Is Calvinism a heresy?

[zoidar]

I think God has predetermined this thread will be closed pretty soon.

Edit: I don't mean it in an unkind way, you who hold to God predetermining all.

 

[QvQ]

So if God cannot handle situations that arise without Him planning every last detail, would you agree He's powerless? After all a chessmaster who has to play both sides of the board to win is not really much of a chessmaster, is he?

Are there two sides? Is there an equal match? God will win every hand no matter which side of the board He is on. And since there isn't any side other than God, the analogy is flawed. God is the only game in town.

It might lead to not believe in the God you have devised, but if you're wrong, then wouldn't that be a good thing?

I believe in the God who reveals Himself in His Holy Scripture.

In our world, which has the appearance, at least of a world where there are multiple chessplayers. There's Satan, there are despots that attack God's people, there are everyday people that reject God's right to tell them What to do. What you've told me is that unless God actually decreed for them to be exactly as they are, then God can't actually defeat them, right?

God is Supreme Sovereign, Almighty. God does not play games neither does He entertain game players. God has decreed all things to be exactly what they are, including having the capacity to corrupt His Creation (Satan) or to sin.
Sin is a capacity and a compulsion of a fallen nature. The reason that Satan is allowed or permitted to do this is for God's own reasons (His Good Pleasure) As a personal belief, I believe the one question (prayer) God will not answer is "Why?" That is in Job.
Only by the Grace of God through Jesus Christ our Lord can man be reconciled to God.


(I did not mean "atheist" pejoratively. If you do believe in the Nicene Creed then I will apologize and believe that we simply have different traditions in one faith.. My entire family is atheist so it does not carry the stigma I realized it might carry to Christians)

 

[maxamir]

Why would you say that? God's word is full of prophecies. And certainly He decrees some things.

Boy, that came out of left field.

Maybe I don't assume my theology, but try to get it from scripture. Where does the bible say Adam died spiritually, ever?

What is the purpose of that curse? Was it to make sure man couldn't repent? Yet isn't that exactly what He wants all men to do? So they won't perish?
2 Peter 3:9 KJV — The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.


That's funny...that's exactly how I pray about you!

Did you want to talk about any of that chart? I've been through many of the proof texts for tulip, and they aren't at all what they look like when you just list them in a chart.

You asked for Bible verses that confirmed that God decrees all things that come to pass and the lists that you see confirm that salvation belongs to the Lord and not to man because man is spiritually dead and can not do anything to save himself which is why Christ had to come, and three times in Revelation He is called the Alpha and the Omega , the beginning and the end which confirms the Scripture below.

Isa 46:10 Declaring the end from the beginning, And from ancient times things that are not yet done, Saying, 'My counsel shall stand, And I will do all My pleasure,'

Because He is supremely sovereign and timeless, He sees the past, present and future altogether at once and therefore decrees all things that come to pass including what happens to His creatures according to the good pleasure of His will.

Pro 16:9 A man's heart plans his way, But the LORD directs his steps.

Pro 16:33 The lot is cast into the lap, But its every decision is from the LORD.

Pro_21:1 The king's heart is in the hand of the LORD, Like the rivers of water; He turns it wherever He wishes

Those who do not trust in God decreeing all things can not have any hope that prophesies shall be fulfilled, that their prayers shall be answered or that all things work together for good to them as He promised.

I am amazed that you can not see that Adam died spiritually, as he certainly did not die physically on that day. As we have discussed previously, God is Spirit and His image is His Spirit which was given to Adam but when he fell into sin, he lost God's image and all his posterity came under a curse and that is confirmed in his son Seth being made in his cursed image and not God's (Gen 5:3). Jesus said men must be born again specifically because everyone is born in the cursed image of the devil.

God has decreed those that He will save before time and it is them that Christ came to save. God is not double minded and does not change. He does what He pleases and what He pleases He does (Psalm 115:3, 135:6). If God desired to save everyone, then there would be no Hell that he justly casts people in to (Luke 12:5) and Christ would not have rejoiced in some being blinded to the truth and said it was good for this to be done.

Luk 10:21 In that hour Jesus rejoiced in the Spirit and said, "I thank You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and prudent and revealed them to babes. Even so, Father, for so it seemed good in Your sight.

All of the listed proof texts for the Doctrines of Grace are based upon man's total depravity and unless the Lord humbles you by His grace to see His supreme sovereignty and shows you the true wickedness of your own heart, you will never understand them and this is why the Lord has put it into my heart to pray for you and all who falsely trust in themselves and their perserverance for their salvation.

 

[Mark Quayle]

The way I understand it is that in a logical series, if one premise is untrue then the entire modal collapses.
I think the ones who attack Tulip state that if one is disproven, then all are false because of the logical sequence.
It is an interesting topic. I don't know that much about it but it is a classic way to defeat a logical argument, which Aquinas' First Cause as proof of God is a logical argument.

Modal collapse

Modal collapse - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Concept in modal logic. In modal logic, modal collapse is the condition in which every true statement is necessarily true, and vice versa; that is to say, there are no contingent truths, or to put it another way, that "everything exists necessarily".

It is true that every true statement is necessarily true. It is true that everything that exists, necessarily exists. But that is a different use of 'necessary'.

God is love, God is truth, God is life. All other fact is contingent on him, but because it is contingent on HIM, all other fact is definitely fact.

If "modal collapse" implies that anything besides God is in and of itself existent or true, then it is a bogus notion. But I can see a way that it may be useful for argument when considering anything ontologically. It seems to me that we do this all the time.

 

[Mark Quayle]

The way I understand it is that in a logical series, if one premise is untrue then the entire modal collapses.
I think the ones who attack Tulip state that if one is disproven, then all are false because of the logical sequence.
It is an interesting topic. I don't know that much about it but it is a classic way to defeat a logical argument, which Aquinas' First Cause as proof of God is a logical argument.

Seems to me that there is more to it than that. I mean, if a premise upon which a logical sequence rests, is untrue, of course the rest of it collapses. That's just common sense.

What I looked up in Wiki didn't sound like that, but more like, if something is true it is necessarily true. And if something exists, it is necessarily true it exists. But to me, that use of "necessary" isn't in the usual philosophical sense, or if it is, then nothing relates to God for its truth or its existence, which is bogus, of course. The ontology of a thing is only a discussion of what that thing is, and not a declaration of its reality apart from its creator.

 

[QvQ]

Seems to me that there is more to it than that. I mean, if a premise upon which a logical sequence rests, is untrue, of course the rest of it collapses. That's just common sense.

What I looked up in Wiki didn't sound like that, but more like, if something is true it is necessarily true. And if something exists, it is necessarily true it exists. But to me, that use of "necessary" isn't in the usual philosophical sense, or if it is, then nothing relates to God for its truth or its existence, which is bogus, of course. The ontology of a thing is only a discussion of what that thing is, and not a declaration of its reality apart from its creator.

I think I still have the videos of the way it was used in a discussion of Divine Simplicity. I will send them to you in a private message as this is off topic.

 

[John Mullally]

You asked for Bible verses that confirmed that God decrees all things that come to pass and the lists that you see confirm that salvation belongs to the Lord and not to man because man is spiritually dead and can not do anything to save himself which is why Christ had to come, and three times in Revelation He is called the Alpha and the Omega , the beginning and the end which confirms the Scripture below.

Isa 46:10 Declaring the end from the beginning, And from ancient times things that are not yet done, Saying, 'My counsel shall stand, And I will do all My pleasure,'

God can prophetically declare the “end from the beginning” because He has neither an end nor a beginning, being timeless and eternal. The Bible does not state that God caused the end from the beginning, though Calvinists teach that that’s the only way God could infallibly know the end from the beginning.

Declaring and causing are not the same things. For example, according to 1 Corinthians 15:1, Paul makes known the gospel. So, does that mean that Paul caused the gospel? Or, instead does it mean that he is revealing what the gospel already is? This is why it is improper to automatically conflate declaring with causing.

Pro 16:33 The lot is cast into the lap, But its every decision is from the LORD.

Similarly, Proverbs 29:26 states: “Many seek the ruler’s favor, but justice for man comes from the LORD.” Regarding the use of lots, Jonah 1:6-7 states: “So the captain approached him and said, ‘How is it that you are sleeping? Get up, call on your god. Perhaps your god will be concerned about us so that we will not perish.’ Each man said to his mate, ‘Come, let us cast lots so we may learn on whose account this calamity has struck us.’ So they cast lots and the lot fell on Jonah.” The Old Testament contains several examples of lots being used in such a manner and which was necessary for direction since the Holy Spirit had not yet been given. Today, believers do not cast lots since we have a much more intimate relationship with the Lord. However, the same principle still applies, since when we truly seek God’s will, He will guide us: “Trust in the Lord with all your heart and do not lean on your own understanding. In all your ways acknowledge Him, and He will make your paths straight.” (Proverbs 3:5-6)

As further example, lots were used to designate land assignments. A lot was used to detect the sinner, Achan. Punishment against the tribe of Benjamin was determined by lot. Jonah’s role in the great storm was detected by lot. Essentially, people were seeking direction from God in situations where they had no other way to discern truth. When the lot was used obediently, the action expressed commitment to do as God willed. The method of the lot itself is insignificant. For instance, David used an ephod to obtain direction from God. (1 Samuel 23:9-13) Gideon used a fleece to obtain confirmation from God. (Judges 6:37-40) Whether it was a lot, an ephod or a fleece, it really made no difference, so long as there was a desire to seek the Lord and be obedient to Him, who gives wisdom and controls the outcome. So to use this passage as a proof-text for absolute determinism, in which God controls the outcome of lots in all random occurrences is problematic since all random occurrences may not involve God’s will being sought, nor carry a pre-commitment of obedience to God in whatever is the outcome.

Pro_21:1 The king's heart is in the hand of the LORD, Like the rivers of water; He turns it wherever He wishes

This speaks of God’s ability to influence and effect outcomes, and it stands to reason that God could do this for any person and in any scenario, should God wish it. For example, I can turn my dog’s attention whenever I wish, but that doesn’t mean that I always do so. Establishing God’s ability over a king’s will doesn’t disprove free human agency, but rather establishes it. After all, what is there for God to overcome or guide if not the autonomous will of His subject? Why turn a will left that wants to go right if you’re already controlling the want of that will (as Calvinist's assert)?

If, according to Calvinists, God has brought all things to pass by His unchangeable decree, then what is it in the heart of this ruler that God is now turning or restraining except that which He has already decreed? For example, suppose the ruler of Proverbs 21:1-3 wanted to rape his servant but God restrains him from acting upon his lustful intention. From the Calvinist perspective, where did the ruler’s lustful intention originate? Did God not sovereignly bring about the ruler’s evil desire, and then by the same decree also restrain him from acting upon that desire? In such a case, God would merely be restraining His own determinations in a world where there are no autonomously free creatures. It is nonsensical to suggest God is restraining a will that He has already been meticulously controlling. The passage doesn’t make any sense unless there is free-will, in which under divine influence, a new course is being directed.

 

[Derf]

You asked for Bible verses that confirmed that God decrees all things that come to pass and the lists that you see confirm that salvation belongs to the Lord and not to man because man is spiritually dead and can not do anything to save himself which is why Christ had to come, and three times in Revelation He is called the Alpha and the Omega , the beginning and the end which confirms the Scripture below.

This is a good list, maxamir. Let's talk about them.

Isa 46:10 Declaring the end from the beginning, And from ancient times things that are not yet done, Saying, 'My counsel shall stand, And I will do all My pleasure,'

Because He is supremely sovereign and timeless, He sees the past, present and future altogether at once and therefore decrees all things that come to pass including what happens to His creatures according to the good pleasure of His will.

This is one of my favorite verses, because it explains exactly what God's decrees are about...His own pleasure. One of the things that Calvinists say is part of God's decree is the death of the wicked, right? But we also know what about the death of the wicked? That it ISN'T God's pleasure.
[Eze 18:23 KJV] Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord GOD: [and] not that he should return from his ways, and live?

God tells us 2 things here. 1. That He does not desire the death of the wicked, and 2. That He wants the wicked to repent and live.
Now, Calvinism says that God doesn't mean what He says in that verse...that He desires the death of the wicked because He decreed it. And Calvinism also says that only God can change a man's heart such that he turns from his sins and lives. Yet God says He doesn't like it when the wicked don't turn. Is God not powerful enough to do His pleasure? Won't His counsel stand and He will fulfill all His desires? Yet the wicked still die in their sins.

That means that God allows man's choices to trump even His own pleasure in at least some cases.

Pro 16:9 A man's heart plans his way, But the LORD directs his steps.

Does this mean that God has determined from eternity past everything that will happen to "a man"? Of course not. It means that while a man might make plans based on his own thoughts and desires, God is able to overcome the man's strength and purpose anytime He wants to. But does that mean God always wants to overcome a man's strength and purpose? No. Sometimes even the most evil of men are allowed to continue for awhile. Does that mean that God was directing Hitler's steps, causing him to exterminate 6 million Jews? If so, then Hitler was doing exactly what God wanted him to do, and if we are obeying God, then we aren't sinning, right? This is the confusion that Calvinism creates.

Pro 16:33 The lot is cast into the lap, But its every decision is from the LORD.

I had a friend who was an elder at a Reformed church I attended for awhile. He used this verse to justify asking advice from one of those Magic 8 Ball toys. You can see how he was...um...misinformed by what Calvinists use this verse for.

Pro_21:1 The king's heart is in the hand of the LORD, Like the rivers of water; He turns it wherever He wishes

Have you ever turned a river of water? Even a little one? I have, as have most kids, playing in a stream. It's not too difficult to do it on a small scale. There are two ways to turn a river: 1. Dig lower where you want the river to flow, or 2. Build an embankment where you don't want it to flow. You can see how God does this, right? In Moses' time, he got Pharaoh to get mad at the Israelites so that when he finally let them go, it was obvious that he was defeated. And God did it by Moses' miracles and the lesser plagues. In Joshua's time, God helped the Israelites to defeat Canaanite cities by tearing down their walls and by stopping the sun. He put fear in their hearts by defeating Pharaoh and other nations.

Those who do not trust in God decreeing all things can not have any hope that prophesies shall be fulfilled, that their prayers shall be answered or that all things work together for good to them as He promised.

I'm surprised that you think so little of God that in order for prophecies of Jesus (for example) to be fulfilled, God has to decree what you will have for breakfast tomorrow.

I am amazed that you can not see that Adam died spiritually, as he certainly did not die physically on that day.

Can you provide me the scripture where God said Adam would die "on that day"? There are actually a couple of translations that say "on the day", but they are anomalous. Most say "in the day". Does "in the day" always mean "on the day" in scripture? It does sometimes, but certainly not always. Interestingly enough, the first time "in the day" is used is not when God told Adam he would die after eating of the tree, but it IS in the same chapter.
[Gen 2:4 KJV] These [are] the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens

How many days does "in the day" mean in Genesis 2:4? If it doesn't mean a single day in Gen 2:4, why would you think it has to mean a single day in Gen 2:17?

Have you ever looked up the phrase "in the day" in a modern english dictionary? The most recognizable usage is "back in the day". You no doubt think that "back in the day" means "one time during a single 24 hour period", right? Of course not. It means "during a particular phase or era". It means the same in both places in Gen 2. The first was the era of creation, 6 days. The second was the era of Adam, which turned out to be over 900 years long.

As we have discussed previously, God is Spirit and His image is His Spirit which was given to Adam but when he fell into sin, he lost God's image and all his posterity came under a curse and that is confirmed in his son Seth being made in his cursed image and not God's (Gen 5:3). Jesus said men must be born again specifically because everyone is born in the cursed image of the devil.

If Adam lost God's image, then why did God tell Noah to implement the death penalty for anyone who killed another man because God made man in His own image?
[Gen 9:6 KJV] Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.

God has decreed those that He will save before time and it is them that Christ came to save.

I thought God loved and wanted to save "the world" (John 3:16). How is it that "the world" is how Jesus defines His followers in John 3:16, when He also said that "the world" would hate His followers? Are you saying that Jesus' followers are going to hate Jesus' followers? Maybe so, if this thread is any indication.

God is not double minded and does not change. He does what He pleases and what He pleases He does (Psalm 115:3, 135:6). If God desired to save everyone, then there would be no Hell that he justly casts people in to (Luke 12:5) and Christ would not have rejoiced in some being blinded to the truth and said it was good for this to be done.

If God desires to save everybody, but some don't want to be saved, who gets to decide? Apparently the people, and not God.
[Luk 13:34 KJV] O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen [doth gather] her brood under [her] wings, and ye would not!

Luk 10:21 In that hour Jesus rejoiced in the Spirit and said, "I thank You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and prudent and revealed them to babes. Even so, Father, for so it seemed good in Your sight.

And what do you think that means? I think it means that the religious leaders are not the ones that necessarily benefit from God's grace, but anyone who trusts in God can benefit.

All of the listed proof texts for the Doctrines of Grace are based upon man's total depravity and unless the Lord humbles you by His grace to see His supreme sovereignty and shows you the true wickedness of your own heart, you will never understand them and this is why the Lord has put it into my heart to pray for you and all who falsely trust in themselves and their perserverance for their salvation.

Then why do you argue in forums such as this? You have no hope to convince me, unless I need no convincing. Calvinism is a useless doctrine. Those that get it don't need it. Those that need it won't ever get it.

 

[Derf]

Are there two sides? Is there an equal match? God will win every hand no matter which side of the board He is on. And since there isn't any side other than God, the analogy is flawed. God is the only game in town.

Jesus called Satan "the adversary". Are you saying there is no adversary? Should I believe you are Jesus on this? But Calvinism says that even the Devil is only doing what God wants him to do. Thus, Calvinism says Satan is NOT in rebellion. Neither is anyone else. So why, if everyone is only doing what God wants Him to do, is there a place of torment reserved for the Devil and his angels?

I believe in the God who reveals Himself in His Holy Scripture.

God is Supreme Sovereign, Almighty. God does not play games neither does He entertain game players. God has decreed all things to be exactly what they are, including having the capacity to corrupt His Creation (Satan) or to sin.

Capacity? What you just said is that God decreed that people would sin--not just have some kind of "capacity" to sin. You talk out of both sides of your mouth.

Sin is a capacity and a compulsion of a fallen nature.

Sin is a capacity? I thought sin was doing something God told us not to do, like murder. I have the capacity to murder...I could take a gun and go shoot someone, but I've never done it. Since I have that capacity, what you are telling me is that I am guilty of murder. Do you really mean that? I don't think Calvin even went that far.

The reason that Satan is allowed or permitted to do this is for God's own reasons (His Good Pleasure) As a personal belief, I believe the one question (prayer) God will not answer is "Why?" That is in Job.

Actually, we are given the "why" in Job, even though Job wasn't told why.
[Job 2:3 KJV] And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that [there is] none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil? and still he holdeth fast his integrity, although thou movedst me against him, to destroy him without cause.

Only by the Grace of God through Jesus Christ our Lord can man be reconciled to God.

I agree with this wholeheartedly.

(I did not mean "atheist" pejoratively. If you do believe in the Nicene Creed then I will apologize and believe that we simply have different traditions in one faith.. My entire family is atheist so it does not carry the stigma I realized it might carry to Christians)

Thank you! It's not the stigma that concerns me, but that when someone believes in God differently than you do, then somehow that makes him an atheist.

I'm very hesitant to make the Nicene Creed the standard by which we judge Christ's servants.

 

[Derf]

Wrong.

right

How do you come to that conclusion? If God is THE First Cause, and Omniscient and, of course, Omnipotent, how is it even possible that something could come to pass apart from his decreeing it to be so?

Did God decree that Hezekiah would die from the sickness he had when Sennacharib was besieging Jerusalem, or did He decree that Hezekiah would die 15 years later?
[2Ki 20:1 KJV] In those days was Hezekiah sick unto death. And the prophet Isaiah the son of Amoz came to him, and said unto him, Thus saith the LORD, Set thine house in order; for thou shalt die, and not live.
[2Ki 20:5 KJV] Turn again, and tell Hezekiah the captain of my people, Thus saith the LORD, the God of David thy father, I have heard thy prayer, I have seen thy tears: behold, I will heal thee: on the third day thou shalt go up unto the house of the LORD.
Both of these statements were words of the Lord. Both were delivered on the same day. But the messages are 180 degrees apart. They can't both be true if God decreed what was to happen from before time began.
So which one was God's real decree?

There is no other first cause, no other principle, no other law, no other fact, that can come to bear without his specifically intending that it do so.

What does "come to bear" mean? Are you saying that God has to approve of our sin in order for us to commit it? That God has to WANT us to sin, or we never will?

I certainly hope you mean, "it logically has to be" —not that HE HAS TO. God isn't obligated to do anything. They are not first causes. They are "immediate causes".

But your logic is the same as 100 others who think God operates on our level. To you, the word "responsible" can only mean "to blame" if what comes to pass is bad. Therefore, to you, it makes no difference who is the immediate cause, and who decreed all things. Your only way out, in the end analysis, is to assume that mere chance holds a power over what God has decreed.

Are you saying that a human being, made in the image of God, can only make a chance decision? That when Adam named the animals, the words that came out of his mouth were just some random gobbledygook? And God, knowing it would be gobbledygook, was eager to see what those names would be?? Why would God create anyone that way. That's much worse than the normal "robot" argument we usually use when speaking of Calvinism.

Why do you not think God is capable of making a real intelligance being, when man is already making artificial intelligence "creatures" that are capable of assimilating data and using it to a great degree? Why do you give God so little credit? Calvinism, and whatever it is you hold to, pretends to be an erudite theology, but it is insulting to God and man at the same time.

 

[Derf]

The Bible does not state that God caused the end from the beginning, though Calvinists teach that that’s the only way God could infallibly know the end from the beginning.

Actually, I agree with Calvinists that Is 46:10 is stating that God can declare the end from the beginning because He will cause the end to come about as He desires. I can't see how you can get anything else from that verse. The part-to-whole fallacy that says because He can cause the ending He desires, He therefore has to be causing every little thing in between is where I disagree with them.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Absolutely believe in the Nicene Creed.

Derf may be a different faith or religion that still believes in the Nicene Creed.

Then I believe that you ought to apologize to him for calling him an atheist.

 

[John Mullally]

Actually, I agree with Calvinists that Is 46:10 is stating that God can declare the end from the beginning because He will cause the end to come about as He desires. I can't see how you can get anything else from that verse. The part-to-whole fallacy that says because He can cause the ending He desires, He therefore has to be causing every little thing in between is where I disagree with them.

I don't see this or other scriptures stating that God directly causes all His declared end. I believe God uses His body of Christ to accomplish much of this (Romans 8:37, Matthew 16:17-19, and Daniel 11:32).

I think we agree that it is good to avoid speculating on how God operates based upon making questionable interpretation of scriptures.

 

[oikonomia]

Does anyone know if John Calvin was pleased to know that some who read his writings adhered to something called "Calvinism?"

Does anyone think John Calvin would have been pleased to know that there are Christians who today refer to themselves as "Calvinists?"

 

[Mark Quayle]

Mark Quayle said:
How do you come to that conclusion? If God is THE First Cause, and Omniscient and, of course, Omnipotent, how is it even possible that something could come to pass apart from his decreeing it to be so?

Did God decree that Hezekiah would die from the sickness he had when Sennacharib was besieging Jerusalem, or did He decree that Hezekiah would die 15 years later?
[2Ki 20:1 KJV] In those days was Hezekiah sick unto death. And the prophet Isaiah the son of Amoz came to him, and said unto him, Thus saith the LORD, Set thine house in order; for thou shalt die, and not live.
[2Ki 20:5 KJV] Turn again, and tell Hezekiah the captain of my people, Thus saith the LORD, the God of David thy father, I have heard thy prayer, I have seen thy tears: behold, I will heal thee: on the third day thou shalt go up unto the house of the LORD.
Both of these statements were words of the Lord. Both were delivered on the same day. But the messages are 180 degrees apart. They can't both be true if God decreed what was to happen from before time began.
So which one was God's real decree?

Moving the goalposts. (You're dealing with a separate question.) Answer the question, "If God is THE First Cause, and Omniscient and, of course, Omnipotent, how is it even possible that something could come to pass apart from his decreeing it to be so?"

What does "come to bear" mean? Are you saying that God has to approve of our sin in order for us to commit it? That God has to WANT us to sin, or we never will?

You make these sudden irrelevant comments. What does "approve of" and "WANT" have to do with God causing that something be so? He is not man, to think the way we do, and to act according to fickle feelings.

Are you saying that a human being, made in the image of God, can only make a chance decision? That when Adam named the animals, the words that came out of his mouth were just some random gobbledygook? And God, knowing it would be gobbledygook, was eager to see what those names would be?? Why would God create anyone that way. That's much worse than the normal "robot" argument we usually use when speaking of Calvinism.

Quite the opposite! Where do you get THAT notion, that I think that man can only make chance decisions. It is Arminianistic, even Pelagian, to suppose that man can make a decision uncaused, implying mere chance. That isn't me.

Why do you not think God is capable of making a real intelligance being, when man is already making artificial intelligence "creatures" that are capable of assimilating data and using it to a great degree? Why do you give God so little credit? Calvinism, and whatever it is you hold to, pretends to be an erudite theology, but it is insulting to God and man at the same time.

Nice. Somehow you think that real intelligence involves being a small first cause, capable of decisions without being caused by influences and preferences to make a decision. If you want to go there, explain how it is possible to make any decision at all, if one is indifferent to all options.

I'm not talking about God's capability. It is you who suppose that God is or is not capable of doing something self-contradictory. You may as well ask if God is capable of not existing. The notion is ludicrous, but you give it substance anyhow.

You continue to misrepresent Calvinism.

 

[QvQ]

Jesus called Satan "the adversary". Are you saying there is no adversary? Should I believe you are Jesus on this? But Calvinism says that even the Devil is only doing what God wants him to do. Thus, Calvinism says Satan is NOT in rebellion. Neither is anyone else. So why, if everyone is only doing what God wants Him to do, is there a place of torment reserved for the Devil and his angels?

Adversary of man. A battle between God and devil is dualism and denies God's absolute power. There can't be any contest between God and devil because Satan has limited powers.

Capacity? What you just said is that God decreed that people would sin--not just have some kind of "capacity" to sin. You talk out of both sides of your mouth.

Capacity = Ability.
Compulsion = Temptation
It is the nature of man. He can and he does.

Sin is a capacity? I thought sin was doing something God told us not to do, like murder. I have the capacity to murder...I could take a gun and go shoot someone, but I've never done it. Since I have that capacity, what you are telling me is that I am guilty of murder. Do you really mean that? I don't think Calvin even went that far.

You recognize the ability (capacity). It is a natural ability of man and a compulsion (temptation)

Actually, we are given the "why" in Job, even though Job wasn't told why.
[Job 2:3 KJV] And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that [there is] none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil? and still he holdeth fast his integrity, although thou movedst me against him, to destroy him without cause.

I agree with this wholeheartedly.

"even though Job is not told why."

Thank you! It's not the stigma that concerns me, but that when someone believes in God differently than you do, then somehow that makes him an atheist.

When God is merely an intellectual concept, a theoretical possibility, then that is atheism.
I have a friend who can quote the Bible, has it memorized who uses it to convince people God is a fairy tale. "All I need is one quote."
I was raised by stone cold atheists. God did not exist. Even if He did exist, He was unnecessary and irrelevant.

I'm very hesitant to make the Nicene Creed the standard by which we judge Christ's servants.

Walk the walk and talk the talk
The Nicene Creed is a standard for the talk. If Christians are talking, then talk in the terms of the Nicene Creed.

 

[Derf]

I don't see this or other scriptures stating that God directly causes all His declared end.

I disagree. God specifically says how He knows what to declare.

Isaiah 46:10 KJV — Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:
The word "saying" connects the two action thoughts, explaining the first (things not yet done) by the second (I will do). He started this world, and He will finish it. He is the alpha and omega, the beginning and end. Gen 1-2 tells us how He started it. Revelations is His declaration of how He will end it. But Is46 is talking about much more than just the world as a whole. He also started Israel as a nation. He raised up the nation's that came to take them out of the land. He promised them He would bring them back after 70 years, and He did it. I could go on and on.

I believe God uses His body of Christ to accomplish much of this (Romans 8:37, Matthew 16:17-19, and Daniel 11:32).

Certainly!

I think we agree that it is good to avoid speculating on how God operates based upon making questionable interpretation of scriptures.

At risk of losing an ally, I think we are free to speculate, where God doesn't tell us explicitly, on how God does things, as long as we don't dogmatize our speculations.

For instance, studying the stars has led to much speculation about how God made them, what materials they are made of, and how they came to be arranged as they are. But if we then say those speculations are more accurate than God's word on how long it took Him to do it, we run great risk of being wrong and doing damage to His people by causing them to disbelieve what God says.

So if God says that He declares (decrees is a synonym here, I think) because He will perform it, we shouldn't then say God does not declare nor accomplish what He declares.

And just in case we didn't get the message in Is 46:10, God explains it more clearly THREE TIMES in the very next verse:
Isaiah 46:11 KJV — Calling a ravenous bird from the east, the man that executeth my counsel from a far country: yea, I have spoken it, I will also bring it to pass; I have purposed it, I will also do it.

 

[Derf]

Adversary of man. A battle between God and devil is dualism and denies God's absolute power. There can't be any contest between God and devil because Satan has limited powers.

How about this one:

Psalm 83:1-2 KJV — A Song or Psalm of Asaph. Keep not thou silence, O God: hold not thy peace, and be not still, O God. For, lo, thine enemies make a tumult: and they that hate thee have lifted up the head.

Whose enemies are they?

Capacity = Ability.
Compulsion = Temptation

Temptation is NOT equal to compulsion. God does not tempt, we are told, yet you say God compels us to do things by tempting us beyond our capacity to resist.
Here's the primary definition of compulsion (it's easy to look up online...you should try it some time)
the action or state of forcing or being forced to do something; constraint.
Adam and Eve were not forced by God to eat of the tree, but they were tempted to do so. Calvinism says they were forced, and if that's the case, then they are not culpable for their sin. This is the foolishness of Calvinism.

It is the nature of man. He can and he does.

You recognize the ability (capacity). It is a natural ability of man and a compulsion (temptation)

See above.

"even though Job is not told why."

Do you read scripture the same way, completely ignoring the parts you don't agree with? I think we can see a definite pattern here.

When God is merely an intellectual concept, a theoretical possibility, then that is atheism.

I'm not sure that's what atheism is, but can you find in anything I've written that I think of God as merely an intellectual concept? Anything?? I didn't think so. Them please stop wasting time knocking down straw men.

I have a friend who can quote the Bible, has it memorized who uses it to convince people God is a fairy tale. "All I need is one quote."
I was raised by stone cold atheists. God did not exist. Even if He did exist, He was unnecessary and irrelevant.

That's too bad...I'm glad you have recognised both God's existence and His power. I hope one day you will also recognize His truthfulness in His word.

Walk the walk and talk the talk
The Nicene Creed is a standard for the talk. If Christians are talking, then talk in the terms of the Nicene Creed.

Is the Nicene Creed inspired? Does it belong in the Canon of scripture? Don't you think we should judge the Nicene Creed, as well as ourselves, by the scripture over the creeds? I'm not saying anything bad about the creeds...there is good theological truth in them. But they are interpretations, and sometimes extrapolations, of biblical concepts, and they can be wrong.

 

[QvQ]

Psalm 83:1-2 KJV — A Song or Psalm of Asaph. Keep not thou silence, O God: hold not thy peace, and be not still, O God. For, lo, thine enemies make a tumult: and they that hate thee have lifted up the head.

That basically states that men who love God are under attack by those who hate God and man is calling upon God for aid and protection.

Temptation is NOT equal to compulsion. God does not tempt, we are told, yet you say God compels us to do things by tempting us beyond our capacity to resist.
Here's the primary definition of compulsion (it's easy to look up online...you should try it some time)
the action or state of forcing or being forced to do something; constraint.
Adam and Eve were not forced by God to eat of the tree, but they were tempted to do so. Calvinism says they were forced, and if that's the case, then they are not culpable for their sin. This is the foolishness of Calvinism.

However:
You stated that Christ engineered the betrayal of Judas. You said Christ knew Peter would deny Him because of subtle hints. You made these claims to disprove that Christ as God could know the future. (post 970)

Therefore, that means Christ tempted those two, actually compelled Judas and tempted Peter, through subtle hints. (forewarned Peter)

1) Then Christ was God compelling and tempting
2) Or Christ was not God, merely a man arranging
Which?

[Job 2:3 KJV] And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that [there is] none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil? and still he holdeth fast his integrity, although thou movedst me against him, to destroy him without cause.

""thou movest me against him" The way in which Satan moved God against Job was by ASKING God.
That is a What answer, What God and Satan did, not Why God withdrew His hand from Job or consented to Satan's request.

As you said, Job could be a subject for another thread.

 

[Derf]

Mark Quayle said:
How do you come to that conclusion? If God is THE First Cause, and Omniscient and, of course, Omnipotent, how is it even possible that something could come to pass apart from his decreeing it to be so?

It is possible if He gives power to those He creates to create in turn, sort of like an aspect of God's image.
You can see how it would be impossible for you to create a programmable robot that would then do something different from what you program it to do. But do you think God is limited to creating robots? (Hint: yes, you do, if you're a Calvinist)

Moving the goalposts. (You're dealing with a separate question.) Answer the question, "If God is THE First Cause, and Omniscient and, of course, Omnipotent, how is it even possible that something could come to pass apart from his decreeing it to be so?"

Its a different side of the same coin.

You make these sudden irrelevant comments. What does "approve of" and "WANT" have to do with God causing that something be so? He is not man, to think the way we do, and to act according to fickle feelings.



Quite the opposite! Where do you get THAT notion, that I think that man can only make chance decisions. It is Arminianistic, even Pelagian, to suppose that man can make a decision uncaused, implying mere chance. That isn't me.

I don't know any Arminians that think man's decisions imply mere chance. That was my point--that you think they think that, and therefore misrepresent Arminianism. And now you've confirmed it.

Nice. Somehow you think that real intelligence involves being a small first cause, capable of decisions without being caused by influences and preferences to make a decision.

Influences are not causes. They influence, but are not alone in the forcing of decisions. Unless you're a calvinist, apparently. Then every decision you make was made by someone other than you. A useless doctrine, because it makes people, if they actually believe it, not act when they need to.

If you want to go there, explain how it is possible to make any decision at all, if one is indifferent to all options.

Who said anyone is indifferent to all options? You complain about misrepresentation, then proceed to only misrepresent.

I'm not talking about God's capability. It is you who suppose that God is or is not capable of doing something self-contradictory.

Then you do think God is capable of creating a creature that can think and act and make decisions based in the available data, yet not be predestined/decreed to every decision he makes? Nothing you've written suggests you think God is capable of such.

You may as well ask if God is capable of not existing. The notion is ludicrous, but you give it substance anyhow.

A straw man not worthy of comment.

You continue to misrepresent Calvinism.

I don't need to. You are saying all the things I'm suggesting comes from Calvinism.