Does going against John Calvin mean going against God?

[Ceallaigh]

The question is not whether you do the right things. It is whether your decision is valid and made with full integrity and understanding of what is being undertaken vs just silly, ignorant, weak, emotional, momentary, self-important etc.

You're not saying anything new, but it seems to tend to create salvation by way of performance. You have to do whatever well enough or properly enough for it to be good enough. And nobody really knows how to gauge that exactly. Which probably tends to seeking salvation based on performance ie works.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Whether you really are elect or reprobate doesn't affect your assurance, nor would your level of anxiety, nor your level of confidence. You can't know any more that God would choose you than why He would. Faith in your assurance, no matter how sure it has been for 30 years, seems much less likely to lead to God than faith in Jesus Christ.

The regenerated Elect alone have the Spirit to witness to their spirit that they are children of God. So, yeah, it makes a difference whether you are elect or reprobate. Also, the regenerated Elect have many other reassurances the lost do not.

How does faith in one's assurance enter this discussion? It sounds like you are attacking my post, when all I was doing was answering someone who made it sound like I had no assurance. My faith isn't even mine, but the Spirit indwelling me. If God is the one generating my faith, then how can it be faith in one's assurance, rather than faith in Christ?

At the end of the day, however, you believe that you believe, whether you really believe or not, and you would have to be as happy that you're going to hell as you would be that you're going to heaven, since whichever one you get, that's the one you were made for, and can't escape, even if you wanted to (including hell). Isn't God a good God, to make us for a place and assure us that's where we belong, whether we like it or not?

How would being made for the purpose of judgement and condemnation and Hell make anyone happy they are going there? Maybe you need to invent the 'Facetious mark'.

 

[Mark Quayle]

You're not saying anything new, but it seems to tend to create salvation by way of performance. You have to do whatever well enough or properly enough for it to be good enough. And nobody really knows how to gauge that exactly. Which probably tends to seeking salvation based on performance ie works.

What I said tends "to create salvation by way of performance.(??) You have to do whatever well enough or properly enough for it to be good enough."?? Just the opposite. My point is, it is impossible for anyone to do anything good enough. I am definitely not a proponent of works salvation.

 

[John Mullally]

Is this a bad translation? Is that why Calvin got it wrong? (This is the Lord saying this) from Isaiah 6: "10 Make the hearts of this people calloused; deafen their ears and close their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts, and turn and be healed."

If taken out of context this passage may sound like the Lord wants certain minds to be spiritually dull, certain ears to be spiritually deaf and certain eyes to be spiritually blind. Hence this passage is sometimes cited as evidence that it is by sovereign design that some people are hardened to the message of the Lord. How can this passage be reconciled with the universality of God’s love and desire for salvation expressed elsewhere in Scripture?

The answer is to be found in the observation that the Lord is not commissioning Isaiah to preach to people who would otherwise be receptive to his message. Rather, in this passage God is responding to the persistent obstinacy of the Israelites. (Hence, God no longer refers to them as “my people” but as “this people”. God sends Isaiah out as an act of judgment, anticipating that the preaching of his word will only serve to further solidify the Israelites in their self-chosen obstinacy. This increased solidification will make them “ripe for judgment.” It always grieves the Lord that he has to treat people in this fashion: it is not his perfect will (e.g. Hos. 11:5–9). And even in judgment the Lord holds out hope for the future (Jer. 29:9–14). The Wesleyan Bible Commentary, Vol. III

 

[Mark Quayle]

If taken out of context this passage may sound like the Lord wants certain minds to be spiritually dull, certain ears to be spiritually deaf and certain eyes to be spiritually blind. Hence this passage is sometimes cited as evidence that it is by sovereign design that some people are hardened to the message of the Lord. How can this passage be reconciled with the universality of God’s love and desire for salvation expressed elsewhere in Scripture?

The answer is to be found in the observation that the Lord is not commissioning Isaiah to preach to people who would otherwise be receptive to his message. Rather, in this passage God is responding to the persistent obstinacy of the Israelites. (Hence, God no longer refers to them as “my people” but as “this people”. God sends Isaiah out as an act of judgment, anticipating that the preaching of his word will only serve to further solidify the Israelites in their self-chosen obstinacy. This increased solidification will make them “ripe for judgment.” It always grieves the Lord that he has to treat people in this fashion: it is not his perfect will (e.g. Hos. 11:5–9). And even in judgment the Lord holds out hope for the future (Jer. 29:9–14). The Wesleyan Bible Commentary, Vol. III

Of course he is responding to. Does Calvinism say otherwise? What is your point?

 

[John Mullally]

Of course he is responding to. Does Calvinism say otherwise?

It took a while to figure out what you are saying here and I still don't know what you mean "Is this a bad translation?" in the post where you quote Isaiah 6:10.

What is your point?

My point was to respond to your quotation of Isaiah 6:10, with a commentary on that passage that provides context. When there seem to be contradictions, I like to shake the box by looking at various Bible commentaries. Just felt like posting this:

Hebrews 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.​

Read full chapter

 

[Mark Quayle]

It took a while to figure out what you are saying here and I still don't know what you mean "Is this a bad translation?" in the post where you quote Isaiah 6:10.

My point was to respond to your quotation of Isaiah 6:10, with a commentary on that passage that provides context. When there seem to be contradictions, I like to shake the box by looking at various Bible commentaries. Just felt like posting this:

Hebrews 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.​

Read full chapter

Often those that disagree with Calvinism think it teaches that God does not respond to what people choose. That is not what Calvinism teaches. When they are told it is not what Calvinism teaches, they repeat it, saying that is where Calvinism logically leads. Still, (I repeat), it is not what Calvinism teaches. If their logic takes them there, fine, but don't say Calvinism teaches it, or assume it unsaid, in responding to Calvinism.

(Whole arguments are moot, because of this kind of thinking. I get remonstrated for not responding to the many texts posted showing people choosing, as if Calvinism teaches we don't choose. It does not teach that we don't choose.)

As it turns out, their 'logical extrapolations' of what Calvinism does teach are usually based on false premises, such as the notion that the command necessarily implies the ability to obey, or that the believer's definition/notions concerning "love" are all there is to love; they feel free to extrapolate and contradict scripture, even, (or rather, to reinterpret scripture to align it with their use for "love". Thus, for eg, UR.)
....................
The context of Isaiah 6:10 doesn't change Isaiah 6:10 nor the point that I was making against what you said concerning Calvin disagreeing with Paul. Calvin did not disagree with Paul. Calvin disagrees with you. You think Calvinism necessarily (whether outright or by implication) teaches that God has no inclination or love for those predestined to reprobation. Yet we teach that God has many characteristic "emotions" that he cannot logically act on yet still bring to pass the project he began with creation: the Bride of Christ, God's Dwelling Place. Christ prayed, so great was his agony of spirit in anticipation of what was about to happen, "if it is possible, let this cup pass" when he well knew it was not possible.

So IN CONTEXT it still shows that God fully intends that their hearts are to be hardened —this being the plan from the beginning.

You said,
"The answer is to be found in the observation that the Lord is not commissioning Isaiah to preach to people who would otherwise be receptive to his message. Rather, in this passage God is responding to the persistent obstinacy of the Israelites." I find this to be very revealing concerning your thinking. Calvinism teaches the very same thing. Yet here you seem to think you have rendered Calvinism's teachings moot, on the matter.

So the same applies with those who are predestined to perdition. They are not willing, so they reject God's message, just as he planned from the beginning. That doesn't mean that God doesn't 'wish' it could be different. But the fact is he uses them as necessary to accomplish his plan.

 

[Saint Steven]

So the same applies with those who are predestined to perdition. They are not willing, so they reject God's message, just as he planned from the beginning. That doesn't mean that God doesn't 'wish' it could be different. But the fact is he uses them as necessary to accomplish his plan.

That seems to be a huge stretch to the definition of "predestined". God willed it in advance, but "wishes" they had chosen differently? Wow.

 

[GreekOrthodox]

Is this a bad translation? Is that why Calvin got it wrong? (This is the Lord saying this) from Isaiah 6: "10 Make the hearts of this people calloused; deafen their ears and close their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts, and turn and be healed."

FYI, why would Calvin have used an English translation when his native language was French and additionally he used Latin in scholarly works.

 

[setst777]

FYI, why would Calvin have used an English translation when his native language was French and additionally he used Latin in scholarly works.

I have John Calvin's writings in English. Passages referenced are in English, from English translations. This would make sense, since the French was translated into English for the English speaking readers.

 

[Derf]

The question is not whether you do the right things. It is whether your decision is valid and made with full integrity and understanding of what is being undertaken vs just silly, ignorant, weak, emotional, momentary, self-important etc.

Which wouldn’t be the case if your decision was determined by God before the world began. Firstly, it wouldn’t be YOUR decision, as you had no part in the determination. Secondly, it would be because of that “etc.”, I.e., it would be a manipulation.

 

[setst777]

Which wouldn’t be the case if your decision was determined by God before the world began. Firstly, it wouldn’t be YOUR decision, as you had no part in the determination. Secondly, it would be because of that “etc.”, I.e., it would be a manipulation.

That is the paradox in Calvinist doctrine. God created and causes all things to happen according to His will and purpose; yet, God holds each person responsible for the decisions they make for which God formed them for.

 

[Mark Quayle]

FYI, why would Calvin have used an English translation when his native language was French and additionally he used Latin in scholarly works.

He was FRENCH????? I distrust him already!!!

Do you have something to show me how your question is relevant, or are you just casting doubt?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Which wouldn’t be the case if your decision was determined by God before the world began. Firstly, it wouldn’t be YOUR decision, as you had no part in the determination. Secondly, it would be because of that “etc.”, I.e., it would be a manipulation.

This is why Reformed and Calvinists have a hard time with me. I say that monergism operates throughout the life of the believer. They see how it is particularly relevant in the matter of salvation, i.e. that regeneration is the act of God alone, without any assistance by the lost-to-be-regenerated, (which fact I agree with), but by comparison, they see the regenerated heart/ will, as a result of the regeneration and indwelling of the Spirit of God, to be a cooperative effort. I don't —not to say that our efforts, for eg. in deciding to obey, need not be done, but to say that any good, in retrospect, I, at least, have to credit as being fully the work of God. —And that, not to say that I don't work, but that any good work on my part is something God does to/in/for/through me. I cannot credit myself, as I know myself too well for that. On the day that God says, "Well done, good and faithful servant" those servants' hearts will be full of praise toward Christ and happy humility, not pride.

My efforts do not increase the total effort. This is all the work of God. But yes, I do put forth effort. I can't help but do so.

 

[setst777]

This is why Reformed and Calvinists have a hard time with me. I say that monergism operates throughout the life of the believer. They see how it is particularly relevant in the matter of salvation, i.e. that regeneration is the act of God alone, without any assistance by the lost-to-be-regenerated, (which fact I agree with), but by comparison, they see the regenerated heart/ will, as a result of the regeneration and indwelling of the Spirit of God, to be a cooperative effort. I don't —not to say that our efforts, for eg. in deciding to obey, need not be done, but to say that any good, in retrospect, I, at least, have to credit as being fully the work of God. —And that, not to say that I don't work, but that any good work on my part is something God does to/in/for/through me. I cannot credit myself, as I know myself too well for that. On the day that God says, "Well done, good and faithful servant" those servants' hearts will be full of praise toward Christ and happy humility, not pride.

My efforts do not increase the total effort. This is all the work of God. But yes, I do put forth effort. I can't help but do so.

That could only be true if regeneration occurs before faith. That is something you must prove is the case by Scripture actually teaching this rather than assuming opinions onto the texts to make them say what is not actually stated.

 

[Mark Quayle]

That is the paradox in Calvinist doctrine. God created and causes all things to happen according to His will and purpose; yet, God holds each person responsible for the decisions they make for which God formed them for.

You perhaps haven't read some of the rejections of the idea of there being a paradox there.

1. God is supreme. Thus he has the right, and still it be justice, to make creatures that consider themselves sentient, and to do WHATEVER he pleases with them. Yet he has gone beyond this and made creatures with moral responsibility, by giving them a will (no, I did not say free will). They may choose as they wish, and, as it turns out, that is what they always choose, even if it be only for that very instant of choice. (I.e. even if coerced, someone holding a gun to the head or whatever else, they do choose what they want (since they want to remain alive, or whatever else the coercion implies)).
2. Even in Godless societies, and in the scientific community, though they talk of chance and possibility, the age old question (fate) pokes it mocking face in here. What actually happens is the only thing that CAN actually happen. So First Cause rules every detail. "Chance is only a placeholder for "I don't know"." It is self-contradictory to say that chance can determine anything.

 

[GreekOrthodox]

He was FRENCH????? I distrust him already!!!

Do you have something to show me how your question is relevant, or are you just casting doubt?

No mark, it was in response to you asking if an English translation was "bad" when Calvin would not have used any kind of English translation. Calvin could read in Greek, Hebrew and Latin, so that's where my point was going. I've seen questions regarding various translations when in fact the problem isnt that it is a translation but rather that certain nuances don't translate over into a different language.

 

[Mark Quayle]

That could only be true if regeneration occurs before faith. That is something you must prove is the case by Scripture actually teaching this rather than assuming opinions onto the texts to make them say what is not actually stated.

So I have heard so often before. The arguments I have heard to do away with Romans' claim to inability of the lost are all bogus, and at least as made-up as the Reformed claim of 'regeneration first', as far as I have heard, even including God working on the will salvifically, but only halfway or so —not quite compellingly— in the notion of Prevenient Grace.

 

[Mark Quayle]

No mark, it was in response to you asking if an English translation was "bad" when Calvin would not have used any kind of English translation. Calvin could read in Greek, Hebrew and Latin, so that's where my point was going. I've seen questions regarding various translations when in fact the problem isnt that it is a translation but rather that certain nuances don't translate over into a different language.

Oh. Ok, so you are going with the idea that Calvinism is Calvin. How about Reformed Theology? Or more to the point, how about the doctrines within either? Does the translation matter here? What does it matter what Calvin used?

 

[Hmm]

You perhaps haven't read some of the rejections of the idea of there being a paradox there.

1. God is supreme. Thus he has the right, and still it be justice, to make creatures that consider themselves sentient, and to do WHATEVER he pleases with them

Only if you think power is supreme. However that's not the Christian message. Christ came to show us that God is a suffering servant and supremely good as well as being all powerful. Above all, God is love as scripture tells us and one of the meanings of that is that He can't do "WHATEVER he pleases" with us. In fact He wouldn't want to seeing that He loves us. Do you feel that you are entitled to do whatever you please with those you love?