Calvinism, explained.

[tulipbee]

Lots of "maybes" here.

God is a "maybe" to the unregenerates.

 

[GillDouglas]

Lots of "maybes" here.

God is a "maybe" to the unregenerates.

The thing that frustrates me is God gave us life through His creation, Adam. Then He gave us eternal life through His Son, Jesus. So we are doubly His, and yet some want to believe their life is their own.

 

[ToBeLoved]

The thing that frustrates me is God gave us life through His creation, Adam. Then He gave us eternal life through His Son, Jesus. So we are doubly His, and yet some want to believe their life is their own.

How does that tie back to Calvinism?

 

[sdowney717]

All true, but this text in no way demonstrates that God exercises exhaustive control over all events in the Universe. At most, this text shows that what God wants to do, He will in fact do. But it does not justify concluding that He controls everything.

I cannot imagine a God who just lets things go to pot so to speak.

Hebrews 1:3
who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,

And this too as it says, 'in Him all things consist'

Col 1
15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. 17 And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist. 18 And He is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He may have the preeminence.

So we read upholding all things and all things consist in Him, upholding especially speaks of active management.
Besides that verse about not even a sparrow falls to the ground without God.

Matthew 10:29
Are not two sparrows sold for a copper coin? And not one of them falls to the ground apart from your Father’s will.

We simply can not understand the interactive, pervasive power of God over what He has made with our understanding, it just seems to be way to complicated for our imagining God to be in control of all things, and we may think why would God care? But the scriptures tell a different story.

 

[Patmos]

Downey says:

"We simply can not understand the interactive, pervasive power of God over what He has made with our understanding,'

But it must be understood in a 5 point system.

 

[ToBeLoved]

The thing that frustrates me is God gave us life through His creation, Adam. Then He gave us eternal life through His Son, Jesus. So we are doubly His, and yet some want to believe their life is their own.

lol. So now is that your argument? That non-Calvinists believe that their life is their own?

That is a very incorrect slope and there is lots of mud for you at the bottom of that.

 

[ToBeLoved]

We simply can not understand the interactive, pervasive power of God over what He has made with our understanding,

But it must be understood in a 5 point system.

So then it is good that TULIP came along and put your thoughts in order.
Some of us can actually do well without a 5 point system.

 

[Patmos]

So then it is good that TULIP came along and put your thoughts in order.
Some of us can actually do well without a 5 point system.

Me too.

 

[Marvin Knox]

I cannot imagine a God who just lets things go to pot so to speak.

Hebrews 1:3
who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,

And this too as it says, 'in Him all things consist'

Col 1
15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. 17 And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist. 18 And He is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He may have the preeminence.

So we read upholding all things and all things consist in Him, upholding especially speaks of active management.
Besides that verse about not even a sparrow falls to the ground without God.

Matthew 10:29
Are not two sparrows sold for a copper coin? And not one of them falls to the ground apart from your Father’s will.

We simply can not understand the interactive, pervasive power of God over what He has made with our understanding, it just seems to be way to complicated for our imagining God to be in control of all things, and we may think why would God care? But the scriptures tell a different story.

This is absolutely right on.

Certainly there can be legitimate discussion concerning the so called 5 points of Calvinism.

Both Calvinists and non-Calvinists alike can be somewhat wrong in different ways in their conclusions concerning the doctrines of grace.

But when it comes to the very basics concerning the nature of God, His creation, and His providential control over that creation - Reformed theologians generally have things correct and non Reformed are off by a country mile.

I have often felt that people who question the sovereignty of God in the way we see with "absolute free Willy's" are actually reading a different book than the one I am reading.

In Him we have our being. He has sent forth His Word and has not only brought forth all that we know of. But His Word abides in every creation so as to accomplish all that God sent Him forth to accomplish.

All things are to be eventually summed up in Jesus Christ, His incarnate Word. When this age finally comes to an end, Christ will hand it all back to His Father for the purpose of bringing the Father glory.

And - yes - "all things" means all things - the good the bad and the ugly. God's goodness, mercy and grace as well as His righteousness, wrath, and eternal judgment against everything that does not bring Him glory is all included in the package.

Obviously He has arranged things so that the things that do not bring Him glory proceed only from the creation while the goodness proceeds from Him. His decrees (the sending forth and abiding of His Word) are all righteous. He is not the author of evil.

We have worth and being and yet we are said to live and move and have that being in Him. We are not robots or puppets even though He has predestined all of our actions to occur just as they do.

How these things can be while He is omnipresent and sovereign - we can't really understand.

Though He slay us - yet will we trust Him. We can trust a God who would die for us.

We armchair theologians have a clear choice - and it is the only choice. We can believe all of the Word of God and include it in our theology - or we can just leave out the parts that trouble us.

While I disagree with some of the emphasis placed on certain things by Calvinists - I disagree far more with what non-Calvinists have done with the most basic concepts in God's Word concerning His nature, our nature, and His relationship to His creation.

 

[Marvin Knox]

Downey says:

"We simply can not understand the interactive, pervasive power of God over what He has made with our understanding,'

But it must be understood in a 5 point system.

How so?

 

[Patmos]

I am in Blue including my hi-lights.

"Marvin Knox, post: 69548795, member: 352687"

Certainly there can be legitimate discussion concerning the so called 5 points of Calvinism.
Both Calvinists and non-Calvinists alike can be somewhat wrong in different ways in their conclusions concerning the doctrines of grace.
I believe there are many in the Calvinist and Non Calvinist who are more that 'somewhat wrong'. Of course, many in both camps can be very knowledgable.

But when it comes to the very basics concerning the nature of God, His creation, and His providential control over that creation - Reformed theologians generally have things correct and non Reformed are off by a country mile.
I, an Arminian, agree with this statement. As would Arminius as shown in what he actually wrote.

I have often felt that people who question the sovereignty of God in the way we see with "absolute free Willy's" are actually reading a different book than the one I am reading.
Definitely. But, how many 'absolute free willy's' are there? I have not yet seen any on CF, but I am a noobie here I suppose. Is the 'free willy' phrase in reality just a little wind up ?

In Him we have our being. He has sent forth His Word and has not only brought forth all that we know of. But His Word abides in every creation so as to accomplish all that God sent Him forth to accomplish.
All things are to be eventually summed up in Jesus Christ, His incarnate Word. When this age finally comes to an end, Christ will hand it all back to His Father for the purpose of bringing the Father glory.
Yep

And - yes - "all things" means all things - the good the bad and the ugly. God's goodness, mercy and grace as well as His righteousness, wrath, and eternal judgment against everything that does not bring Him glory is all included in the package.
I would agree, as would Charles Spurgeon. His sermon - Salvation by Knowing the Truths states:

"All men," say they; "that is, some of all sorts of men": as if the Lord could not have said "all sorts of men" if he had meant that. The Holy Ghost by the apostle has written "all men," and unquestionably he means all men."

"God our Savior; who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth."—1 Timothy 2:3, 4.

Obviously He has arranged things so that the things that do not bring Him glory proceed only from the creation while the goodness proceeds from Him. His decrees (the sending forth and abiding of His Word) are all righteous. He is not the author of evil.
No, definitely not, and here is where the big divide comes ( 1500 year argument started by Augustine on predestination).

We have worth and being and yet we are said to live and move and have that being in Him. We are not robots or puppets even though He has predestined all of our actions to occur just as they do.
Hmmm. I woulds start with Augustine's Retractions..

How these things can be while He is omnipresent and sovereign - we can't really understand.
Correct. Spurgeon majored on this.

Though He slay us - yet will we trust Him. We can trust a God who would die for us.
Not God, Jesus died for us. I know, big discussion point.

We armchair theologians have a clear choice - and it is the only choice. We can believe all of the Word of God and include it in our theology - or we can just leave out the parts that trouble us.
Well, that kicks 'predestination in the dust' - we have a choice!

While I disagree with some of the emphasis placed on certain things by Calvinists - I disagree far more with what non-Calvinists have done with the most basic concepts in God's Word concerning His nature, our nature, and His relationship to His creation.
Non-Calvinists covers a broad range of beliefs and interpretations, only one of which is what Arminus actually taught and wrote. Arminius departed from Theodore Beza on DOUBLE predestination as he concluded it would make God the Author of sin.

 

[Marvin Knox]

I believe there are many in the Calvinist and Non Calvinist who are more that 'somewhat wrong'. Of course, many in both camps can be very knowledgable.

I agree.

I would emphasis though that there is a good reason why most really good and thorough systematic theology works are written from a Reformed view rather than a non-Reformed view.

But when it comes to the very basics concerning the nature of God, His creation, and His providential control over that creation - Reformed theologians generally have things correct and non Reformed are off by a country mile.
I, an Arminian, agree with this statement. As would Arminius as shown in what he actually wrote.

Goes exactly to my point about why most really thorough systematic theologies are written from the generally Reformed position. You can't write a thorough systematic theology series and ignore the constant work of the omnipresent and providentially controlling nature of God the way many non Reformed do.

I will also say that Arminius himself was not that far off the truth. In fact he was IMO closer to the truth than many Calvinists today.

Definitely. But, how many 'absolute free willy's' are there? I have not yet seen any on CF, but I am a noobie here I suppose. Is the 'free willy' phrase in reality just a little wind up ?

Yes - "absolute free willy" is an unsubtle dig at the really silly ways that some people approach the relationship of God to His creation.

I've heard people here almost deny the very nature of God in an effort to worship at the shrine of free will - and I haven't been here all that long myself.

In Him we have our being. He has sent forth His Word and has not only brought forth all that we know of. But His Word abides in every creation so as to accomplish all that God sent Him forth to accomplish.
All things are to be eventually summed up in Jesus Christ, His incarnate Word. When this age finally comes to an end, Christ will hand it all back to His Father for the purpose of bringing the Father glory.

Yep

Good to see that you're not among the really silly ones who deny His omnipresent and providentially controlling relationship with the creation.

And - yes - "all things" means all things - the good the bad and the ugly. God's goodness, mercy and grace as well as His righteousness, wrath, and eternal judgment against everything that does not bring Him glory is all included in the package.
I would agree, as would Charles Spurgeon. His sermon - Salvation by Knowing the Truths states:

"All men," say they; "that is, some of all sorts of men": as if the Lord could not have said "all sorts of men" if he had meant that. The Holy Ghost by the apostle has written "all men," and unquestionably he means all men."

"God our Savior; who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth."—1 Timothy 2:3, 4.

I agree with Spurgeon.

Although he would be among the first to identify himself as Reformed and even a Calvinist - he was not a 5-pointer in the way that segment often expounds the meaning of the 5 points.

How these things can be while He is omnipresent and sovereign - we can't really understand.

Correct. Spurgeon majored on this.

Which is one of the reasons why I identify with Spurgeon.

Interestingly - John Calvin would not agree with the position taken by 5 pointers concerning so called "limited atonement". Calvin would gladly IMO align himself with Charles Spurgeon - both in doctrines such as this and with the need for and the practice of evangelism.

Though He slay us - yet will we trust Him. We can trust a God who would die for us.
Not God, Jesus died for us. I know, big discussion point.

If Jesus Christ wasn't fully God as well as fully man I'm a monkey's uncle. But point taken anyway for now.

We armchair theologians have a clear choice - and it is the only choice. We can believe all of the Word of God and include it in our theology - or we can just leave out the parts that trouble us.
Well, that kicks 'predestination in the dust' - we have a choice!

No - that kicks the idea that predestination equals deterministic "coercion" in the dust.

The predestination of all things that happen in God's creation does in no way negate the fact that the creation is able to make "free" choices and will be held accountable for them.

The choices of men are the means that God uses to bring what He has predestined to happen to past. The ability and God given right of men to make their own choices does not negate predestination. It establishes predestination.

Non-Calvinists covers a broad range of beliefs and interpretations, only one of which is what Arminus actually taught and wrote. Arminius departed from Theodore Beza on DOUBLE predestination as he concluded it would make God the Author of sin.

Certainly. That why I try to use a term like non-Calvinist or non- Reformed or non-sovereignty to describe the other side, as it were, rather than Arminian. I sometimes generalize but I try to be as specific as the situation allows.

Would that we didn't have to use labels at all. But if we tried not to do that at all we would have to take half a page just to explain exactly what we meant when making a point.

 

[Patmos]

Hi Marvin

I am just focusing on the part of your previous post where we do not agree on.

.....

No - that kicks the idea that predestination equals deterministic "coercion" in the dust.

How so. How is predestining ALL things not in any way deterministic ?

The predestination of all things that happen in God's creation does in no way negate the fact that the creation is able to make "free" choices and will be held accountable for them.

We are both in the position against absolute free will (not that I have met any one who is for absolute free will). If God predestined man to sin then surely it is God that is responsible for what God did. How could man close to not do what God predestined him to do ?

The choices of men are the means that God uses to bring what He has predestined to happen to past. The ability and God given right of men to make their own choices does not negate predestination. It establishes predestination.....

Beats me how you can conclude this. Even Augustine, who invented predestination, backtracked on it in his later publications.

"He has predestined to happen" you say, how is this not deterministic?

 

[Patmos]

This is how I understand Calvinism on predestination and man's responsibility for his 'free' choice.

Choice (a) is to be born in sin. There is no other choice.

God: “You may choose between (a) or (a), and you're free to choose whichever is most compatible and consistent with your nature, but you're not free to abstain from choosing, and the choice that you make, will ultimately be YOUR choice. So what's your choice?”
Person: “I guess I choose (a).”

God: “Great. Now I will reveal the gracious gift or perhaps, just punishment for choosing (a).”

Person: “Whoa…wait...what?”

God: “You made your choice! YOU chose it out of your own free agency!”

Person: “Wait! All I had was choice (a). What other choice COULD I make?”

God: “What choice DID you make?

Person: “I chose (a).”

God: “Exactly!”

Person: “But what choice did I HAVE?”

God: “Apparently, the choice that you MADE.”

Person: “But it wasn’t MY choice.”

God: “Sure it was.”

Person: “But I couldn’t choose anything OTHER THAN (a), so how was that MY choice?”

God: “You admitted it yourself. You chose (a). You said so yourself.”

Person: “Ok, I chose it, but I didn’t have any OTHER choice.

God: “Exactly! Finally you admit it.”

Person: “But my choice wasn’t REALLY a choice, since I had no OTHER choice.”

God: “Would you like to know the ramifications of your choice?”

Person: “Not really.”

God: “I chose to be gracious towards you.”

Person: “You did?”

God: “I did.”

Person: “Wait! See, YOU’RE the One who did the choosing.”

God: “I never said that I didn’t make a choice. I simply said that you ALSO had a choice, and YOU made your choice.”

Person: “Well, I guess it turned out ok, so I’m happy.”

God: “Good. I’m glad that you’re happy.”

Person: “What about these others?”

God: “I chose something different.”

Person: “Are they happy with THEIR choice?”

God: “No.”

Person: “Well…they made their choice. They should just accept that.”

God: “Exactly!”

Continued at :
http://examiningcalvinism.blogspot.de/2011/03/determinism-compatibilism-free-agency.html

 

[nobdysfool]

I'm sure whoever thought that up thought they were being really clever, but wouldn't it be smarter and more useful to examine credible sources, rather than the obviously biased source that this is? If you want to know what Calvinism teaches, go to a Calvinist source, not their detractors. Do you go to a Chevy dealer to buy a brand new Ford? Why is it that people think that the detractors have more credible information? They have a vested interest in detracting from the Truth, that's their reason for existence!

 

[Patmos]

Credible sources.

I started with Calvinist theologian and author Lorraine Boettner
The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination ISBN 978-0-87552-112-1
The Reformed Faith ISBN 978-0-87552-122-0

Of course, Calvin's Institutes is IMO a must read as ALL of Calvinist Articles of faith and confessions are derived from this - sometimes word for word.

Canons of the Synod of Dort.

I would recommend though, The Cambridge Companion to AUGUSTINE. ISBN 978-0-521-65985-7

My least favourite, 'Chosen by God ' by R C Sproul, majors on the 'Man chose freely to sin, but not he did not cos freewill does not exist'. If that was not bad enough Sproul goes on to say 'God predestined ALL things, including mans sin, but no, he did not, man chose to sin.

And it is this contradictory nonsense that fuels the infernal debate starred by Augustine of Hippo in 385 AD.

My only cheer is that Calvinist Charles Spurgeon called it what it is - nonsense - particularly in his most famous sermon Salvation By Knowing The Truth. (it is on the internet for anyone to study.)

 

[ToBeLoved]

I cannot imagine a God who just lets things go to pot so to speak.

Hebrews 1:3
who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,

And this too as it says, 'in Him all things consist'

Col 1
15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. 17 And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist. 18 And He is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He may have the preeminence.

So we read upholding all things and all things consist in Him, upholding especially speaks of active management.
Besides that verse about not even a sparrow falls to the ground without God.

Matthew 10:29
Are not two sparrows sold for a copper coin? And not one of them falls to the ground apart from your Father’s will.

We simply can not understand the interactive, pervasive power of God over what He has made with our understanding, it just seems to be way to complicated for our imagining God to be in control of all things, and we may think why would God care? But the scriptures tell a different story.

Well, let's think about this.

In the days of Noah, things were so bad, that only Noah, his wife, their three sons and their wives were salvagable. Which to protect the bloodline of Jesus Christ all that bad blood had to be wiped out.

So then, it does not seem like God is out there micromanaging things. Plus, it took how long to build the ark?

1 Peter 3:19-20
19 in which also He went and made proclamation to the spirits now in prison, 20 who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water.

Genesis 6:9-13
9 These are the records of the generations of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his time; Noah walked with God. 10Noah became the father of three sons: Shem, Ham, and Japheth.

11Now the earth was corrupt in the sight of God, and the earth was filled with violence. 12 God looked on the earth, and behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted their way upon the earth. 13 Then God said to Noah, “The end of all flesh has come before Me; for the earth is filled with violence because of them; and behold, I am about to destroy them with the earth.

So really, the Bible disagrees with you.

 

[ToBeLoved]

This is how I understand Calvinism on predestination and man's responsibility for his 'free' choice.

Choice (a) is to be born in sin. There is no other choice.

God: “You may choose between (a) or (a), and you're free to choose whichever is most compatible and consistent with your nature, but you're not free to abstain from choosing, and the choice that you make, will ultimately be YOUR choice. So what's your choice?”

Lol. Choose between a) and a)

Now that makes sense.

 

[Job8]

If you want to know what Calvinism teaches, go to a Calvinist source, not their detractors.

Yes, go to The Westminster Confession of Faith, which will provide you with the full scope of Reformed Theology. It says that God has decreed some for Heaven, and others for Hell.
http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/

 

[Marvin Knox]

This is how I understand Calvinism on predestination and man's responsibility for his 'free' choice.

Choice (a) is to be born in sin. There is no other choice.

God: “You may choose between (a) or (a), and you're free to choose whichever is most compatible and consistent with your nature, but you're not free to abstain from choosing, and the choice that you make, will ultimately be YOUR choice. So what's your choice?”
Person: “I guess I choose (a).”

God: “Great. Now I will reveal the gracious gift or perhaps, just punishment for choosing (a).”

Person: “Whoa…wait...what?”

God: “You made your choice! YOU chose it out of your own free agency!”

Person: “Wait! All I had was choice (a). What other choice COULD I make?”

God: “What choice DID you make?

Person: “I chose (a).”

God: “Exactly!”

Person: “But what choice did I HAVE?”

God: “Apparently, the choice that you MADE.”

Person: “But it wasn’t MY choice.”

God: “Sure it was.”

Person: “But I couldn’t choose anything OTHER THAN (a), so how was that MY choice?”

God: “You admitted it yourself. You chose (a). You said so yourself.”

Person: “Ok, I chose it, but I didn’t have any OTHER choice.

God: “Exactly! Finally you admit it.”

Person: “But my choice wasn’t REALLY a choice, since I had no OTHER choice.”

God: “Would you like to know the ramifications of your choice?”

Person: “Not really.”

God: “I chose to be gracious towards you.”

Person: “You did?”

God: “I did.”

Person: “Wait! See, YOU’RE the One who did the choosing.”

God: “I never said that I didn’t make a choice. I simply said that you ALSO had a choice, and YOU made your choice.”

Person: “Well, I guess it turned out ok, so I’m happy.”

God: “Good. I’m glad that you’re happy.”

Person: “What about these others?”

God: “I chose something different.”

Person: “Are they happy with THEIR choice?”

God: “No.”

Person: “Well…they made their choice. They should just accept that.”

God: “Exactly!”

Continued at :
http://examiningcalvinism.blogspot.de/2011/03/determinism-compatibilism-free-agency.html

That's about the shallowest and most wrongheaded portrayal of the concept of predestination I have ever heard.

The idea that there are people everywhere who read or hear something like that hogwash and think that it's really heady stuff just goes to show how shallow most people are in their theology.

This is the kind of silliness that EmSw might come up with - while thinking it was real cute.

Patmos - I had thought that you were deep enough not to fall for cr*p like that.

ToBeLoved - not so much - but your amen to that drivel is still very disappointing.