Ask a Philosophical Calvinist Christian

[jax5434]

What is more important, love or power?

It would depend on your goal I guess.

God Bless
Jax

 

[Albion]

.

If Calvinism is correct weren't you simply predestined to believe it regardless of any study you might done? Or do you think you could have believed otherwise if you were so inclined?

__________________

But wasn't it predestined that you would study and conclude that Calvinism was is true? I guess what I am asking is: Did you at anytime have the potential or capacity to study and conclude that Calvinism was false?

God Bless
Jax

We are not robots, Jax. What God predestined is whether or not we are going to receive the Faith that saves, not every thought or actions that occurs in the course of our lives.

 

[bhsmte]

__________________



We are not robots, Jax. What God predestined is whether or not we are going to receive the Faith that saves, not every thought or actions that occurs in the course of our lives.

In your opinion, what criteria would God use in how he "predestines" who is going to receive the faith that saves?

 

[jax5434]

Albion:

We are not robots, Jax. What God predestined is whether or not we are going to receive the Faith that saves, not every thought or actions that occurs in the course of our lives.

Many prominent Calvinists would disagree with you.

John Calvin:

Men do nothing save at the secret instigation of God, and do not discuss and deliberate on anything but what he has previously decreed with himself, and brings to pass by his secret direction.

James White:

When a child is raped, is God responsible and did He decree that rape?”

To which Mr. White replied… “Yes, because if not then it’s meaningless and purposeless and though God knew it was going to happen he created it without a purpose… and God is responsible for the creation of despair… If He didn‟t [decree child rape] then that rape is an element of meaningless evil that has no purpose.[11]

J.I. Packer:

God… orders and controls all things, human actions among them…He [also] holds every man responsible for the choices he makes and the courses of action he pursues… Man is a responsible moral agent, though he is also divinely controlled; man is divinely controlled, though he is also a responsible moral agent. To our finite minds, of course, the thing is inexplicable.[18]

R.C. Sproul Jr.

God wills all things that come to pass…God desired for man to fall into sin. I am not accusing God of sinning; I am suggesting that God created sin.”[19]

If God predestines all things, then every single action taken by any and all men occur solely because God decreed it. So yes, if Calvinism is true you believe it only because God decreed that you do. The thoughts you're thinking as you read this were decreed by God from before creation.

If Calvinism is true then we are all nothing more than automatons, blindly following the path God ordained for us.

God Bless
Jax

 

[Albion]

Albion:



Many prominent Calvinists would disagree with you.

Some might.

I think where you are making your mistake is in thinking that when it's said that God knows all, controls all, orders all things, etc. it means that he's scripted every last event and decision made by every individual. Those are quite different concepts; and Man could not be morally responsible for his actions if he were a mindless zombie or automaton.

 

[jax5434]

I think where you are making your mistake is in thinking that when it's said that God knows all, controls all, orders all things, etc. it means that he's scripted every last event and decision made by every individual. Those are quite different concepts; and Man could not be morally responsible for his actions if he were a mindless zombie or automaton.

I agree it is a mistake, but its a mistake Calvinism makes not I. I guess the good news is we agree. The bad news is, if you really believe that, you're not really a Calvinist.

God Bless
Jax

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

This is an unfortunate position for a Calvinist to hold. Charles Hodge, one of the great reformed theologians of the 20th century, said that we should not require more than Christ does to admit someone into his kingdom. The confession that Christ requires is "Jesus is Lord" - no more and no less. How dare we reject those whom Jesus embraces!

Which would be odd because no one pronounced the name "Jesus" before 500 years ago with the invention of the letter "J". Before that it was spelled with an I which has a long ee sound. "E-A-shua" was how it was pronounced by the disciples.

If there was any integrity in the transliteration of His Name, we would read Joshua. We do not. We get a made up name to wrap a skewed story around.

"Jesus" does not save. "Jesus" entraps, obfuscates, and deludes.


The truth of the life of the Son of God has ben thoroughly hijacked by the "Mother Church"... Read "Pagan Mother Circe" who gets men drunk, invites them into her house and changes them into unthinking animals who are her slaves from then on. Sound familiar?

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

__________________

We are not robots, Jax. What God predestined is whether or not we are going to receive the Faith that saves, not every thought or actions that occurs in the course of our lives.

Which is completely at odds with this:

1Tim 2:3 This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.


So God desires all men to be saved but according to Calvinism he obstructs His own desire? Senseless.

 

[Albion]

Which is completely at odds with this:

1Tim 2:3 This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

Alas, it's possible to find proof texts in scripture on both sides of the issue and it would be wrong--obviously--to fasten on some of them and shunt the others aside. IMHO, those that support predestination and eternal security are stronger than those that seem to say the opposite. And of course, it makes much more sense.

 

[bhsmte]

Alas, it's possible to find proof texts in scripture on both sides of the issue and it would be wrong--obviously--to fasten on some of them and shunt the others aside. IMHO, those that support predestination and eternal security are stronger than those that seem to say the opposite. And of course, it makes much more sense.

Could you answer this question?

In your opinion, what criteria would God use in how he "predestines" who is going to receive the faith that saves?

 

[Albion]

Could you answer this question?

In your opinion, what criteria would God use in how he "predestines" who is going to receive the faith that saves?

I cannot say. And there is no reason to think that any of us knows exactly how God works his will...or that men have been given to know everything he does or will do.

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

Alas, it's possible to find proof texts in scripture on both sides of the issue and it would be wrong--obviously--to fasten on some of them and shunt the others aside. IMHO, those that support predestination and eternal security are stronger than those that seem to say the opposite. And of course, it makes much more sense.

I wonder what we would find in the 600+ other books and gospels the Council of Nicaea tossed out...books that were around during Jesus's time and called the scripture of that time.

 

[Albion]

I wonder what we would find in the 600+ other books and gospels the Council of Nicaea tossed out...books that were around during Jesus's time and called the scripture of that time.

'Called scripture' by whom? There seems to be a consensus that although there might have been a few books included among the 66 that were questionable, and a few excluded that had a significant following, the books chosen are probably the ones that should have been chosen.

 

[jax5434]

the books chosen are probably the ones that should have been chosen.

 

[Tree of Life]

What is more important, love or power?

This is an interesting question and you could be asking many different things depending on your meaning of "important", "love", and "power".

I'd like to say that they are equally important when they're understood as attributes of God. All power ultimately comes from God and is measured by comparison to (and defined by) God himself who is the ultimate power in the universe. All love ultimately comes from God and is measured by comparison to (and defined by) God himself who is love. John says that God is love. It could just as easily be said that God is power.

My short answer is that, in God, power and love are identical. God's power is the power of his love. His love is the most powerful force in the universe. God exercises his power in love. Where God is present his power and love are present. God's love is present in his power. God's power is present in his love.

So neither are more important.

 

[Tree of Life]

In your opinion, what criteria would God use in how he "predestines" who is going to receive the faith that saves?

God's only criteria is his own sovereign choice and love. His choice depends on nothing within the creature but entirely upon his free, wise, gracious love.

 

[Tree of Life]

If Calvinism is true then we are all nothing more than automatons, blindly following the path God ordained for us.

God Bless
Jax

I agree with all that you've said about Calvinism up until this point. We do not teach that humans are "automatons". Consider the following quote from the Westminster Confession of Faith. This is found in Chapter 9: Of Free Will

God hath endued the will of man with that natural liberty, that it is neither forced, or, by any absolute necessity of nature, determined to good, or evil. Man, in his state of innocency, had freedom, and power to will and to do that which was good and well pleasing to God; but yet, mutably, so that he might fall from it.

Man, by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation: so as, a natural man, being altogether averse from that good, and dead in sin, is not able, by his own strength, to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto.

When God converts a sinner, and translates him into the state of grace, he freeth him from his natural bondage under sin; and, by his grace alone, enables him freely to will and to do that which is spiritually good; yet so, as that by reason of his remaining corruption, he doth not perfectly, nor only, will that which is good, but doth also will that which is evil.

The will of man is made perfectly and immutably free to good alone, in the state of glory only.

And also this selection from Chapter 3: Of God's Eternal Decree.

God, from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass: yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.

To make sense of the above quote you have to understand that calvinists operate in a compatibalist conception of free will. We teach that man has free will. What we mean by this is that man is free to do as he pleases. He is not generally coerced or constrained by something outside of himself. If he desires to sin, he may sin. If he desires to repent, he may repent.

God's decrees and providence do not negate this fact but rather establish it.

 

[catholichomeschooler]

God's only criteria is his own sovereign choice and love. His choice depends on nothing within the creature but entirely upon his free, wise, gracious love.

What does sending a person to Hell for no fault of theirs have to do with love?

 

[Albion]

What does sending a person to Hell for no fault of theirs have to do with love?

Find us some person who is without any fault and we'll be able to give you an answer.

 

[jax5434]

Man, by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation: so as, a natural man, being altogether averse from that good, and dead in sin, is not able, by his own strength, to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto.

Originally Posted by WCF

God, from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass: yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.

It seems to me that there is a bit of subterfuge here. If God has unchangeabley ordained whatsoever comes to pass, then he has unchangeabley ordained that man has lost "all ability of will to any spiritual good". So Calvinist "free will" simply means that man is free to act out of those desires which God has unchangeably ordained that he should have.

God Bless
Jax