Is Calvinism a heresy?

[Mark Quayle]

Thanks for the reply mark, firstly, it all has nothing to do with Kat Kerr. .

My 'thesis' is The term foundation of the world (FOTW) does not just mean the Genesis 6 days of creation account. I believe the words katabole kosmos from which FOTW is translated can have different interpretations, I believe it applies to other events too but i am going to leave the final sting in the tail until the end. I think the use of FOTW in Heb 9:26 is an example of it referring to the Abrahamic Covenant and not the Genesis 6 creation days. A katabole kosmos type of event itself. Breaking down and re-establsihing something that adorns the earth.(those being established meanings of 'katabole' and 'kosmos)


After you have read my arguments as to why I think it refers to the Abrahamic Covenant then I was just suggesting for you to read Heb 9:26 with each of the two meanings substituted for FOTW and see which one 'fits' better for you. i am not suggesting it should be translated differently

By the Abrahamic Covenant I mean when the deal is done when God has made his promises. I believe as Abraham was going to sacrifice his son so would God 'have' to.
So here are the arguments again and you can now ignore my first post
Heb 9:26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself
Your stance is it just means Jesus would have to have carried this out' 'often' My stance is:
1. It does mean just 'often' It means the whole lot, a temple designed the same , blood of others the same etc
2. Strictly speaking the term FOTW is before Adam sinned so sacrifices would not have to happen since the Genesis creation 6 days but until Adam fell-some indeterminate time after
3. I do not think Jesus can carry out any sacrificial substitution process at all in the Abrahamic Covenant is established
4. Jesus would have to carry out this process from the FOTW, so when these sacrificial systems as described in Hebrews 9 were in place is when He (Jesus) would have to start doing them himself I believe this is the time of The Abrahamic Covenant.
For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us
Nor yet that he ( still Jesus Christ) should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others (like the high priest does yearly (still often-a subset of often) and in a temple designed as described and with blood of others-the whole process as described in the preceding passage))
For then must he (still Jesus Christ) often have suffered since the foundation of the world (FOTW) (the time these type of sacrificial practices started taking place and the covenant deal was in place) but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself

Your THESIS is, it appears to me, not what you are saying in this post, but what you are leading up to —perhaps the "sting in the tail" you are reserving for the end of the layout of your argument.

If your thesis is only what you are saying, in the paragraph you begin with "My 'thesis' is", then I have to ask, "What's the big deal?". How is this at all contrary to, or a huge and significant addition to, Orthodoxy? Does Orthodoxy mistakenly define either of the two terms to a specific definition meaning more than simply FOTW? Why should Orthodoxy have dealt with it, if what you think IS true?

Anyhow, I need something to tie all this together to be making a point —that is, I need that point, to follow what you are saying. Whether you mean to or not, you are presenting a riddle, without even asking the question central to the riddle. You are perhaps giving hints at the answer, but no context. The riddle is not the thesis, and I'm not into playing riddles with you. That's the way JW etc operate, and I don't play well with them when they do that.

This is what this feels like to me: You are saying, "pockets are containers, not just fabric", without even asking, "What has it got in its pocketses, Preciousss?", when I haven't a clue who Gollum is. I don't mind arguing the statements you do say, but I need to know where you are going with it, or even where you are coming from, instead of sitting here thinking, "So what?"

More specifically, here is the sort of thing I'm blindly running into: You say, "Your stance is it just means Jesus would have to have carried this out' 'often'." Well, no. You might even be quoting me, but I never said it did not mean more or that more was not implied. You see, you took me to be dealing with it, IN YOUR CONTEXT, which I was not. I didn't know what your context was. I was only arguing against the notion that the point of the "often" was necessarily "yearly".

But, to move forward, I will try to deal with each of your points blindly, here, the best I can. You say:
"1. It does mean just 'often' It means the whole lot, a temple designed the same , blood of others the same etc
"2. Strictly speaking the term FOTW is before Adam sinned so sacrifices would not have to happen since the Genesis creation 6 days but until Adam fell-some indeterminate time after
"3. I do not think Jesus can carry out any sacrificial substitution process at all in the Abrahamic Covenant is established
"4. Jesus would have to carry out this process from the FOTW, so when these sacrificial systems as described in Hebrews 9 were in place is when He (Jesus) would have to start doing them himself I believe this is the time of The Abrahamic Covenant."

So, I say:
1. I expect you meant, 'doesn't', since the sentence doesn't mean anything to me as stated. But, ok, I think I'm following you so far, as you seem to mean this as leading into a logical progression or something.
2. Ok
3. Not sure what you mean, here. Are you saying "as established"? If so, Ok. (BTW, I'm not saying, as in 2, or 1, for that matter, that I agree. I'm just saying that I guess I follow you so far.)
4. You lost me here. I don't follow. Maybe you can diagram your logic?

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

Is this one of those posts you are going to ignore, or answer? Just asking.

Since you haven't figured it out yet, I will spell it out very clearly for you: When you question or critique beliefs that I don't hold, there is quite literally nothing that requires a response from me. If you want a response from me, then question or critique something I actually believe, like Reformed theology or Calvinism.

I have reworded the previous questions to avoid your sensitivities.

That is incredibly condescending and rude. You ought to be aware that Christians don't have much interest in responding to people who display behavior that is so contrary to the Spirit of Christ. So, this is me now making you aware. And I can only pray that you don't shrug this off and persist in such worldly behavior, but instead pursue a more heavenly attitude. "If we live by the Spirit, let us also behave in accordance with the Spirit" (Gal 5:25).

Your rude comment is also inaccurate, for this doesn't have anything to do with my sensitivities. You were targeting beliefs that I don't hold. This thread is about Calvinism and as a Calvinist I am interested in defending that view. The notion of God having tricks up his sleeve or pulling Jedi mind-tricks is literally contrary to Calvinist theology, so your questions were not aimed at my beliefs.

1. God wants everyone to be saved (1 Tim 2:4).

2. God can predestine people to be saved—not to make a choice but to be actually saved ...

3. Not everyone is saved.

4. Conclusion: God does not want everyone saved after all? Or God wants everyone saved, but sometimes decides not to?

Regarding the first premise: The passage you cited for support does not say that God wants everyone to be saved (universalism). It says that God wants "all people" to be saved, and in the verses immediately prior the person writing that epistle made it abundantly clear what he meant. He urged Timothy "that requests, prayers, intercessions, and thanks be offered on behalf of all people" (v. 1), by which he meant "even for kings and all who are in authority" (v. 2). He specified what he meant in that very letter. God is not the God of the common folk only. He is impartial—God is no respecter of persons, as the KJV puts it (Acts 10:34)—which means that those who belong to God are found in every station of life, from peasant class to ruling class. There is only one God, Paul pointed out, and one intermediary between God and humanity, Christ Jesus (v. 5). All Calvinists agree that God's elect includes kings and other people in authority. He is not the God of common folk only. The King of kings is the God of the ruling class, too. Everyone whom the Father gives to Jesus will come to him—including kings and emperors. Everyone who believes in the Son will not perish but have eternal life—even kings and emperors.

Regarding the second premise: Predestination is not something that God CAN do, but rather something he DOES do. God predestines people to be saved; and those he predestines are called; and those he calls are justified; and those he justifies are glorified (Rom 8:28-30). "Everyone whom the Father gives me will come to me," Jesus guaranteed, and the promise of God is that he will save every single one of them. "This is the will of the one who sent me," Jesus said, "that I should not lose one person of every one he has given me, but raise them all up at the last day." The will of the Father is that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him—even kings and emperors—will have eternal life; they will be raised up at the last day (John 6:37-40).

Regarding the third premise: Not everyone is saved, correct, because not everyone is given by the Father to the Son. How do we know that? Because Jesus said without any caveats, "Everyone whom the Father gives me will come to me." These are the sheep who belong to the Father and are entrusted to the Son, the great shepherd (John 10:11-16). And every single sheep who belong to God listens and responds to him, while those who are not his sheep don't listen and respond because they don't belong to God (cf. John 8:47); they are not his sheep: "You refuse to believe because you are not my sheep" (John 10:26). (You might be tempted to flip this verse on its head, acting as if Jesus said, "You are not my sheep because you refuse to believe"—but that's not what he said.)

Regarding the conclusion: God wants all people to be saved—not just Jews but people from every nation, tribe, people, and language ("I have other sheep that are not of this fold," Jesus said), and not just common folk but even kings and emperors. However, there are people who are not his sheep (John 10:26), who don't belong to God (John 8:47), who were not chosen before the foundation of the world (Eph 1:4), whose names haven't been eternally written in the Lamb's book of life (Rev 13:8; cf. 17:8). Everyone who has been appointed for eternal life will believe (cf. Acts 13:48), just as Jesus guaranteed when he said, "Everyone whom the Father gives me will come to me." Not can, not might—they will come, and Jesus will not lose a single one.

There is another factor involved: human choice. I'd go for this option.

And nothing I just wrote above denies human choice. On Calvinism, human choice is not denied, but rather set in a biblical context.

I choose every minute of every day to be a Christian. Is God predestining those decisions, too?

We are talking about predestination. Think about what that term means. Your choices are not a destination.

But yes, if you are continuing to work out your salvation with awe and reverence, "the one bringing forth in you both the desire and the effort—for the sake of his good pleasure—is God" (Php 2:12-13).

Do I ever make a decision myself?

Millions of them. Again, it's not as if Calvinism denies human choice. But your will is defined by a biblical context, namely, the works of the flesh and the works of the Spirit. The former comes from you, the latter is of God.

God doesn't make your decisions for you, but he does enable and empower you in making them (with regard to Christian living). As I pointed out just moments ago, he brings forth in you the desire and the effort to work out your salvation with awe and reverence. Some people plant the seed, others water it, but its growth is up to God (1 Cor 3:6-7). "No one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them," Jesus said (John 6:65), thus it is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus (1 Cor 1:30). This is why there is no room for boasting.

Or is it that we have free choice every single step of the way ...

That depends entirely on what you mean by "free" when it comes to your will (by which you make choices). If your very existence depends entirely upon God in every moment, you're not free from him. So, immediately there is powerful limitation on what "free" can mean. God alone is autonomous; all else is from him, through him, and to him. Furthermore, those who are slaves to sin are certainly not free. They make enslaved choices. And Christians are slaves of God and the Lord Jesus Christ (Eph 6:6; cf. Jas 1:1; Php 1:1; Titus 1:1), so they're not free. True, we are freed from sin and are to live as freed people, and yet "not using your freedom as a pretext for evil but as God's slaves" (1 Pet 2:16).

So, what does "free" mean when you use it? And is your definition constrained by a biblical context?

... but God in his infinite control gives us the opportunity to be saved ...

The opportunity to be saved? What does that even look like? And is it something he does for absolutely everyone? If so, then why would Jesus say, "No one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them"? If the Father enables literally everyone, then Jesus's statement is fundamentally meaningless, akin to saying, "No one can come to me unless the Father has created them."

More importantly, if God wants to save everyone, and he enables everyone equally, then why doesn't he also give everyone to the Son to be saved by him? Remember, "Everyone whom the Father gives me will come to me," Jesus said, "and I shall lose none of all those he has given me, but raise them up at the last day." This is a direct question. Please provide a correspondingly direct answer.

... and never lets us be tested beyond our capability level?

"No trial has overtaken you that is not faced by others," Paul wrote. "And God is faithful: He will not let you be tried beyond what you are able to bear, but with the trial will also provide a way out so that you may be able to endure it" (1 Cor 10:13). It just might exceed our capability level—and I suspect that it usually does, for that is how we are spiritually grown—but God will provide a way out.

Choice and predestination, working together. You agree?

Of course I do, for that is what Calvinism teaches.

God likes faith. Can't please him otherwise. I am sure you will agree. Why doesn't he predestine that too?

He does. He predestines the salvation of all his sheep, and salvation includes repentance and faith, which are described in Scripture as something God grants to us. It has been granted to you to believe in Christ Jesus (Php 1:29). Through the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ, you have been granted a faith as precious as that of the apostles (2 Pet 1:1), a faith that is through Jesus (Act 3:16; cf. Heb 12:2). As with Lydia, the Lord opens our heart to respond to the message of the gospel (Acts 16:14). Same with repentance: God grants to us the repentance that leads to life (Act 11:18; 2 Tim 2:25).

And so on.

And while he's at it, predestine to love him, not lie, no killing, no false witness.

I mean, what do you think being conformed to the image of his Son looks like? (That's all part of predestination.)

Earth will be like Heaven.

Indeed it will.

 

[Mark Quayle]

And nothing I just wrote above denies human choice. On Calvinism, human choice is not denied, but rather set in a biblical context.

It is also worth noting that not only do human choice and God's election and predestination work together, as 'Compatibilism' expresses, but that Man's choice is ESTABLISHED by God's choice. When Christ says, "...apart from me you can do nothing.", it is not only true in the visceral sense in which he intended it, that the spiritual works of the believer are only done IN him, but it is also true in the common sense, that "in him we live and move and have our being". Logically, God is FIRST cause. We are not.

"jameslouise said:
I choose every minute of every day to be a Christian. Is God predestining those decisions, too?"

Further down the Q/A session, @jameslouise asks a loaded question, that DS easily answers, and that, correctly, ignoring the load. Yes, both do indeed choose, but that does not imply that both have the same ability of causation in and of themselves. It is not mere cooperation on an even playing floor —it is God causing all things, and us stepping, by our own choosing, precisely in line with God's 'decree'; there is a hierarchy.

Millions of them. Again, it's not as if Calvinism denies human choice. But your will is defined by a biblical context, namely, the works of the flesh and the works of the Spirit. The former comes from you, the latter is of God.

This is beautifully put. So simple and logical, and entirely Biblical.

 

[JSRG]

Again, it's not as if Calvinism denies human choice.

In fairness, some Calvinists do absolutely and explicitly deny there is any free will. From what I can tell, this is a minority of Calvinists (could be wrong though, I have no idea of the demographics), but it is held by some.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

In fairness, some Calvinists do absolutely and explicitly deny there is any free will. From what I can tell, this is a minority of Calvinists (could be wrong though, I have no idea of the demographics), but it is held by some.

The denial of human free will, known as "total depravity," is a central tenet of Calvinism. It is based on the belief that humanity is inherently sinful and incapable of choosing to follow God or do good on their own. This is in contrast to the belief in "free will," which holds that individuals have the ability to make choices independently of divine or supernatural influence.

Scripture references for the Calvinist doctrine of total depravity include:

• Romans 3:10-18, which states that "there is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands; there is no one who seeks God."
• Ephesians 2:1-3, which states that "as for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient."
• John 6:44, which states that "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them."

It is worth noting that Calvinism is a diverse tradition, and some Calvinists may have different interpretations of the doctrine of total depravity.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

In fairness, some Calvinists do absolutely and explicitly deny there is any free will. From what I can tell, this is a minority of Calvinists (could be wrong though, I have no idea of the demographics), but it is held by some.

Please provide a cited quote or two. Thank you.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

The denial of human free will, known as "total depravity," is a central tenet of Calvinism. It is based on the belief that humanity is inherently sinful and incapable of choosing to follow God or do good on their own. This is in contrast to the belief in "free will," which holds that individuals have the ability to make choices independently of divine or supernatural influence.

(This person, whom I shall call Xeno, is developing a history of refusing to interact with my criticisms in any substantive or even meaningful way. Therefore, I have not bothered to direct this criticism at him but have instead presented it for the reader's consideration and understanding.)

Either Xeno doesn't understand Calvinism and is accidently misrepresenting it, or he does understand Calvinism and is purposefully misrepresenting it. I would be legitimately surprised if he could accurately describe the doctrine (and then explain what is biblically wrong with it). In either case, he is also misrepresenting the options on the table.

First, (a) total depravity and (b) the denial of autonomous human free-will are related in an important way but they are categorically distinct things, hence, the one is not "known as" the other. Total depravity pertains to the fallen nature of the old humanity in Adam (we are inescapably sinners), whereas the denial of autonomous human free-will pertains to the self-existent God who is sovereign over all of his creation (God alone is autonomous, humans are not). One may speak of the former or the latter but one must not conflate them, for they are categorically distinct.

Second, his response is misleading because Calvinism likewise holds that "individuals have the ability to make choices independently of divine or supernatural influence" (i.e., his statement was not the "contrast" of Calvinist belief). Such choices and the acts which flow from them are called the works of the flesh and they are sinful because our old humanity is fallen in Adam. As explained by the doctrine of total depravity, we can make choices independent of God's influence but they are always and only sinful choices. This is in contrast to the works of the Spirit, which are choices we make that are dependent on God's influence—by definition (specifically the third person of the trinity). "Those who live according to the flesh have their outlook shaped by the things of the flesh"—that's us independent of God's influence—"but those who live according to the Spirit have their outlook shaped by the things of the Spirit"—that's us dependent on God's influence. The outlook of the flesh (that's of us) is death, but the outlook of the Spirit (that's of God) is life and peace, "because the outlook of the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to the law of God, nor is it able to do so. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God" (Rom 8:5-8). That's total depravity.

It is worth noting that Roman Catholicism is a diverse tradition and some Catholics may have different interpretations of the doctrine of total depravity (e.g., St. Augustine).

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

see next post.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

The denial of human free will, known as "total depravity," is a central tenet of Calvinism. It is based on the belief that humanity is inherently sinful and incapable of choosing to follow God or do good on their own. This is in contrast to the belief in "free will," which holds that individuals have the ability to make choices independently of divine or supernatural influence.

Scripture references for the Calvinist doctrine of total depravity include:

• Romans 3:10-18, which states that "there is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands; there is no one who seeks God."
• Ephesians 2:1-3, which states that "as for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient."
• John 6:44, which states that "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them."

It is worth noting that Calvinism is a diverse tradition, and some Calvinists may have different interpretations of the doctrine of total depravity.

(This person, whom I shall call Xeno, is developing a history of refusing to interact with my criticisms in any substantive or even meaningful way. Therefore, I have not bothered to direct this criticism at him but have instead presented it for the reader's consideration and understanding.)

Either Xeno doesn't understand Calvinism and is accidently misrepresenting it, or he does understand Calvinism and is purposefully misrepresenting it. I would be legitimately surprised if he could accurately describe the doctrine (and then explain what is biblically wrong with it). In either case, he is also misrepresenting the options on the table.

First, (a) total depravity and (b) the denial of autonomous human free-will are related in an important way but they are categorically distinct things, hence, the one is not "known as" the other. Total depravity pertains to the fallen nature of the old humanity in Adam (we are inescapably sinners), whereas the denial of autonomous human free-will pertains to the self-existent God who is sovereign over all of his creation (God alone is autonomous, humans are not). One may speak of the former or the latter but one must not conflate them, for they are categorically distinct.

Second, his response is misleading because Calvinism likewise holds that "individuals have the ability to make choices independently of divine or supernatural influence" (i.e., his statement was not the "contrast" of Calvinist belief). Such choices and the acts which flow from them are called the works of the flesh and they are sinful because our old humanity is fallen in Adam. As explained by the doctrine of total depravity, we can make choices independent of God's influence but they are always and only sinful choices. This is in contrast to the works of the Spirit, which are choices we make that are dependent on God's influence—by definition (specifically the third person of the trinity). "Those who live according to the flesh have their outlook shaped by the things of the flesh"—that's us independent of God's influence—"but those who live according to the Spirit have their outlook shaped by the things of the Spirit"—that's us dependent on God's influence. The outlook of the flesh (that's of us) is death, but the outlook of the Spirit (that's of God) is life and peace, "because the outlook of the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to the law of God, nor is it able to do so. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God" (Rom 8:5-8). That's total depravity.

It is worth noting that Roman Catholicism is a diverse tradition and some Catholics may have different interpretations of the doctrine of total depravity (e.g., St. Augustine).

Xeno is my nickname. You are right to use it. You are wrong to claim I do not engage with your critiques; it is you who refused to deal with what was written without editing it to a point where I was unsure of what you wanted to discuss it in your posts (see the following post). I offered to discuss what was written but you did not respond. So, I concluded that you did not intend to discuss what was written in its context. If that is not the case then raise your objections again with the context of what I had written intact, a reply is likely to be given.

On the matter raised in your long post shown above:

If one is unable to will to do good because one's will has been curtailed by the fall and one is in bondage to wickedness then one's will is free only to choose between one wickedness and another. If that is accounted as human freedom then fine. That is the kind of freedom Calvinism teaches.​

But how does that pan out for the good that pagans, atheists, and religious-pseudo-Christians-of-every-kind non-Calvinists [Edit: this was sloppy usage, by it I mean (1) non-Christian major religions {this was, in my thinking, Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist as opposed to the ancient Roman world paganism of the first century}, (2) religions called Christian by their adherents but whose qualification as Christian is highly doubtful (religions such as Jehovah's witnesses, Latter Day Saints, Christadelphians, Christian Scientists, and any others of similar kind), (3) any denomination of Protestantism that may be regarded as effectively non-Christian because of embracing serious errors, such as oneness Pentecostals, some other Pentecostal groups that have had their orthodoxy questioned for good reasons, and other groups such as closed brethren and so forth.] do? Or is all their "goodness" filthy rags, nothing but wickedness all the time?

​

Further, I want to draw your attention to the concluding remark in the original post, which addresses your unwarranted claim of misrepresentation:​

It is worth noting that Calvinism is a diverse tradition, and some Calvinists may have different interpretations of the doctrine of total depravity.​

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Full disclosure: I am a Calvinist (in the Dutch Reformed tradition).

Are you prepared or willing to defend the Roman Catholic position on this matter?

What do you claim to be the Catholic position on this matter? Does it differ significantly from the contents of the original post in this thread?

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

With reference to the following quote

Full disclosure: I am a Calvinist (in the Dutch Reformed tradition).

Are you prepared or willing to defend the Roman Catholic position on this matter?​

I may be willing to discuss this​

The Catholic Church does not consider Calvinism, a theology developed by John Calvin in the 16th century, to be heretical. However, it does disagree with certain aspects of Calvinist theology, particularly the belief in double predestination, the doctrine that God predestines some individuals to eternal salvation and others to eternal damnation. The Catholic Church teaches that God desires the salvation of all humanity, and that every person has the free will to accept or reject God's grace.

You wrote

So, for you the problem with Calvinist predestination—or the idea that God determines in advance the damnation of anyone—is that "God desires the salvation of all humanity."

This, then, is my follow-up question: Does God know who will be damned?

— DialecticSkeptic

Knowing and deciding-to-act-so-as-to-cause-or-allow-their-damnation are the same thing in your thinking?

 

[Mark Quayle]

In fairness, some Calvinists do absolutely and explicitly deny there is any free will. From what I can tell, this is a minority of Calvinists (could be wrong though, I have no idea of the demographics), but it is held by some.

Choice is not Free Will. It doesn't even imply libertarian free will. The Calvinists, by far and large, do not like the term 'free will' because of the implications people currently think come along with it. But CHOICE? They insist that there is choice! Real effective choice.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Second, his response is misleading because Calvinism likewise holds that "individuals have the ability to make choices independently of divine or supernatural influence" (i.e., his statement was not the "contrast" of Calvinist belief). Such choices and the acts which flow from them are called the works of the flesh and they are sinful because our old humanity is fallen in Adam. As explained by the doctrine of total depravity, we can make choices independent of God's influence but they are always and only sinful choices. This is in contrast to the works of the Spirit, which are choices we make that are dependent on God's influence—by definition (specifically the third person of the trinity). "Those who live according to the flesh have their outlook shaped by the things of the flesh"—that's us independent of God's influence—"but those who live according to the Spirit have their outlook shaped by the things of the Spirit"—that's us dependent on God's influence. The outlook of the flesh (that's of us) is death, but the outlook of the Spirit (that's of God) is life and peace, "because the outlook of the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to the law of God, nor is it able to do so. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God" (Rom 8:5-8). That's total depravity.

If I read you right, it is *you*, (not xeno), who are saying Calvinism holds that "individuals have the ability to make choices independently of divine or supernatural influence", and farther on down, again, "As explained by the doctrine of total depravity, we can make choices independent of God's influence..." This catches my eye, because if I was to hear an Arminian say it, I would automatically think he is talking independent of causation —i.e., autonomous choice. To my mind God causes absolutely all things, either directly or through various means, (and even to say it that way implies substance to our way of describing what he does). Thus, God influences, at least through means, all decisions of the totally depraved, just as he directs all things. They are not capable of escaping that influence any more than they are capable of escaping the chain of causation. Their choices are not made in a vacuum. They are not little first causes.

But upon reading what is said in the second part of my last quote —"...but they are always sinful choices"— I think I understand what they mean by "divine or spiritual influence". They are not claiming that any choice can be made autonomously, outside of God's causation, but that the unbeliever has the ability to rebel —in fact, that all his decisions are rebellious— against the work of the Spirit of God and the Word of God.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Choice is not Free Will. It doesn't even imply libertarian free will. The Calvinists, by far and large, do not like the term 'free will' because of the implications people currently think come along with it. But CHOICE? They insist that there is choice! Real effective choice.

The Catholic Church teaches that free will is the ability of human beings to make choices that are not determined by fate or circumstance. It holds that God gave humans the ability to make choices and that these choices have moral value.

Calvinism, on the other hand, teaches that God has predestined certain individuals for salvation and that the human will is not truly free, but is instead subject to the sovereignty of God.

The Catholic Church references Bible passages such as Deuteronomy 30:19-20, in which God presents the choice between life and death, and Joshua 24:15, in which Joshua tells the Israelites to choose whom they will serve.

Calvinism references Bible passages such as Ephesians 1:4-5, which speaks of God's predestination of certain individuals for salvation, and Romans 9:16, which states that God has the right to show mercy to some and harden the hearts of others.

So the main difference between the Catholic Church's definition of free will and the Calvinistic definition is that the former maintains that human free will is a real power, while the latter maintains that God has predestined certain individuals and that human free will is subject to God's sovereignty.

 

[Mark Quayle]

The Catholic Church teaches that free will is the ability of human beings to make choices that are not determined by fate or circumstance. It holds that God gave humans the ability to make choices and that these choices have moral value.

Calvinism, on the other hand, teaches that God has predestined certain individuals for salvation and that the human will is not truly free, but is instead subject to the sovereignty of God.

The Catholic Church references Bible passages such as Deuteronomy 30:19-20, in which God presents the choice between life and death, and Joshua 24:15, in which Joshua tells the Israelites to choose whom they will serve.

Calvinism references Bible passages such as Ephesians 1:4-5, which speaks of God's predestination of certain individuals for salvation, and Romans 9:16, which states that God has the right to show mercy to some and harden the hearts of others.

So the main difference between the Catholic Church's definition of free will and the Calvinistic definition is that the former maintains that human free will is a real power, while the latter maintains that God has predestined certain individuals and that human free will is subject to God's sovereignty.

Yet, at least to my assessment, to say only that human free will is subject to God's sovereignty, while it is true, doesn't make it plain enough. 1. Our choices are established by God's sovereignty. 2. being "subject to" God's sovereignty, if to no other, implies, by the Immanence of God, that their every thought and deed is specifically 'under' God's sovereignty.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Yet, at least to my assessment, to say only that human free will is subject to God's sovereignty, while it is true, doesn't make it plain enough. 1. Our choices are established by God's sovereignty. 2. being "subject to" God's sovereignty, if to no other, implies, by the Immanence of God, that their every thought and deed is specifically 'under' God's sovereignty.

From a Catholic perspective, being "subject to" God's sovereignty does not imply that every thought and deed is specifically "under" God's sovereignty in the sense that human free will is not overridden or negated by God's sovereignty. The Catholic Church teaches that God has given human beings the ability to make choices and that these choices have moral value. God's sovereignty is understood to be consistent with the existence of human free will, rather than in opposition to it.

The Catholic Church teaches that God's sovereignty and human free will are not mutually exclusive but are rather complementary. The Immanence of God means that God is present in every aspect of human life and that God's providence is at work in the world, but it does not mean that God's sovereignty negates human free will. The Catholic Church holds that God respects human freedom and allows individuals to make choices that have consequences.

So, it is not accurate to say that "being "subject to" God's sovereignty, if to no other, implies, by the Immanence of God, that their every thought and deed is specifically 'under' God's sovereignty." in a sense that negates human free will.

 

[jameslouise]

Your THESIS is, it appears to me, not what you are saying in this post, but what you are leading up to —perhaps the "sting in the tail" you are reserving for the end of the layout of your argument.

If your thesis is only what you are saying, in the paragraph you begin with "My 'thesis' is", then I have to ask, "What's the big deal?". How is this at all contrary to, or a huge and significant addition to, Orthodoxy? Does Orthodoxy mistakenly define either of the two terms to a specific definition meaning more than simply FOTW? Why should Orthodoxy have dealt with it, if what you think IS true?

Anyhow, I need something to tie all this together to be making a point —that is, I need that point, to follow what you are saying. Whether you mean to or not, you are presenting a riddle, without even asking the question central to the riddle. You are perhaps giving hints at the answer, but no context. The riddle is not the thesis, and I'm not into playing riddles with you. That's the way JW etc operate, and I don't play well with them when they do that.

This is what this feels like to me: You are saying, "pockets are containers, not just fabric", without even asking, "What has it got in its pocketses, Preciousss?", when I haven't a clue who Gollum is. I don't mind arguing the statements you do say, but I need to know where you are going with it, or even where you are coming from, instead of sitting here thinking, "So what?"

More specifically, here is the sort of thing I'm blindly running into: You say, "Your stance is it just means Jesus would have to have carried this out' 'often'." Well, no. You might even be quoting me, but I never said it did not mean more or that more was not implied. You see, you took me to be dealing with it, IN YOUR CONTEXT, which I was not. I didn't know what your context was. I was only arguing against the notion that the point of the "often" was necessarily "yearly".

But, to move forward, I will try to deal with each of your points blindly, here, the best I can. You say:
"1. It does mean just 'often' It means the whole lot, a temple designed the same , blood of others the same etc
"2. Strictly speaking the term FOTW is before Adam sinned so sacrifices would not have to happen since the Genesis creation 6 days but until Adam fell-some indeterminate time after
"3. I do not think Jesus can carry out any sacrificial substitution process at all in the Abrahamic Covenant is established
"4. Jesus would have to carry out this process from the FOTW, so when these sacrificial systems as described in Hebrews 9 were in place is when He (Jesus) would have to start doing them himself I believe this is the time of The Abrahamic Covenant."

So, I say:
1. I expect you meant, 'doesn't', since the sentence doesn't mean anything to me as stated. But, ok, I think I'm following you so far, as you seem to mean this as leading into a logical progression or something.
2. Ok
3. Not sure what you mean, here. Are you saying "as established"? If so, Ok. (BTW, I'm not saying, as in 2, or 1, for that matter, that I agree. I'm just saying that I guess I follow you so far.)
4. You lost me here. I don't follow. Maybe you can diagram your logic?

@Mark Quayle Thanks for the constructive reply, much appreciated, Can I start a new thread for this as although my thesis does ultimately contribute against TULIP doctrine I am finding I have gone off at tangent and this is not relevant/helping to the main thread, that ok?

 

[jameslouise]

Since you haven't figured it out yet, I will spell it out very clearly for you: When you question or critique beliefs that I don't hold, there is quite literally nothing that requires a response from me. If you want a response from me, then question or critique something I actually believe, like Reformed theology or Calvinism.




That is incredibly condescending and rude. You ought to be aware that Christians don't have much interest in responding to people who display behavior that is so contrary to the Spirit of Christ. So, this is me now making you aware. And I can only pray that you don't shrug this off and persist in such worldly behavior, but instead pursue a more heavenly attitude. "If we live by the Spirit, let us also behave in accordance with the Spirit" (Gal 5:25).

Your rude comment is also inaccurate, for this doesn't have anything to do with my sensitivities. You were targeting beliefs that I don't hold. This thread is about Calvinism and as a Calvinist I am interested in defending that view. The notion of God having tricks up his sleeve or pulling Jedi mind-tricks is literally contrary to Calvinist theology, so your questions were not aimed at my beliefs.




Regarding the first premise: The passage you cited for support does not say that God wants everyone to be saved (universalism). It says that God wants "all people" to be saved, and in the verses immediately prior the person writing that epistle made it abundantly clear what he meant. He urged Timothy "that requests, prayers, intercessions, and thanks be offered on behalf of all people" (v. 1), by which he meant "even for kings and all who are in authority" (v. 2). He specified what he meant in that very letter. God is not the God of the common folk only. He is impartial—God is no respecter of persons, as the KJV puts it (Acts 10:34)—which means that those who belong to God are found in every station of life, from peasant class to ruling class. There is only one God, Paul pointed out, and one intermediary between God and humanity, Christ Jesus (v. 5). All Calvinists agree that God's elect includes kings and other people in authority. He is not the God of common folk only. The King of kings is the God of the ruling class, too. Everyone whom the Father gives to Jesus will come to him—including kings and emperors. Everyone who believes in the Son will not perish but have eternal life—even kings and emperors.

Regarding the second premise: Predestination is not something that God CAN do, but rather something he DOES do. God predestines people to be saved; and those he predestines are called; and those he calls are justified; and those he justifies are glorified (Rom 8:28-30). "Everyone whom the Father gives me will come to me," Jesus guaranteed, and the promise of God is that he will save every single one of them. "This is the will of the one who sent me," Jesus said, "that I should not lose one person of every one he has given me, but raise them all up at the last day." The will of the Father is that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him—even kings and emperors—will have eternal life; they will be raised up at the last day (John 6:37-40).

Regarding the third premise: Not everyone is saved, correct, because not everyone is given by the Father to the Son. How do we know that? Because Jesus said without any caveats, "Everyone whom the Father gives me will come to me." These are the sheep who belong to the Father and are entrusted to the Son, the great shepherd (John 10:11-16). And every single sheep who belong to God listens and responds to him, while those who are not his sheep don't listen and respond because they don't belong to God (cf. John 8:47); they are not his sheep: "You refuse to believe because you are not my sheep" (John 10:26). (You might be tempted to flip this verse on its head, acting as if Jesus said, "You are not my sheep because you refuse to believe"—but that's not what he said.)

Regarding the conclusion: God wants all people to be saved—not just Jews but people from every nation, tribe, people, and language ("I have other sheep that are not of this fold," Jesus said), and not just common folk but even kings and emperors. However, there are people who are not his sheep (John 10:26), who don't belong to God (John 8:47), who were not chosen before the foundation of the world (Eph 1:4), whose names haven't been eternally written in the Lamb's book of life (Rev 13:8; cf. 17:8). Everyone who has been appointed for eternal life will believe (cf. Acts 13:48), just as Jesus guaranteed when he said, "Everyone whom the Father gives me will come to me." Not can, not might—they will come, and Jesus will not lose a single one.




And nothing I just wrote above denies human choice. On Calvinism, human choice is not denied, but rather set in a biblical context.




We are talking about predestination. Think about what that term means. Your choices are not a destination.

But yes, if you are continuing to work out your salvation with awe and reverence, "the one bringing forth in you both the desire and the effort—for the sake of his good pleasure—is God" (Php 2:12-13).



Millions of them. Again, it's not as if Calvinism denies human choice. But your will is defined by a biblical context, namely, the works of the flesh and the works of the Spirit. The former comes from you, the latter is of God.

God doesn't make your decisions for you, but he does enable and empower you in making them (with regard to Christian living). As I pointed out just moments ago, he brings forth in you the desire and the effort to work out your salvation with awe and reverence. Some people plant the seed, others water it, but its growth is up to God (1 Cor 3:6-7). "No one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them," Jesus said (John 6:65), thus it is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus (1 Cor 1:30). This is why there is no room for boasting.




That depends entirely on what you mean by "free" when it comes to your will (by which you make choices). If your very existence depends entirely upon God in every moment, you're not free from him. So, immediately there is powerful limitation on what "free" can mean. God alone is autonomous; all else is from him, through him, and to him. Furthermore, those who are slaves to sin are certainly not free. They make enslaved choices. And Christians are slaves of God and the Lord Jesus Christ (Eph 6:6; cf. Jas 1:1; Php 1:1; Titus 1:1), so they're not free. True, we are freed from sin and are to live as freed people, and yet "not using your freedom as a pretext for evil but as God's slaves" (1 Pet 2:16).

So, what does "free" mean when you use it? And is your definition constrained by a biblical context?




The opportunity to be saved? What does that even look like? And is it something he does for absolutely everyone? If so, then why would Jesus say, "No one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them"? If the Father enables literally everyone, then Jesus's statement is fundamentally meaningless, akin to saying, "No one can come to me unless the Father has created them."

More importantly, if God wants to save everyone, and he enables everyone equally, then why doesn't he also give everyone to the Son to be saved by him? Remember, "Everyone whom the Father gives me will come to me," Jesus said, "and I shall lose none of all those he has given me, but raise them up at the last day." This is a direct question. Please provide a correspondingly direct answer.




"No trial has overtaken you that is not faced by others," Paul wrote. "And God is faithful: He will not let you be tried beyond what you are able to bear, but with the trial will also provide a way out so that you may be able to endure it" (1 Cor 10:13). It just might exceed our capability level—and I suspect that it usually does, for that is how we are spiritually grown—but God will provide a way out.




Of course I do, for that is what Calvinism teaches.




He does. He predestines the salvation of all his sheep, and salvation includes repentance and faith, which are described in Scripture as something God grants to us. It has been granted to you to believe in Christ Jesus (Php 1:29). Through the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ, you have been granted a faith as precious as that of the apostles (2 Pet 1:1), a faith that is through Jesus (Act 3:16; cf. Heb 12:2). As with Lydia, the Lord opens our heart to respond to the message of the gospel (Acts 16:14). Same with repentance: God grants to us the repentance that leads to life (Act 11:18; 2 Tim 2:25).

And so on.




I mean, what do you think being conformed to the image of his Son looks like? (That's all part of predestination.)




Indeed it will.

Thank you for the long and passionate reply . With no irony or sarcasm I loved it. But I am equally as passionate as you and I believe with all my heart that the TULIP doctrine has deterred and will deter people form salvation. it would have deterred me. I will not back off until you can show me scripture otherwise.
I have a question. I am trying to understand your thought process
Dialectic Skeptic says It says that God wants "all people" to be saved, and in the verses immediately prior the person writing that epistle made it abundantly clear what he meant. He urged Timothy "that requests, prayers, intercessions, and thanks be offered on behalf of all people" (v. 1), by which he meant "even for kings and all who are in authority" (v. 2). Are you saying that 'All people' means just people in authority? All people has a clear meaning to my mind and a quick look at its use says it does just mean that.
1 tim 2:4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth
Is it your stance that 'all' (pas) in this text just means kings and people in authority? I do not follow your logical steps? Same question @Mark Quayle

 

[jameslouise]

Since you haven't figured it out yet, I will spell it out very clearly for you: When you question or critique beliefs that I don't hold, there is quite literally nothing that requires a response from me. If you want a response from me, then question or critique something I actually believe, like Reformed theology or Calvinism.




That is incredibly condescending and rude. You ought to be aware that Christians don't have much interest in responding to people who display behavior that is so contrary to the Spirit of Christ. So, this is me now making you aware. And I can only pray that you don't shrug this off and persist in such worldly behavior, but instead pursue a more heavenly attitude. "If we live by the Spirit, let us also behave in accordance with the Spirit" (Gal 5:25).

Your rude comment is also inaccurate, for this doesn't have anything to do with my sensitivities. You were targeting beliefs that I don't hold. This thread is about Calvinism and as a Calvinist I am interested in defending that view. The notion of God having tricks up his sleeve or pulling Jedi mind-tricks is literally contrary to Calvinist theology, so your questions were not aimed at my beliefs.




Regarding the first premise: The passage you cited for support does not say that God wants everyone to be saved (universalism). It says that God wants "all people" to be saved, and in the verses immediately prior the person writing that epistle made it abundantly clear what he meant. He urged Timothy "that requests, prayers, intercessions, and thanks be offered on behalf of all people" (v. 1), by which he meant "even for kings and all who are in authority" (v. 2). He specified what he meant in that very letter. God is not the God of the common folk only. He is impartial—God is no respecter of persons, as the KJV puts it (Acts 10:34)—which means that those who belong to God are found in every station of life, from peasant class to ruling class. There is only one God, Paul pointed out, and one intermediary between God and humanity, Christ Jesus (v. 5). All Calvinists agree that God's elect includes kings and other people in authority. He is not the God of common folk only. The King of kings is the God of the ruling class, too. Everyone whom the Father gives to Jesus will come to him—including kings and emperors. Everyone who believes in the Son will not perish but have eternal life—even kings and emperors.

Regarding the second premise: Predestination is not something that God CAN do, but rather something he DOES do. God predestines people to be saved; and those he predestines are called; and those he calls are justified; and those he justifies are glorified (Rom 8:28-30). "Everyone whom the Father gives me will come to me," Jesus guaranteed, and the promise of God is that he will save every single one of them. "This is the will of the one who sent me," Jesus said, "that I should not lose one person of every one he has given me, but raise them all up at the last day." The will of the Father is that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him—even kings and emperors—will have eternal life; they will be raised up at the last day (John 6:37-40).

Regarding the third premise: Not everyone is saved, correct, because not everyone is given by the Father to the Son. How do we know that? Because Jesus said without any caveats, "Everyone whom the Father gives me will come to me." These are the sheep who belong to the Father and are entrusted to the Son, the great shepherd (John 10:11-16). And every single sheep who belong to God listens and responds to him, while those who are not his sheep don't listen and respond because they don't belong to God (cf. John 8:47); they are not his sheep: "You refuse to believe because you are not my sheep" (John 10:26). (You might be tempted to flip this verse on its head, acting as if Jesus said, "You are not my sheep because you refuse to believe"—but that's not what he said.)

Regarding the conclusion: God wants all people to be saved—not just Jews but people from every nation, tribe, people, and language ("I have other sheep that are not of this fold," Jesus said), and not just common folk but even kings and emperors. However, there are people who are not his sheep (John 10:26), who don't belong to God (John 8:47), who were not chosen before the foundation of the world (Eph 1:4), whose names haven't been eternally written in the Lamb's book of life (Rev 13:8; cf. 17:8). Everyone who has been appointed for eternal life will believe (cf. Acts 13:48), just as Jesus guaranteed when he said, "Everyone whom the Father gives me will come to me." Not can, not might—they will come, and Jesus will not lose a single one.




And nothing I just wrote above denies human choice. On Calvinism, human choice is not denied, but rather set in a biblical context.




We are talking about predestination. Think about what that term means. Your choices are not a destination.

But yes, if you are continuing to work out your salvation with awe and reverence, "the one bringing forth in you both the desire and the effort—for the sake of his good pleasure—is God" (Php 2:12-13).



Millions of them. Again, it's not as if Calvinism denies human choice. But your will is defined by a biblical context, namely, the works of the flesh and the works of the Spirit. The former comes from you, the latter is of God.

God doesn't make your decisions for you, but he does enable and empower you in making them (with regard to Christian living). As I pointed out just moments ago, he brings forth in you the desire and the effort to work out your salvation with awe and reverence. Some people plant the seed, others water it, but its growth is up to God (1 Cor 3:6-7). "No one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them," Jesus said (John 6:65), thus it is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus (1 Cor 1:30). This is why there is no room for boasting.




That depends entirely on what you mean by "free" when it comes to your will (by which you make choices). If your very existence depends entirely upon God in every moment, you're not free from him. So, immediately there is powerful limitation on what "free" can mean. God alone is autonomous; all else is from him, through him, and to him. Furthermore, those who are slaves to sin are certainly not free. They make enslaved choices. And Christians are slaves of God and the Lord Jesus Christ (Eph 6:6; cf. Jas 1:1; Php 1:1; Titus 1:1), so they're not free. True, we are freed from sin and are to live as freed people, and yet "not using your freedom as a pretext for evil but as God's slaves" (1 Pet 2:16).

So, what does "free" mean when you use it? And is your definition constrained by a biblical context?




The opportunity to be saved? What does that even look like? And is it something he does for absolutely everyone? If so, then why would Jesus say, "No one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them"? If the Father enables literally everyone, then Jesus's statement is fundamentally meaningless, akin to saying, "No one can come to me unless the Father has created them."

More importantly, if God wants to save everyone, and he enables everyone equally, then why doesn't he also give everyone to the Son to be saved by him? Remember, "Everyone whom the Father gives me will come to me," Jesus said, "and I shall lose none of all those he has given me, but raise them up at the last day." This is a direct question. Please provide a correspondingly direct answer.




"No trial has overtaken you that is not faced by others," Paul wrote. "And God is faithful: He will not let you be tried beyond what you are able to bear, but with the trial will also provide a way out so that you may be able to endure it" (1 Cor 10:13). It just might exceed our capability level—and I suspect that it usually does, for that is how we are spiritually grown—but God will provide a way out.




Of course I do, for that is what Calvinism teaches.




He does. He predestines the salvation of all his sheep, and salvation includes repentance and faith, which are described in Scripture as something God grants to us. It has been granted to you to believe in Christ Jesus (Php 1:29). Through the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ, you have been granted a faith as precious as that of the apostles (2 Pet 1:1), a faith that is through Jesus (Act 3:16; cf. Heb 12:2). As with Lydia, the Lord opens our heart to respond to the message of the gospel (Acts 16:14). Same with repentance: God grants to us the repentance that leads to life (Act 11:18; 2 Tim 2:25).

And so on.




I mean, what do you think being conformed to the image of his Son looks like? (That's all part of predestination.)




Indeed it will.

I have a question, lets drill down as I agree with much of what you say but not all
So, it is my will that I am typing this response, it was my will that I had a cup of coffee first and it is my will when I shake my head or smile or whatever it is me who initiates the command ,I, me then action that command.
So I was 'pricked by the Holy spirit and put in certain situations where i heard the gospel and I remember sitting on my parents sofa with my saved brother telling me about Jesus how it came to me that it well this was all true. i believe tHe Holy Spirit presented Jesus to me and like a magnet draws me to the truth.
Some time later I invited The Lord Jesus Christ into my life as Lord and savior. Whose will said those words?

 

[Mark Quayle]

From a Catholic perspective, being "subject to" God's sovereignty does not imply that every thought and deed is specifically "under" God's sovereignty in the sense that human free will is not overridden or negated by God's sovereignty. The Catholic Church teaches that God has given human beings the ability to make choices and that these choices have moral value. God's sovereignty is understood to be consistent with the existence of human free will, rather than in opposition to it.

The Catholic Church teaches that God's sovereignty and human free will are not mutually exclusive but are rather complementary. The Immanence of God means that God is present in every aspect of human life and that God's providence is at work in the world, but it does not mean that God's sovereignty negates human free will. The Catholic Church holds that God respects human freedom and allows individuals to make choices that have consequences.

So, it is not accurate to say that "being "subject to" God's sovereignty, if to no other, implies, by the Immanence of God, that their every thought and deed is specifically 'under' God's sovereignty." in a sense that negates human free will.

If the Catholic Church teaches that it is 'not so', it is therefore 'not so'? Lol (Just pickin' atcha)

I get your point. It actually, though from a slightly different route, comes to the same thing as most claim, that God being in total control negates free will. I don't know if you heard this argument before, but: If one in their consideration, removing God from causing their decisions, then can see that logically all things naturally are effects of causes, to include decisions, then what difference does it make to place God into the considerations as uncaused first cause?

The logic of causation has yet to be disproven; both scientists and philosophers depend on it, and theologians used to, though of late, elements of both are going the way of theologians. It does not mean that we are animals, as some claim, "mere animals with bigger brains and the corresponding capability for introspection." (I say that to those who consider that animals do not have free will, but are fleshly robots.) And the notion that our minds may be able to do more than we at first thought, and that to a fantastic degree, does not make us in any way independent of causation.