A Few Questions for Calvinists (Trying to figure out what you believe).

Albion said:

The questions do show a bias against the TULIP points, that's right.

Click to expand...

So you are saying that there is a form of Calvinism that does not accept the 5 points of Calvinism?
Granted, I believe it may be possible that such a group may exist, but I do not find it likely that they are in the majority of the Calvinistic camp or Calvinistic belief.

Apologetic_Warrior said:

All of them, I can explain, but doubt I will have adequate time anytime soon. Although each is Biblical that is based on the teachings of Scripture, these doctrines were not known as “The Five Points of Calvinism” until The Canons of Dort. They consist of a formal response to the five points of Arminian. Nearly, if not all of the doctrines of grace, can be found in one form or another in Reformed confessions before them.



The topic of “free will” is another novel sized discussion, in fact entire books have been written on just this topic alone. Probably one of the most famous is Calvinist Jonathan Edwards book “Freedom of the will”. This is also a topic where I believe there is some room for variation of disagreement. This is also another topic where defining terms is not only helpful, but crucial. This is also a topic that involves using more than proof texts and exposition, although I would argue they hold the most weight, a bit of philosophical knowledge is extremely helpful to this topic in particular, and that is how I define my position. I am a compatibilist concerning “free will”. I would argue that only in Christ can the will be set free from the bondage of sin, and the will bound to sin is a slave to it’s desires.



I am not sure that I understand your question entirely, but I think I covered it in response to the previous question. To answer plainly, no, not the entire lifespan of a man, only after regeneration is there freedom in the will, freedom to not sin, freedom to please God, the term freedom could almost be exchanged for the term ability.



There are different views of “double predestination”, Romans Chapter 9 is all I need to believe on the matter (including purpose of judgement). Any Christian that believes in an omniscient God (which historical Christianity has) per the historical definition of the term, must still grapple with the fact that God knew before He created the world, that most the world would never choose Him, and that He would make them vessels of destruction. The philosophy of “free will” doesn’t turn out to be the get out of jail free card that so many seem to think it is.

A few helpful inks:

Synod of Dort

Canons of Dort

List of Participants in the Synod of Dort

Click to expand...

Thank you again. I am super thankful for your replies. I will seek to answer with Scripture when I have time. Both this post and the other one.

May God's love shine upon you today.

Dave G. said:

If I were a true Calvinist ( I'm not even part of their organization by the way) I doubt I would answer either.

Click to expand...

Why? Is it not our duty as Christians to defend what we believe to be the faith?
Do we hide a light or candle under a bed?

Albion said:

I was saying that the wording used in your questions misrepresented the beliefs in question as you were asking about them.

Click to expand...

How so? Please explain.

Neal of Zebulun said:

I have not seen anyone actually disprove what Romans 9 is saying. They have to ignore it and focus on other Scripture to try and contradict it (thus bring Paul himself into question), or else they attack their opponent's character, the chapter is just that inescapable.

Isaiah 29:15-16 and Isaiah 64:7-8 talk about the Potter too.

I don't know much at all about Calvinism, but I know Romans 9, and I believe what Paul is saying. So I'm very interested to read how this thread goes, and how the chapter will be handled.

Thank you!

And praise Yahweh, let this thread be a blessing unto His children, and an inspiration to respect the Master Potter.

Click to expand...

Whenever a person is confused (or has a wrong interpretation) on a verse or chapter in the Bible, all they need to do is put Jesus in it and it becomes clear.

In other words, when you read Romans 9:1-13, you have to read it in terms of how Paul is talking to the Jews (Romans 9:3-6) and not all individuals and how he is trying to tell them that the purpose of Election of the Promises is thru the line of the Messiah with Jacob's line and not Esau's line. Romans 9:13 is not saying God literally loved Jacob and literally hated Esau as individuals (cf. Luke 14:26). Paul is using them as examples of how God was all powerful enough to know which family line to use so as to bring the Promised Messiah (i.e. Jesus). That is what "Election" here is talking about in Romans 9. It is not talking about individual "Election" but it is talking about the "Election of the Promise" or the genealogical line that Jesus would come thru. The Jews were claiming that they were saved based on being of the seed of Abraham and in keeping God's Laws. But they rejected their Messiah. God does not have to conform to old Jewish ways of thinking just because they rejected their Messiah. He will have mercy on whom He will's in the manner He will's with the Messiah that He has chosen (Which was Jesus Christ).

Now, when you read Romans 9:14-16: Well, you have to realize that it is talking about God's plan of salvation with Jesus Christ being their Messiah of whom the Jews rejected. God is saying He will have mercy in the WAY God wants to do things and not according to Jewish thoughts or beliefs (Which one of their ways they considered a person to be right with God was thru circumcision - See Romans 3:1 and Galatians 5:2).

And when you read Romans 9:17-18: Well, you have to realize it is making a parallel. For there is a parallel being made of how God is Sovereign and just in setting up the Promised Line of the Messiah (i.e. by having mercy on whom He wills) versus raising up Pharaoh into power to show God's power. How was God's power shown in the life of the Pharoah? By God making the Pharoah wealthy? Not exactly. God allowed Pharoah to be raised up so that God's power was shown in the life of God's miracles being displayed such as the Ten plagues and the parting of the Red Sea. This is why Paraoah was raised up. It was so that God's power (or miracles) could be displayed (and proclaimed to all the Earth). Just as God had chosen the line of the Messiah so as to display His power (and proclaim such a thing to all the Earth). So this was not some kind of point to prove individual election but to prove the Election of the Promised Line of the Messiah (Who is Jesus Christ). For Jesus is the greatest miracle (of the best form of Election) that there is.

Anyways, when you read on down to verse 24 (Romans 9:24), the point is clear what Paul is really talking about.

As for the potter:

Please read the highlighted colored statements below in regards to the Potter and the clay.

Jeremiah 18:1-13 says,
The word which came to Jeremiah from the LORD saying, “Arise and go down to the potter’s house, and there I will announce My words to you.” Then I went down to the potter’s house, and there he was, making something on the wheel. But the vessel that he was making of clay was spoiled in the hand of the potter; so he remade it into another vessel, as it pleased the potter to make. Then the word of the LORD came to me saying, “Can I not, O house of Israel, deal with you as this potter does?” declares the LORD. “Behold, like the clay in the potter’s hand, so are you in My hand, O house of Israel. At one moment I might speak concerning a nation or concerning a kingdom to uproot, to pull down, or to destroy it; if that nation against which I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent concerning the calamity I planned to bring on it. Or at another moment I might speak concerning a nation or concerning a kingdom to build up or to plant it; if it does evil in My sight by not obeying My voice, then I will think better of the good with which I had promised to bless it. So now then, speak to the men of Judah and against the inhabitants of Jerusalem saying, “Thus says the LORD, ‘Behold, I am fashioning calamity against you and devising a plan against you. Oh turn back, each of you from his evil way, and reform your ways and your deeds.’ But they will say, ‘It’s hopeless! For we are going to follow our own plans, and each of us will act according to the stubbornness of his evil heart.’ “Therefore thus says the LORD, ‘Ask now among the nations, who ever heard the like of this? The virgin of Israel has done a most appalling thing.’”

Such statements (that are in red and blue) do not make sense if God was Calvinistic and He made the clay to be either good or bad according to His own choosing.

I hope this helps, and may God bless you.

Albion said:

For example, in the very first question you ask about God forcing someone to be saved. That's prejudicial language. It prejudges what God is doing in that case. Thankfully, one poster gently corrected that implication in his own reply. See post #10.

Click to expand...

I don't believe they have corrected that statement. It is still forced salvation because the person did not actively choose of their own free will to have God come into their life and change their heart. It is still forced salvation or forced love. But we know love is not forced. God does not have to force regenerate a person's heart outside of their own free will to get them to choose and follow Him. Love is not forced. It goes against the very concept of what love actually is. Love is when two parties both agree of their own free will to love each other. For if a man loved a woman and she did not feel the same way, and he forced his love upon her, that would be wrong. Meaning, if he kept trying to kiss her or to keep sending her flowers, and play music outside her bedroom window in how he says he loves her, etc. It would be creepy if she did not share those feelings in any way. That is what folks are trying to do here with God. They are trying to soft peddle the truth that God forces people to love Him. But true love doesn't work like that. It's WHY we are HERE in the first place on this Earth! Life is meaningless if God is calling all the shots. What you do does not matter if God is 100% running the show (Despite what you do). So this leads to apathy in one's faith and or a lack of not caring about life. This is wrong of course.

Dave G. said:

Because of the flavor of the questions. At least I get a sense that you don't really want answers. But for any reason except to debate their validity. Why would I play in that game, would Jesus ? No, in fact he used very few words to tell them where to go.

Click to expand...

If that was the case, I would not ask the questions and then seek to answer them. One person wrote a lot in reply back and I DO intend to reply back with Scripture when I have more time. So no. You are merely trying to attack my approach or me because you don't like the questions. But that does not change my trying to find out the truth of what they really believe and expose it to the light and truth of what God's Word really says.

Mountainmanbob said:

Romans 9 explains it very well.
Straight to the point.

Reminds me of when God was speaking to Job.

M-Bob

Click to expand...

But by all respects, Job should not have been able to defy God being His servant. God wants us to obey and not disobey. That is God's will for us. Obedience. But Job slightly faultered in thinking it was unfair that God was punishing him towards the end. But God spoke to Job indirectly and told him of his wonders of creation that were too great for Job to fathom. Meaning, there was a bigger picture or plan to what Job could not see as to why he suffered. It had nothing to do with Calvinistic Election or forced regeneration.

Albion said:

I'm seeing at least two misperceptions in your posts here, Jason.

1. Assuming that free will applies to everything in life, our eternal prospects as well as every other daily decision we make. That is not what Election means.

2. Assuming that Election refers to God selecting persons for any and every purpose he might have in mind. As far as the Calvinist POV you are seeking in this thread, that is not what Election means. The term refers to God choosing whom to impart saving Faith to.

Click to expand...

"Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied." (1 Peter 1:2).

Mountainmanbob said:

Click to expand...

Not interested in viewing Calvinistic videos or reading Calvinistic website articles.
Quote to me keypoint of what they say to defend your argument with Scripture or use your own words with Scripture to defend your point.

Thank you;
And may God bless you.

Dave G. said:

Because of the flavor of the questions. At least I get a sense that you don't really want answers. But for any reason except to debate their validity. Why would I play in that game, would Jesus ? No, in fact he used very few words to tell them where to go.

Click to expand...

Also, stick to the questions at hand or try to answer them in the best way you know how that may have to correct the question in your viewpoint. For I have answered what I believe to be loaded questions. Granted, I do not believe my own questions are loaded or false. But you apparently do. So correct the questions and then answer them in the best way you know how. That would be the topic of the thread. The topic of the thread is not attacking the premise of the questions and then not answering them. You need to give valuable answers with Scripture if you can. That would be the topic of the thread.

Thank you.

Dave G. said:

I'm not attacking you Jason, I'm answering your question as to why if I was a Calvinist I wouldn't reply. And that would be based on my perception of the nature of the questions.

I can't attack you, I don't even know you !!

Click to expand...

You are seeking to find fault in the question or approach and not really giving an answer to help shed light on what the question is seeking. Even if you believe the question is false, attacking the question and then running away with no solid explanation with Scripture sounds more like a means to drag what I am saying down instead of giving solid biblical answers to shed light on the truth of God's Word.