Does going against John Calvin mean going against God?

[Mark Quayle]

What I’m saying is that God can cause a king to want to do something using circumstances. He doesn’t have to change the mind and will directly to effect His outcome. And the sacrifice evidence of it?

Depends on the outcome and the will of the person, whether and how directly God will effect the outcome. When it comes to regeneration, the enslaved will of the person is unable, nor does it want to, obey or please God. God does not influence the person to change his mind —he directly changes the person: Re-birth.

With other decisions people make, God still uses the will and mind of the person, but usually through circumstances, yes. On the other hand, in the life of the believer, it is not just circumstances but the work of the Spirit of God to cause the believer to see what he would not normally look at, and even to want what he would not want. Likewise, the Word of God, which I wouldn't exactly call 'circumstances', affects believers positively, but also stirs up the rebellion in believers and unbelievers.

 

[Saint Steven]

Oh THAT'S where you were going with that!

You seem to have a small view of sin and of the immensity of God.

I think most people are looking at God through the wrong end of the binoculars.

The Bible says that Moses was a murderer. Did God seem the least bit concerned about that? Not even a side note while giving the Ten Commandments. God sent Moses back to Egypt. Was it to own up to his act of murder?

 

[Mark Quayle]

I think most people are looking at God through the wrong end of the binoculars.

The Bible says that Moses was a murderer. Did God seem the least bit concerned about that? Not even a side note while giving the Ten Commandments. God sent Moses back to Egypt. Was it to own up to his act of murder?

So you do have a small view of sin? If Moses sinned, you think God didn't deal with it?

 

[Derf]

I think most people are looking at God through the wrong end of the binoculars.

The Bible says that Moses was a murderer. Did God seem the least bit concerned about that? Not even a side note while giving the Ten Commandments. God sent Moses back to Egypt. Was it to own up to his act of murder?

One could say that Moses was protecting a fellow Israelite, and therefore it wasn't murder in God's view, even if it was in Pharaoh's.

 

[Derf]

Depends on the outcome and the will of the person, whether and how directly God will effect the outcome. When it comes to regeneration, the enslaved will of the person is unable, nor does it want to, obey or please God. God does not influence the person to change his mind —he directly changes the person: Re-birth.

With other decisions people make, God still uses the will and mind of the person, but usually through circumstances, yes. On the other hand, in the life of the believer, it is not just circumstances but the work of the Spirit of God to cause the believer to see what he would not normally look at, and even to want what he would not want. Likewise, the Word of God, which I wouldn't exactly call 'circumstances', affects believers positively, but also stirs up the rebellion in believers and unbelievers.

Why wouldn't hearing the Word of God be circumstances? Just as Pharaoh hardened his heart against what God requested of him (i.e., God used those things to harden his heart), unbelievers harden and believers soften to the Word of God.

God changes us when we allow ourselves to be changed--that's repentance. When we agree with God that we need salvation, and He's the only source, that's belief. Those two things seem to be required for our salvation, and if God does it, then we aren't--it's not really repentance or belief. Sure, God can make entirely new people, but He seems to want to establish a relationship with the people that already exist.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Does going against John Calvin mean going against God?

No, John Calvin is not God.

 

[Saint Steven]

So you do have a small view of sin? If Moses sinned, you think God didn't deal with it?

Murder is a biggie. Any mention anywhere?

 

[Saint Steven]

One could say that Moses was protecting a fellow Israelite, and therefore it wasn't murder in God's view, even if it was in Pharaoh's.

What does the biblical account say?

 

[Derf]

What does the biblical account say?

"Slew" in KJV.

The following include the Strong's Concordance numbers for the important word.
[Exo 2:12 KJV] 12 And he looked this way and that way, and when he saw that [there was] no man, he slew[H5221] the Egyptian, and hid him in the sand.

Same word applied to God, here:
[Gen 38:7 KJV] 7 And Er, Judah's firstborn, was wicked in the sight of the LORD; and the LORD slew[H5221] him.

Different word used by his fellow Israelites two verses later in their accusation:
[Exo 2:14 KJV] 14 And he said, Who made thee a prince and a judge over us? intendest thou to kill me, as thou killedst[H2026] the Egyptian? And Moses feared, and said, Surely this thing is known.
Same word applied to God, here:
[Exo 13:15 KJV] 15 And it came to pass, when Pharaoh would hardly let us go, that the LORD slew[H2026] all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both the firstborn of man, and the firstborn of beast: therefore I sacrifice to the LORD all that openeth the matrix, being males; but all the firstborn of my children I redeem.

The first is more ambiguous than the second, but even the second, being applied to God, must be applicable in a righteous use, right?

And the narrative word is the more accurate, rather than the word used by people in the story to describe the act. Therefore H5221 is the word we should investigate more fully.

So where else is the H5221 word used? How about the verse just prior:
[Exo 2:11 KJV] 11 And it came to pass in those days, when Moses was grown, that he went out unto his brethren, and looked on their burdens: and he spied an Egyptian smiting[H5221] an Hebrew, one of his brethren.

So now, if the word means "murder", then the Egyptian was murdering an Israelite, and defending someone from murder by killing the perpetrator is not murder, it's third-person defense, which is righteous.

That doesn't mean Moses had no fear of the law, because Egyptians would be considered more valuable than Israelites by Egyptian law. And sure enough, Pharaoh, when he heard the news, sought to kill Moses:
[Exo 2:15 KJV] 15 Now when Pharaoh heard this thing, he sought to slay[H2026] Moses.

This gives other options for the second word, i.e., "execute according to law" in retribution for Moses' "crime" of murder. If the second word, H2026, can mean both "murder" (unrighteous) and "execute for murder" (righteous), then even if it applied to Moses' act, it could still be a righteous use.

Bottom line: there's evidence that Moses was righteous in slaying the Egyptian, even if others didn't think he was.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

So now, if the word means "murder", then the Egyptian was murdering an Israelite, and defending someone from murder by killing the perpetrator is not murder, it's third-person defense, which is righteous.

However, Moses ran away when he realized "surely this thing is known", thus it was murder.

 

[Derf]

However, Moses ran away when he realized "surely this thing is known", thus it was murder.

It probably was murder to the Egyptians. But the post that brought it up was asking why God didn't deal with Moses on it, thus, we're talking about whether it was murder in God's eyes.

I tend to agree with @Saint Steven that, if it were murder rather than a poorly executed part of God's plan to release the Israelites from bondage, then God should have dealt Moses on it, like he did with David re. Uriah. [2Sa 12:9-10 KJV] 9 Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the LORD, to do evil in his sight? thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his wife [to be] thy wife, and hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon. 10 Now therefore the sword shall never depart from thine house; because thou hast despised me, and hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife.

But maybe 40 years in the wilderness of Midian was enough punishment.

 

[coffee4u]

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?

Should Calvin be considered to be God? No, last time I checked Calvin was just a man and like any man he can be wrong.

 

[Saint Steven]

But maybe 40 years in the wilderness of Midian was enough punishment.

LOL
Maybe the burning bush experience wasn't the first time he heard the bushes talking to him. - lol

 

[Derf]

LOL
Maybe the burning bush experience wasn't the first time he heard the bushes talking to him. - lol

Hey! Don’t talk about our former presidents like that!

 

[Mark Quayle]

Why wouldn't hearing the Word of God be circumstances? Just as Pharaoh hardened his heart against what God requested of him (i.e., God used those things to harden his heart), unbelievers harden and believers soften to the Word of God.

God changes us when we allow ourselves to be changed--that's repentance. When we agree with God that we need salvation, and He's the only source, that's belief. Those two things seem to be required for our salvation, and if God does it, then we aren't--it's not really repentance or belief. Sure, God can make entirely new people, but He seems to want to establish a relationship with the people that already exist.

The whole business, from start to finish, is the work of God. That doesn't mean that we don't work —far from it! But it is God who works in us both to will and to do of his good pleasure. Your notion that if it is God doing it, then it is not us also doing it, is mistaken. If it is good, it is impossible that it is only us doing it. Our motivations are not what make our deeds real. God is the reality in us.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Murder is a biggie. Any mention anywhere?

I've heard that logic before —Any mention of just what those who are to be "purified in the Lake of Fire" are saved unto?

The fact it is not mentioned in the narrative doesn't suggest God had no dealings with it.

 

[Saint Steven]

I've heard that logic before —Any mention of just what those who are to be "purified in the Lake of Fire" are saved unto?

The fact it is not mentioned in the narrative doesn't suggest God had no dealings with it.

Sausage is evidence of a meat grinder. You can't have one without the other. I will probably never see the actually grinder that made my store-bought sausage, but the end product gives evidence for the process.

The outcome of UR is the evidence of the process that you claim does not exist. Here it is again.

Anyone who has knees to bow and a tongue to speak, in heaven and on earth and under the earth (in the realm of the dead), will whole-heartedly, and without reservation, acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord. No one can say that “Jesus is Lord,” except by the Holy Spirit. If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” you will be saved. Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living. (the reason for the bodily resurrection) Scriptural support below.

Philippians 2:10-11
that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11 and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.

1 Corinthians 12:3
Therefore I want you to know that no one who is speaking by the Spirit of God says,
“Jesus be cursed,” and no one can say, “Jesus is Lord,” except by the Holy Spirit.

Romans 10:9
If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart
that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

Romans 14:9
For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that
he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living.

Note on "acknowledge" in Philippians 2:11 from Strong's Concordance
S1843 eksomologéō (from 1537 /ek, "wholly out from," intensifying 3670 /homologéō, "say the same thing about") – properly, fully agree and to acknowledge that agreement openly (whole-heartedly); hence, to confess ("openly declare"), without reservation (no holding back).

Further reading: (Isaiah 45:23, Romans 14:11, Philippians 2:10, Revelation 15:4)

 

[Saint Steven]

The fact it is not mentioned in the narrative doesn't suggest God had no dealings with it.

Consider this.

Exodus 4:18-20 NRSV
Moses went back to his father-in-law Jethro and said to him, “Please let me go back to my kindred in Egypt and see whether they are still living.” And Jethro said to Moses, “Go in peace.” 19 The Lord said to Moses in Midian, “Go back to Egypt; for all those who were seeking your life are dead.” 20 So Moses took his wife and his sons, put them on a donkey, and went back to the land of Egypt; and Moses carried the staff of God in his hand.

 

[Derf]

The whole business, from start to finish, is the work of God. That doesn't mean that we don't work —far from it! But it is God who works in us both to will and to do of his good pleasure. Your notion that if it is God doing it, then it is not us also doing it, is mistaken. If it is good, it is impossible that it is only us doing it. Our motivations are not what make our deeds real. God is the reality in us.

I’m not so sure that is my notion. But does what you are talking about apply to everything and everybody? When a pervert rapes a child, is that God working in him to will and to do of His good pleasure? Of course not!

Believers WANT God to work in us to want even better things than we know to want. That’s how He is Lord of our lives.

 

[Cormack]

Many people do consider Calvinism “just the way it is,” so yes, to disagree with Calvin’s doctrine wouldn’t be much different than disagreeing with the plan of things that God’s already set in motion.

God would have provided the deterministic scheme of things while men like Calvin and Augustine have articulated those things to varying levels of success.

Though even in that scheme of things God would’ve been the one who predetermined the activities of even the most aggressive opponents of Calvinism, meaning there’s no such thing as meta disobedience to God, just a superficial resisting of his plan and stated purposes (while wholly conforming to his secret purposes.)

Sinners can’t be disobedient to God in any meaningful way, because (at least under Calvinism) they’re always operating in line with one of the wills of God, either his explicit will in obeying and believing, or his secret will by disobeying his commands as he always planned that they would.

So “does going against Calvinism mean going against God?” To the hardcore Calvinist yes, even the late R.C. Sproul taught young believers that if they didn’t buy into his definition of sovereignty, which means determinism, they might as well be atheists.