal and be cruel. That's not the love of God I know the Bible teaches and the love of God I have experienced in my life. Calvinism is nuts - IMO. I think people believe in Calvinism because it fits their own personality or lifestyle. It's not in any way biblical or moral.

Click to expand...

Calvinism is an insult to God’s character and nature.

Shalom.

Redwingfan9 said:

God has common grace or common love for the world. He has specific love for his elect alone, whom Christ died for. As such, I never tell people that God specifically loves them and I've always hated the phrase God loves the sinner and hates the sin. Instead I think it far more important for people to confront the fact that they are evil and in need of a savior. Telling them Jesus loves them out of the gate gives people a reason not to repent, after all they're already loved.

Click to expand...

Except Jesus Himself gives the example of telling about both Gods love for the world that sent a savior, and the consequences of condemnation for those who reject the savior:

Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Joh 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

Joh 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

I’ll stick with His example of stating Gods love first, then the consequences of rejecting the savior sent out of His love.

Shalom.

True Counterphobia said:

This was raised in an "Ask Pastor John" podcast.

God does love the non-Elect, but God has a unique love for those who are elect.

Click to expand...

To which I counter with Adrian Rogers refuting Calvinism:


After watching the video, read this about Romans 9, as it directly pertains to the video:

Romans 9 potter and clay


Here is refutation of the Calvinist claims about the potter and the clay, and about vessels of wrath fitted for destruction:


Jeremiah 18 is the potter and clay chapter, which is the scripture that Paul is referring to in Romans 9.


It refutes the Calvinist Romans 9 narrative, completely.


The potter and clay, and Jacob and Esau, is about NATIONS not individuals.


As Rebecca was told in Genesis 25:23 concerning her pregnancy: two nations are in your womb (Edom came from Esau, and Israel came from Jacob)


And Israel, the nation from Jacob is the clay on the potters wheel, not any one person.


The Potter and the Clay.

Jer 18:1 The word which came to Jeremiah from the LORD, saying,

Jer 18:2 Arise, and go down to the potter's house, and there I will cause thee to hear my words.

Jer 18:3 Then I went down to the potter's house, and, behold, he wrought a work on the wheels.

Jer 18:4 And the vessel that he made of clay was marred in the hand of the potter: so he made it again another vessel, as seemed good to the potter to make it.

Jer 18:5 Then the word of the LORD came to me, saying,

Jer 18:6 O house of ISRAEL , cannot I do with you as this potter? saith the LORD. Behold, as the clay is in the potter's hand, so are ye in mine hand, O house of Israel.


We also find in Jeremiah 18 that when the potter speaks blessing over any NATION and they turn evil, God takes back his blessing and punishes that nation, and also when the potter considers a nation a vessel fit for destruction and they repent, He changes His mind about punishing them.


Jer 18:7 At what instant I shall speak concerning a NATION, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to DESTROY it;

Jer 18:8 If that NATION, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will REPENT of the evil that I thought to do unto them.

Jer 18:9 And at what instant I shall speak concerning a NATION, and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it;

Jer 18:10 If it do EVIL in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will REPENT of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them.


This is the opposite of the reformed doctrine predestination narrative. The fate of the nations is dependent on what they do, not on being predestined to be vessels of wrath, fitted for destruction, and the Romans 9 potter and clay passage is not about predestination of individuals to hell, or to salvation.

chad kincham said:

It follows that since God sees the end from the beginning, that He would know who used their freewill to receive Christ and be saved.

The only problem is Exodus 32:33 God blots names out of His book, and Revelation 22:19 names can be removed from the book of life.

Shalom.

Click to expand...

It`s a problem if you are a Calvinist. My view (reflected in all my posts), is that we must endure to the end to have the security. Armini has same belief.

Falling Away in the Bible means to stop believing (Hebrews 6), Apostasy/sin unto death (1 John 5) means same thing.

Exodus 32, people are getting put out of the covenant par with falling away.
Revelation 22, destroying scripture is par with Apostasy.
Blotting out is par with Holy Spirit tasting people falling away (Hebrews 6)
Omniscience God will know who is going to get blotted out.

Just God gives all those who are called a chance. The blotting proves that He did.
In same manner, Jesus gave Israel a legitimate chance which explains some things He said and did.

RickReads said:

Give me your take on this verse.

Hebrews 4:3

For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world.

Click to expand...

Just reading through the chapter, the author of Hebrews in the next verse tied that comment about “the foundation of the world” to Gods creation of the earth, so, so far as I’m seeing, the comment isn’t about enmity or a decree to hate unbelievers before the creation event, rather it’s an argument by the author about A. whether or not the wicked are still able to enter into that rest made at the end of earths creation,

and B. The Christians making their calling and election sure by comparing our lives to the lives of the disobedience (being run on arguments they’re both pretty long.)

About argument A the author of Hebrews writes about the idea of days and setting a day and the Sabbath once more, comparing today to the Sabbath day: “God again set a certain day, calling it “Today.” This he did when a long time later he spoke through David, as in the passage already quoted: Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts.”

So it’s not a condemnation passage or an argument against the hope of a sabbath of rest for the workers of unrighteousness, if it were more along the Calvinistic train of thought there’d be no need to use the creation even or the sabbath day as point in time (rather he’d be angry from before the foundation of world and refusing the sabbath long before creation,) rather it’s an appeal to be reconciled and saved today, saved from the sin of “disobedience.”

That disobedience language leads into argument B about you and I not following in the disobedient example we have been set (which is less relevant to your question but also uses the sabbath rest day language too.)

There the author uses language to do with Joshua, so his entering into the holy land by Jericho, finding rest from their 40 years of wandering in the desert, adding that although Joshua gained the land he wasn’t really giving the Sabbath that we read about here in Hebrews (if he were bringing in the Sabbath God wouldn’t have made the “today” quote via king David.)


That’s the impression I get just by taking a glance at the chapter, without going into the non Calvinist scholars. If I were short on time or patience I’d simply reply “it’s a run on argument and verse theology is bad, mkay.”