- Apr 30, 2013
- 30,678
- 18,559
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- United Ch. of Christ
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Yeah, well, it still doesn't seem very aware of the semitic idiom.
Upvote
0
Is Calvinism a heresy?
- Thread starter Xeno.of.athens
- Start date
- Status
Yeah, well, it still doesn't seem very aware of the semitic idiom.
Thanks for sharing your interpretation of "God's elect", but I don't agree with your view and neither would anyone who believes that God is sovereign over all things.
The Bible makes it crystal clear, that salvation is 100% of the Lord. The sinner doesn't contribute anything towards his salvation, I know this is not a popular doctrine as it leaves no room for any pride. We know that God hates pride and we love it, so that presents a problem for those who claim that they are saved by choosing to believe the gospel.
The Reformation caused a split in the Church, it divided the Church into two camps 500 years ago and the division remains to this day. The debate has been raging for around 500 years, so I don't think that you will convince me to join you Arminians and I won't convince you to join us Calvinists.
Reformed theology teaches that God predestined everything, so nothing has ever happened outside of God's will. This includes the elect and reprobate. The Bible does teach us that, the gospel is foolishness to those who are perishing. We can never convince anyone to embrace the gospel while they consider it foolish.
God never revealed why He chose some to salvation and left the rest in their sin, and we have no business trying to understand what God has deliberately hidden from us. He said "can the clay ask the potter, why has thou fashioned me in this way", so it's foolish to try to understand the mind of God with our puny little minds.
We just have to accept things the way God preordained them, we don't have the capacity or privilege to understand God. He is a mystery to us and it very dangerous to pretend we understand why He does what He does.
Upvote
0
- Apr 30, 2013
- 30,678
- 18,559
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- United Ch. of Christ
- Politics
- US-Democrat
I think some people object to the implied fatalism and lack of personal agency implied in that soteriology, it's not necessarily a matter of pride. Especially if the doctrine is combined with certain Puritan or Baptist distinctives that minimize the ordinary means of grace, and the corresponding despair that can result from a life lived in spiritual confusion and doubt, or conversely, the possibility of presumption upon grace due to ones own spiritual delusions.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- Aug 30, 2008
- 6,362
- 2,912
- Country
- Australia
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
These 3 points need to be understood in the context of Jesus's words in John 14.How does that negate ANY of the points in the verse?
Where is the disclaimer that Chapter 6 of the Gospel of John does not apply to gentiles?
- Can they come without the draw of the Father? Jesus said NO. (T)
- Will those that the Father draws, come? Jesus said YES. (I)
- Will Jesus personally raise each and every one of them on the last day? Jesus said YES. (P)
Does that argument not apply to ALL of the gospels and most of the Old Testament?
Perhaps we need to publish a pamphlet “Bible verses for Gentiles” … so we don’t waste time on all those scriptures that are not talking about US.
John 14:21-23 He who has My commandments and keeps them, it is he who loves Me. And he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and manifest Myself to him." Judas (not Iscariot) said to Him, "Lord, how is it that You will manifest Yourself to us, and not to the world?" Jesus answered and said to him, "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him.
Read the passage in John 14, and ask who is blind, who sees (has manifestation), and how does sight occur.
The order of the Father's revealing happens AFTER we respond to His words with obedience. Summarised below:
a) We hear God's word
b) If We obey it
c) God loves us (for the step we took)
d) God reveals himself to us (your point 1,2,3)
John 14 shows that how we respond to God's word influences the Father, He then draws us.
Upvote
0
jameslouise
Active Member
- Jan 16, 2023
- 185
- 16
- 62
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Prove it then, Good luck with that as the Bible tells me differently.
It says before the foundation of the world (katabole kosmos) not foundation of the earth (themelioo ge). Totally different meanings. What did he choose them for? Show me any scripture that contradicts my stance that God chose them to have the opportunity to be saved, but just knew which option they would take
only those who reject Christ, so they send themselves there God just delivers them and follows just rules. God is absolutely good.
The hatred is dependent on behavior, only sins against the spirit cannot be forgiven everything else can if they repent. I believe in a moment of time at the judgment all around will know the complete history of the Judged person and will know- i see it, i see the times you approached him and he rejected you- righteous is your judgement.
I do not get your logic? This verse means what it says, no more-there is no chance of salvation unless the Father draws you in, it does do not mean if he starts to draw you he always succeeds, there is nothing in this verse that says that. Man chooses to be chosen and has to accept Christ along that drawing path.
Which scripture says this please? Are you saying that the John 6:37 'giveth' and the John 6:44 'draws' are the same? I suggest that the giveth is applying to after salvation when we are one body, not before salvation or before the foundation of the world for that matter.
I have some argumentation for you: Romans 8:28-29 are only about those who love God and says nothing about those who do not. He may predestinate something for those too. We do not know from this verse.
Did God predestinate the people group (that rejected Christ) of John 12:48 to be offered Christ? To be offered Christ it must have been via The Holy Spirit to be a valid offer? Did the Holy Spirit start to draw them in?
Last edited:
Upvote
0
I’m not arguing for any particular soteriology here, but looking at the implications. My sympathy with open theism has other reasons.
Upvote
0
Don't confuse God's Sovereignty with Calvinism.
Let me show you something.
Jesus said....."not my will but your's Father, that i will do".
And then Jesus went to the Cross.
What is that?
That is freedom of Choice allowed by a Sovereign God.
This same freedom of Choice is given to you......as you can choose Christ or you can die a Christ rejector.
The choice is yours to make.
Now....Here is Calvin's scriptural problem...one of them.
He was not able to discern the scriptures. He read them like a dictionary and created a wild and crazy theology, that has God creating Evil, (breaking His own Law and Commandments) to do it, and Has The Cross of Christ, not given to the world of sinners.
Yet, Jesus said..>>"i came to save SINNERS".........and that is the WORLD.......... John 3:16. 2 Corinthians 5:19
The WORLD, is not the "elect"....and Calvin never understood this.....not one second.
Reader, Here is how you can escape Calvinism.
Just realize one thing....
That God KNOWS everything, (foreknowledge) is not the same as God causing everything to happen.
Knowing , is not CAUSING......Its just Knowing. = 'God's Foreknowledge"... that is knowledge BE-FORE...it happens, as it will happen.
Calvin never understood this, but dont let that stop you.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
zippy2006
Dragonsworn
I suppose I have yet to be convinced that the modern exegete has made any substantial contribution to this question.
You say that the modern exegete would instruct Thomas by informing him that the idiom has naught to do with anger and punishment. The problem here is that the modern exegete is simply mistaken, for Thomas is citing Malachi 1 where punishment and anger are indisputably present. Probably the modern exegete is fixated on Romans 9 and hasn't noticed that Thomas was referencing Malachi 1. If Thomas had cited Romans 9 then his sed contra would be out of place, but he hasn't done that.
Now, regarding Romans 9 which so befuddles the modern mind, has the modern exegete made some advance in noting that Paul is not referring to punishment or anger? I think not, for the text itself is perfectly clear that God's "hatred" of Esau is not a matter of punishment. If it was a matter of punishment then the whole pericope would be rhetorically incoherent, particularly v. 14. It would be strange if Aquinas were not aware of such an obvious fact, and there is no indication that he is unaware of it in his commentary on Romans.
Upvote
0
QvQ
Member
The problem with that is, if man has absolute free will, then the issue of random arises.
God can't know until man chooses as the future is indeterminate.
The second problem is, you are caused to be stuck to the floor. You don't have any choice. It is called gravity.
Now there are causes.
God did not set the entire cosmos in motion and quit, passively observing as the world unfolds.
God is both first cause and second cause, although in the puddle of providence, it appears we can cause.
You say that God can will or man can will, so there are two wills, one positive one negative. That is dualism.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
QvQ
Member
An infinite nunber of possible futures? Chaos and again the future would be indeterminate. God would have to make up the plan as He went along contingent on random and unpredictible events, subject to the whim of man.
Consider first Jesus. What if Jesus had sneaked out of the Garden of Gethsemane, went on the lam, refused the Cross? We would not be discussing the Bible here tonight. And God would not allow such grievous ruination of His plan.
Jesus said, "If it be Thy Will, let this cup pass from Me but not My will but Thine be done" Yet He also said "My Father and I are one.
A frog in a pond. He can swim, he can eat bugs, he can froggy around, doing what froggies do, to his hearts content. He can even believe that he is lord and master of all he surveys through his mighty Will, causing all sorts of things. Making a big splash.
However, that is merely a small puddle of providence. Within that narrow circumstance, he has choices. He can eat any bug, but then he has to catch it contingent on circumstances over which he has limited control so that is limited free will.
Froggy can't will the rain or make the bug come by act of will.
Whether or not there is water in the pond, or bugs depends on the Will of God. That is Providence.
Providence is the Will of God.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- Apr 30, 2013
- 30,678
- 18,559
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- United Ch. of Christ
- Politics
- US-Democrat
God can have a plan for the future without determining the future. This isn't that controversial a notion among modern theologians and philosophers, such as Alfred North Whitehead or Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. Freedom is a real part of our experience, and not simply an illusion.
You seem to be confusing the notion of free will with completely random, uncharacteristic behavior. Freedom of the will has to do with a lack of external constraints upon the will. It still can mean that beings act according to their own character and the external influences surrounding them.
There was no external constraint upon Christ's person to conform to any plan.
Upvote
0
QvQ
Member
That is akin to saying that gravity has a plan for the earth to go around the sun but gravity doesn't detemine that.
I cannot think of one single example where there aren't external constraints on a person's will.
.
The very Person of Christ may have been the external constraint.
He was the Plan
Upvote
0
- Apr 30, 2013
- 30,678
- 18,559
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- United Ch. of Christ
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
QvQ
Member
Exactly who do you believe is determining God's plan for the future?
I would say that God's plan is His will and the determination (implementation) of the plan is an Act of God.
It is all God.
No strawberry. Also, there must be "a priori" an ice cream shop. Your will is entirely dependent on external constraints or providence.
The Person of Christ is external in the sense that He is the Plan. The Person was manifest to fulfill God's Plan.
For us ordinary mortals, our persons are external constraints on our will.
Upvote
0
- Apr 30, 2013
- 30,678
- 18,559
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- United Ch. of Christ
- Politics
- US-Democrat
What determines God's will? God's nature. Will doesn't exist autonomously from the totality of the person in Christian theology.
Within the context of an ice-cream shop that serves vanilla and chocolate, I have the freedom to choose either one, without external constraints on my will.
Just no. A person's will is their own, it isn't externally imposed upon them.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
John Mullally
Well-Known Member
- Aug 5, 2020
- 2,393
- 823
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Charismatic
- Marital Status
- Married
From A. W. Tozer, The Knowledge of the Holy (Authentic Media, 2008), pp.144-145:
“Another real problem created by the doctrine of divine sovereignty has to do with the will of man. If God rules His universe by His sovereign decrees, how is it possible for man to exercise free choice? And if he cannot exercise freedom of choice, how can he be held responsible for his conduct? Is he not a mere puppet whose actions are determined by a behind-the-scenes God who pulls the strings as it pleases Him?
“The attempt to answer these questions has divided the Christian church neatly into two camps which have borne the names of two distinguished theologians, Jacobus Arminius and John Calvin. Most Christians are content to get into one camp or the other and deny either sovereignty to God or free will to man. It appears possible, however, to reconcile these two positions without doing violence to either, although the effort that follows may prove deficient to partisans of one camp or the other.
“Here is my view: God sovereignly decreed that man should be free to exercise moral choice, and man from the beginning has fulfilled that decree by making his choice between good and evil. When he chooses to do evil, he does not thereby countervail the sovereign will of God but fulfills it, inasmuch as the eternal decree decided not which choice the man should make but that he should be free to make it. If in His absolute freedom God has willed to give man limited freedom, who is there to stay His hand or say, ‘What doest thou?’ Man’s will is free because God is sovereign. A God less than sovereign could not bestow moral freedom upon His creatures. He would be afraid to do so.”
“Another real problem created by the doctrine of divine sovereignty has to do with the will of man. If God rules His universe by His sovereign decrees, how is it possible for man to exercise free choice? And if he cannot exercise freedom of choice, how can he be held responsible for his conduct? Is he not a mere puppet whose actions are determined by a behind-the-scenes God who pulls the strings as it pleases Him?
“The attempt to answer these questions has divided the Christian church neatly into two camps which have borne the names of two distinguished theologians, Jacobus Arminius and John Calvin. Most Christians are content to get into one camp or the other and deny either sovereignty to God or free will to man. It appears possible, however, to reconcile these two positions without doing violence to either, although the effort that follows may prove deficient to partisans of one camp or the other.
“Here is my view: God sovereignly decreed that man should be free to exercise moral choice, and man from the beginning has fulfilled that decree by making his choice between good and evil. When he chooses to do evil, he does not thereby countervail the sovereign will of God but fulfills it, inasmuch as the eternal decree decided not which choice the man should make but that he should be free to make it. If in His absolute freedom God has willed to give man limited freedom, who is there to stay His hand or say, ‘What doest thou?’ Man’s will is free because God is sovereign. A God less than sovereign could not bestow moral freedom upon His creatures. He would be afraid to do so.”
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
