Does going against John Calvin mean going against God?

[Clare73]

.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Does the soldier who "is ordered to do his duty without him being able to choose for himself whether he wanted to or not" then not deserve his Congressional Medal of Honor?

The Congressional Medal of Honor is awarded to those who go above and beyond the call of duty. They choose to do acts of bravery and put themselves in harm's way far beyond what they are ordered to do. The award comes as the result of their personal choice. The World War II and Pacific Campaign medals were given to those who served and did their duty as order. But the Military Cross and Silver Star were awarded to those who chose to do more than their stated duty.

 

[Clare73]

The Congressional Medal of Honor is awarded to those who go above and beyond the call of duty. They choose to do acts of bravery and put themselves in harm's way far beyond what they are ordered to do. The award comes as the result of their personal choice. The World War II and Pacific Campaign medals were given to those who served and did their duty as order. But the Military Cross and Silver Star were awarded to those who chose to do more than their stated duty.

Okay, so does the soldier who "is ordered to do his duty without him being able to choose for himself whether he wanted to or not" then not deserve his WWII and Pacific Campaign medals?

Crickets. . .

 

[Mark Quayle]

Calvinism is secret Universalism.
P1) God Loves All and desires all to be saved
P2) God Isn't halfway
P3) Gods Love is Loving his creation like the others
P4) God can give unconditional grace to everyone because he loves everyone and desire them to be saved
P5) God choosing certain people isn't love and its him being partially.
Conclusion: Calvinism is Universalism because God loves all creation and he isn't partially and he can give his unconditional grace to all creation because he loves all his creation equally.
So No nobody disagrees with the sovereignty of God, we disagree with John Calvin's core doctrine. Sorry to say but John Calvinism soft determinism fails according to my premises and conclusions, any rebuttals would be fallacious because P1 and P3 goes together do you agree?

P1. Who is the all? Bad premise
P2. Agreed God isn't halfway, but what has that to do with your conclusion? Or do you mean by 'halfway' that God wouldn't save only some, by his choice? Not scriptural. Bad premise
P3. God loves all equally in every way? Nope. Bad premise
P4. Even if he did desire absolutely everyone to be saved, as you seem to imply, where is the logic showing that he can give unconditional grace to everyone? Your premise assumes unestablished fact. Bad premise
P5. God choosing certain people for one use and purpose and other people for other use and purposes, is Scriptural. You wish to pit Scripture against Scripture? Bad premise
False conclusion, based on bad premises.

 

[Mark Quayle]

It would appear that both Calvin and Spurgeon contradict the words of Jesus, Himself. e.g. Matthew 25:46, Matthew 25:41,Mark 9:43-48, Matthew 13:42, Matthew 13:50 etc.

Explain. How so? I see nothing of those verses, nor in their contexts, that Calvin and Spurgeon contradict.

 

[Silverback]

The Congressional Medal of Honor is awarded to those who go above and beyond the call of duty. They choose to do acts of bravery and put themselves in harm's way far beyond what they are ordered to do. The award comes as the result of their personal choice. The World War II and Pacific Campaign medals were given to those who served and did their duty as order. But the Military Cross and Silver Star were awarded to those who chose to do more than their stated duty.

Just thought I would offer this correction...the Nations highest award is correctly referred to as the "Medal of Honor" Congressional is not part of the name.

 

[Silverback]

P1. Who is the all? Bad premise
P2. Agreed God isn't halfway, but what has that to do with your conclusion? Or do you mean by 'halfway' that God wouldn't save only some, by his choice? Not scriptural. Bad premise
P3. God loves all equally in every way? Nope. Bad premise
P4. Even if he did desire absolutely everyone to be saved, as you seem to imply, where is the logic showing that he can give unconditional grace to everyone? Your premise assumes unestablished fact. Bad premise
P5. God choosing certain people for one use and purpose and other people for other use and purposes, is Scriptural. You wish to pit Scripture against Scripture? Bad premise
False conclusion, based on bad premises.

This thread is kind of convoluted, so I will make this point here. I once heard a Reformed Pastor, when asked to defend Gods unconditional election, said "If it was left up to a person to choose to believe in Christ Jesus, then Christ died for nothing, because our sinful nature does not care for the things that pertain to God.

 

[Mark Quayle]

This thread is kind of convoluted, so I will make this point here. I once heard a Reformed Pastor, when asked to defend Gods unconstitutional election, said "If it was left up to a person to choose to believe in Christ Jesus, then Christ died for nothing, because our sinful nature does not care for the things that pertain to God.

('unconditional' but, yes, that is what TULIP, and Total Depravity in particular is about. Romans 8 says that the natural man cannot submit to God's law, and cannot please God.

 

[Silverback]

('unconditional' but, yes, that is what TULIP, and Total Depravity in particular is about. Romans 8 says that the natural man cannot submit to God's law, and cannot please God.

I despise auto correct

 

[Derf]

In this video John MacArthur reads objections to Calvinism's doctrine of predestination, and says the comments go against the sovereignty of God. It sounded more to me that the comments went against John Cavin's doctrine. Or should both considered one and the same?

It would help if we could define what "sovereignty" means.

The Bible teaches the sovereignty of God, but hold on now.....what does this mean? It doesn't have to mean what Calvin taught. Going against what Calvin taught does not mean you're going against what the Bible ACTUALLY teaches about this subject.

The best way we can understand the sovereignty of God is to consider sovereignty of humans, and see if it can apply to God.

For instance, the pilgrims wrote a "compact" before they stepped out onto the New World. It started with these words: In the name of God, Amen. We whose names are underwritten, the loyal subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord King James, by the Grace of God of Great Britain, France, and Ireland King, Defender of the Faith, etc.

Does anyone believe King James was really "sovereign" in his realm? I do. He had the capacity to reward the righteous and punish the unrighteous, and he used that capacity. What kind of rewards would he give? He would give land to those who fought for him or did something good for him, or that he particularly loved. He would invite someone to eat at his table. He would bestow gifts on people.

What kind of punishments would he meet out? Imprisonment, death, banishment, fines.

God does all of those things in exercising sovereignty. He imprisons demons in the abyss, or in chains waiting judgment. He banishes people from His realm/presence. He sentences people to death.

God indeed might be able to do more than a human king, but He wouldn't stop being sovereign just because He doesn't cause a person to believe in Him. A king doesn't require that a criminal believe in him before he puts him to death.

 

[Mark Quayle]

It would help if we could define what "sovereignty" means.


The best way we can understand the sovereignty of God is to consider sovereignty of humans, and see if it can apply to God.

For instance, the pilgrims wrote a "compact" before they stepped out onto the New World. It started with these words: In the name of God, Amen. We whose names are underwritten, the loyal subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord King James, by the Grace of God of Great Britain, France, and Ireland King, Defender of the Faith, etc.

Does anyone believe King James was really "sovereign" in his realm? I do. He had the capacity to reward the righteous and punish the unrighteous, and he used that capacity. What kind of rewards would he give? He would give land to those who fought for him or did something good for him, or that he particularly loved. He would invite someone to eat at his table. He would bestow gifts on people.

What kind of punishments would he meet out? Imprisonment, death, banishment, fines.

God does all of those things in exercising sovereignty. He imprisons demons in the abyss, or in chains waiting judgment. He banishes people from His realm/presence. He sentences people to death.

God indeed might be able to do more than a human king, but He wouldn't stop being sovereign just because He doesn't cause a person to believe in Him. A king doesn't require that a criminal believe in him before he puts him to death.

There's quite a bit more to it than that.

No human's sovereignty is anywhere near the power of God's sovereignty. Indeed, even "the heart of the king is as a watercourse in the hand of the Lord. He directs it wherever he pleases." Absolute sovereignty logically implies, Omnipotence and First Cause. It is by definition not under [obligation or] submission or causation by any principle from outside itself. No other thing, and certainly no human, comes anywhere close to that.

 

[Fervent]

It would help if we could define what "sovereignty" means.


The best way we can understand the sovereignty of God is to consider sovereignty of humans, and see if it can apply to God.

For instance, the pilgrims wrote a "compact" before they stepped out onto the New World. It started with these words: In the name of God, Amen. We whose names are underwritten, the loyal subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord King James, by the Grace of God of Great Britain, France, and Ireland King, Defender of the Faith, etc.

Does anyone believe King James was really "sovereign" in his realm? I do. He had the capacity to reward the righteous and punish the unrighteous, and he used that capacity. What kind of rewards would he give? He would give land to those who fought for him or did something good for him, or that he particularly loved. He would invite someone to eat at his table. He would bestow gifts on people.

What kind of punishments would he meet out? Imprisonment, death, banishment, fines.

God does all of those things in exercising sovereignty. He imprisons demons in the abyss, or in chains waiting judgment. He banishes people from His realm/presence. He sentences people to death.

God indeed might be able to do more than a human king, but He wouldn't stop being sovereign just because He doesn't cause a person to believe in Him. A king doesn't require that a criminal believe in him before he puts him to death.

Seems rather backwards to begin with men and then work your way to God. God's sovereignty lies in His creation and superintention of the world...there is nothing that escapes His authority, not man nor mineral. A sparrow does not fall without God's consent. There is a real conflict between sovereignty and free will such that no human mind can solve the dilemma. But the Bible presents men both as having a real, authentic, freedom to choose and God being absolutely sovereign even over the choices of men. We are culpable because we make our decisions freely, but God has planned the relationships between them and is responsible for manifesting them.

 

[Derf]

There's quite a bit more to it than that.

No human's sovereignty is anywhere near the power of God's sovereignty. Indeed, even "the heart of the king is as a watercourse in the hand of the Lord. He directs it wherever he pleases." Absolute sovereignty logically implies, Omnipotence and First Cause. It is by definition not under [obligation or] submission or causation by any principle from outside itself. No other thing, and certainly no human, comes anywhere close to that.

I love that example! Have you ever redirected a watercourse? Most kids have, and they can tell you just how to do it. If the water is flowing where you don’t want it to flow, you have to either put rocks or dirt in the current path, or dig a new path that is lower than the current path. God has much more power to change mightier watercourses, but that doesn’t mean it’s outside of our understanding. If a king is going the wrong way, God dams up the path, or makes an easier path for him to follow.

 

[Derf]

Seems rather backwards to begin with men and then work your way to God. God's sovereignty lies in His creation and superintention of the world...there is nothing that escapes His authority, not man nor mineral. A sparrow does not fall without God's consent. There is a real conflict between sovereignty and free will such that no human mind can solve the dilemma. But the Bible presents men both as having a real, authentic, freedom to choose and God being absolutely sovereign even over the choices of men. We are culpable because we make our decisions freely, but God has planned the relationships between them and is responsible for manifesting them.

If my explanation is backwards, then every anthropomorphism in the Bible should be thrown out. God speaks to us in terms we can understand, else He’s a lousy communicator.

 

[Fervent]

If my explanation is backwards, then every anthropomorphism in the Bible should be thrown out. God speaks to us in terms we can understand, else He’s a lousy communicator.

God using terms we understand to give us analogies is different from taking how humans express power to understand an attribute of God. A kings sovereignty is understood in light of God's sovereignty not the other way around.

 

[Derf]

God using terms we understand to give us analogies is different from taking how humans express power to understand an attribute of God. A kings sovereignty is understood in light of God's sovereignty not the other way around.

But you don’t understand God’s sovereignty.

 

[Fervent]

But you don’t understand God’s sovereignty.

No, God's sovereignty isn't an issue. It is the absolute authority over everything within creation as its rightful owner. The right to dictate without question. Where the issue comes in is when we consider God's providence.

 

[Derf]

No, God's sovereignty isn't an issue. It is the absolute authority over everything within creation as its rightful owner. The right to dictate without question. Where the issue comes in is when we consider God's providence.

And what happens if we don’t follow His dictates?

 

[Fervent]

And what happens if we don’t follow His dictates?

Going to need a little more definition here. Who can resist His will?

 

[Derf]

Going to need a little more definition here. Who can resist His will?

Are you saying we can never disobey God?