My questions

[razeontherock]

So the basic concepts John Calvin taught have always shocked me, but I've never encountered anyone adhering to them as a means of learning what they really are, before coming upon CF. It's time for me to re-evaluate, and if I'm missing something I'd like to find out what it is.

Starting simply:

There is TONS of Scripture saying that God loves everything; all creation, etc. That He's good, faithful. Then there's that whole "whosoever shall call on the Name of the LORD" thing. I kinda think I'm a "whosoever," and find that pretty foundational. This seems to be in conflict with the doctrine of predestination?
For example a local Church just sent many missionaries to a Latvian orphanage. Calvinism seems to imply they are abandoned and hopeless because God simply didn't elect them, which would make the missionary's efforts completely wasted. How do you harmonize all this?


Then there's the Priesthood, which just so happens to be an office my Lord and Savior holds. What's left for Him to be doing currently in order for Calvinistic doctrine to hold true? For instance, what about "He ascended on high and gives gifts to men?"

What about the OT sacrifices, when the child of Abraham brought the animal to the Priest, and confessed their sin to the Priest? It was then that the Priest transferred that sin to the animal. None of that has any bearing? (Of course I realize there is no more sacrifice for sin, His death took care of all that and He's not dying any more.)

It seems to me the action of confessing the sin to the OT Priest, and the Priest laying that sin on the head of the animal, needs to have a real-time, current reality for our union with Christ to persevere. This seems to be in conflict with the Calvinistic position of Salvation, or something called "monergy?"

That's a good start, two very different issues. After I can wrap my head around that I'm sure I'll have more. Thanks in advance,

Ray

 

[mlqurgw]

So the basic concepts John Calvin taught have always shocked me, but I've never encountered anyone adhering to them as a means of learning what they really are, before coming upon CF. It's time for me to re-evaluate, and if I'm missing something I'd like to find out what it is.

Actually they were first taught by the Apostle Paul. They go by the name of Calvin because he was the first to set them in a logical order. Up until that time there was no systematized theology as there is today. The early writers weren't seeking to set down doctrine in a systematic manner but dealing with issues of their day.

Starting simply:

There is TONS of Scripture saying that God loves everything; all creation, etc. That He's good, faithful. Then there's that whole "whosoever shall call on the Name of the LORD" thing. I kinda think I'm a "whosoever," and find that pretty foundational. This seems to be in conflict with the doctrine of predestination?

Calvinists believe in whosoever will very much. We just don't believe in whosoever won't. The natural man will not come to Christ, John 5:40. The natural man hates God and His salvation because it takes man's will and worth out of the picture. The doctrine of election doesn't teach that God chose who will be saved and left it at that. It teaches that God chose a people and also ordained the means by which they will come to faith in Christ. Election leaves no one out who wants to come. It simply teaches that those who come do so because they have been chosen of God. When it comes to the love of God I must ask you a question: What king of love is it that has the power to give all to the object of love but doesn't? What kind of love is it that stands by and pleads with the object of love to get out of danger? No, love gives all freely and snatches the object of love out of the way of harm. What would you think of a father who stands by and pleads with his child to get out of the way of an oncoming semi truck? Not much I am sure. You would probably expect them to be taken to jail. Those whom God loves He saves. He is able to do it and willing to do it. If a man is saved it is God who did it. If a man is damned it is because they would not have Christ. Man is saved by God's will and damned by his own will.

For example a local Church just sent many missionaries to a Latvian orphanage. Calvinism seems to imply they are abandoned and hopeless because God simply didn't elect them, which would make the missionary's efforts completely wasted. How do you harmonize all this?

We can actually preach the Gospel with much more confidence than those who believe in free will. We know that God has an elect people in the world to whom the Gospel much be preached. We also know that when we preach the Gospel the elect will hear and believe. Election isn't salvation but unto salvation. 2Thess. 2:13

Then there's the Priesthood, which just so happens to be an office my Lord and Savior holds. What's left for Him to be doing currently in order for Calvinistic doctrine to hold true? For instance, what about "He ascended on high and gives gifts to men?"

As our Great High Priest He stands forever as our representative before God. I am not sure how you think Calvinism denies this.

What about the OT sacrifices, when the child of Abraham brought the animal to the Priest, and confessed their sin to the Priest? It was then that the Priest transferred that sin to the animal. None of that has any bearing? (Of course I realize there is no more sacrifice for sin, His death took care of all that and He's not dying any more.)

It seems to me the action of confessing the sin to the OT Priest, and the Priest laying that sin on the head of the animal, needs to have a real-time, current reality for our union with Christ to persevere. This seems to be in conflict with the Calvinistic position of Salvation, or something called "monergy?"

The act of confessing to the priest was typical as there was no actual transference of sin to the animal. The book of Hebrews makes this very clear. Now who was it that transferred the sin? Was it the priest or was it God? You seem to believe that sin is transferred to Christ when we confess it but that isn't the case. If it were then Christ must die again each time sin is confessed. God made Him to be sin for us who knew no sin, 2Cor. 5:21. The transfer took place in time when Christ bore our sin in His own body on the tree. 1Pet. 2:24 The transaction is done. That fact is the whole point of the Gospel. He put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. He didn't make it possible to be put away. He purged our sin not make it possible to be purged. He obtained eternal redemption not made it possible to be obtained. Heb. 1:3, 9:12, 26. The Gospel consists in what Christ has done and accomplished not what He will accomplish if you allow Him.

That's a good start, two very different issues. After I can wrap my head around that I'm sure I'll have more. Thanks in advance,

Ray

I hope that helps. I may not be able to respond much, if at all, more as my computer is broken. I am using some one else's right now.

 

[razeontherock]

Ok, this one reply certainly gave me a lot to think about. I'll separate things out, beginning with what I embrace as the Good News:

If a man is saved it is God who did it. If a man is damned it is because they would not have Christ.

As our Great High Priest He stands forever as our representative before God.
He obtained eternal redemption not made it possible to be obtained.

Calvinists believe in whosoever will very much. We just don't believe in whosoever won't. The natural man will not come to Christ, John 5:40. The natural man hates God and His salvation because it takes man's will and worth out of the picture. The doctrine of election doesn't teach that God chose who will be saved and left it at that.

Now things that I would like to accept, but this seems too simplistic:

You seem to believe that sin is transferred to Christ when we confess it but that isn't the case. He put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. He didn't make it possible to be put away. He purged our sin not make it possible to be purged. The Gospel consists in what Christ has done and accomplished not what He will accomplish if you allow Him.

Man is saved by God's will and damned by his own will.

"If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves." So how is all sin "put away," once for all? We can see it in ourselves, and read about it in the papers. The pat answer of "not by the Elect" doesn't fly, according to 1 John 1:8.

You're saying they're "purged" even while we're committing sin?

That confessing our sins either isn't necessary, or it accomplishes nothing? Seems to me the OT Priest hearing the confession and placing his hand on the head of the animal to be sacrificed was looking ahead to 1 John 1:9, written once we can now rely on the power of Jesus' finished work on the cross. And the all-important aspect of cleansing us from all unrighteousness is in the present tense, ongoing. This seems to me to be in conflict with the bulk of the snip above.

How is our own will not involved in confession of sin?

And a new question, is sin itself (indwelling sin) a moral agent of it's own? Or is all of that really just our "old man?"

It teaches that God chose a people and also ordained the means by which they will come to faith in Christ. Election leaves no one out who wants to come. It simply teaches that those who come do so because they have been chosen of God.

Ok that reads nice but it also implies that God chose many (in comparison to few) who will never want Salvation. Just so He can damn them? Still seems to fly in the face of everything I know of God. Yes he has the right to do this, but ... perfect segue to

When it comes to the love of God I must ask you a question: What kind of love is it that has the power to give all to the object of love but doesn't?

Red herring. We have all things pertaining to life and Godliness. We also know all things, yet here we are asking questions of each other.

Part of this paradox seems to me to be the difference btw eternal Spirit and temporal us, which seems to address the previous snip.

Also we have the illustration in Daniel, of God having sent the answer, but it was detained and therefore not yet received. We also have "my people suffer for the lack of knowledge." Seems to be plenty of precedent for God to provide for (fill in the blank), yet we have not yet received, (fill in this blank the same way) and our action / will / etc will affect the outcome. So how does a Calvinist reconcile this?

What kind of love is it that stands by and pleads with the object of love to get out of danger? No, love gives all freely and snatches the object of love out of the way of harm.

The argument of irresistible Grace. I've resisted God's Grace plenty. I fail even at that! I don't think anybody would argue that just caring about Holiness and being victorious over sin is proof of God's election. And that wanting to be diligent about making both calling and election sure is too. Yet in your analogy, this "snatching" is entirely dependent also on our co-operation, is it not?

Those whom God loves He saves.

This implies God steadfastly hates many from birth. Jacob / Esau, yes I know he has the right to, but ...

We can actually preach the Gospel with much more confidence than those who believe in free will.

This might baffle me as much as pre-destination. How is free will something to be believed in? I must be missing what Calvinists mean by the term.

 

[mlqurgw]

Ok, this one reply certainly gave me a lot to think about. I'll separate things out, beginning with what I embrace as the Good News:



Now things that I would like to accept, but this seems too simplistic:


"If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves." So how is all sin "put away," once for all? We can see it in ourselves, and read about it in the papers. The pat answer of "not by the Elect" doesn't fly, according to 1 John 1:8.

You're saying they're "purged" even while we're committing sin?

That confessing our sins either isn't necessary, or it accomplishes nothing? Seems to me the OT Priest hearing the confession and placing his hand on the head of the animal to be sacrificed was looking ahead to 1 John 1:9, written once we can now rely on the power of Jesus' finished work on the cross. And the all-important aspect of cleansing us from all unrighteousness is in the present tense, ongoing. This seems to me to be in conflict with the bulk of the snip above.

How is our own will not involved in confession of sin?

And a new question, is sin itself (indwelling sin) a moral agent of it's own? Or is all of that really just our "old man?"



Ok that reads nice but it also implies that God chose many (in comparison to few) who will never want Salvation. Just so He can damn them? Still seems to fly in the face of everything I know of God. Yes he has the right to do this, but ... perfect segue to



Red herring. We have all things pertaining to life and Godliness. We also know all things, yet here we are asking questions of each other.

Part of this paradox seems to me to be the difference btw eternal Spirit and temporal us, which seems to address the previous snip.

Also we have the illustration in Daniel, of God having sent the answer, but it was detained and therefore not yet received. We also have "my people suffer for the lack of knowledge." Seems to be plenty of precedent for God to provide for (fill in the blank), yet we have not yet received, (fill in this blank the same way) and our action / will / etc will affect the outcome. So how does a Calvinist reconcile this?



The argument of irresistible Grace. I've resisted God's Grace plenty. I fail even at that! I don't think anybody would argue that just caring about Holiness and being victorious over sin is proof of God's election. And that wanting to be diligent about making both calling and election sure is too. Yet in your analogy, this "snatching" is entirely dependent also on our co-operation, is it not?



This implies God steadfastly hates many from birth. Jacob / Esau, yes I know he has the right to, but ...



This might baffle me as much as pre-destination. How is free will something to be believed in? I must be missing what Calvinists mean by the term.

Before I respond again I must ask a question: are you actually seeking answers or a debate? If you are looking to debate the truth of God I will not engage in that with you. If you are looking for help understanding what Calvinists believe I will be glad to answer any questions and try to clear up any confusion I may cause. But I will not enter into a defense of the truth of God. I never seek to make a Calvinist out of anyone for all that would do is to convince them to abandon one system for another. Truth isn't about coming to a system it is about knowing Christ and His work.

 

[razeontherock]

I agree, "converting to Calvinism" isn't something that makes any sense to me; we're all bought by the same blood. You seem to be a group with some conviction, and I might be missing something. My questions pinpoint what I'm aware of that I just don't see how anyone could think what Calvin wrote.

Apparently Calvinists not only think it but hold it to be true. If somebody could explain how that is, I'd appreciate it. Is that not the purpose of this particular forum?

If you (collectively) can't, I'll have to assume the ideas fall like a house of cards.

 

[heymikey80]

"If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves." So how is all sin "put away," once for all? We can see it in ourselves, and read about it in the papers. The pat answer of "not by the Elect" doesn't fly, according to 1 John 1:8.

You're saying they're "purged" even while we're committing sin?

Fact is, they're imputed -- assessed or evaluated or reckoned -- on the basis of our faith.

That faith comes to people by God's choosing, not by our own wills.

And they'd better be. Of course people can be caught and die in the midst of sin.

That confessing our sins either isn't necessary, or it accomplishes nothing?

Not on its own, no. It's actually a result, not a cause of forgiveness. And to be honest, "confession" is not a vocal & verbal recounting of sins. That would be the "penance oriented" medieval shallowness of the depth of the Greek term. The Greek term essentially means that we are coming to an understanding of our sins that agrees with God's.

If you think we need to confess to each & every sin we've ever committed to be saved -- then the ship's sunk already. You're in sins yourself right this red-hot minute. So am I. We don't know God's heart on each of our actions. Even of those we do, we often disagree, by rationalizing, by denial, or just by plain hard stubbornness.

Net result: if this is what John means at 1 Jn 1:8, nobody's saved.

No, what it means is that we are coming into agreement with God about our sins -- we are in the process of learning the horror of our sins before God and in the process of turning away from them. If we say we have no sin, we're lying to ourselves and God. If we are agreeing with God about our sins, God is being faithful to forgive and cleanse us from all sin. Note where the universality is, and thus where it isn't.

Seems to me the OT Priest hearing the confession and placing his hand on the head of the animal to be sacrificed was looking ahead to 1 John 1:9, written once we can now rely on the power of Jesus' finished work on the cross. And the all-important aspect of cleansing us from all unrighteousness is in the present tense, ongoing. This seems to me to be in conflict with the bulk of the snip above.

Pointedly, the Atonement initiates a process that cleanses from all sin. The sacrifice is once for all. But sanctification itself is a process. Just as the Jewish race received sacrifice through Moses, but was also involved in sanctification through Moses, through learning and law and love.

How is our own will not involved in confession of sin?

Nobody said the human will isn't involved -- the issue is whether the human will is the initiative or cause. That's the exclusive purview of God's will (Rom 9:16).

And a new question, is sin itself (indwelling sin) a moral agent of it's own? Or is all of that really just our "old man?"

Is the old man a moral agent of its own? What's the origin of indwelling sin? Did it come from outside and work into some pure heart of the "old man"?

Calvinism itself doesn't have one particular response here. In fact there are "outside-in" attacks on the will. But there are also "inside-in" responses of your human will -- corrupted moral agency from within.

As Calvinism is "both and not one, alone", specific Scriptures on what "indwelling sin" means, may vary from Calvinist to Calvinist. Both forms of corruption are embraced in Calvinism, but what each author may mean at a particular point, that varies to some extent.

Ok that reads nice but it also implies that God chose many (in comparison to few) who will never want Salvation.

There're numerous assumptions here that aren't shared in Calvinism.

-1) Scripture actually refers to a whole lot of people on both sides of salvation. A few? How about "a whole lot; yeah a remnant but a whole lot more than expected."

-2) Choice is a quisling of a term here. Scripture never uses this term: y'know what term it uses? Destined. 1 Pt 2:8 The basis for this destination is the person's own corrupted will. And what brought it to corruption? Human history (Rom 1:18ff, Rom 5:12ff). Who reinforced and wallowed in their corruption? Human individual will (again, Rom 1:18ff). Why is condemnation the destination of human sinfulness, though? Well, because God ordained the condemnation of sinful people for their own sinfulness (Rom 3:5-9, :10-19). He ordained the Last Judgment against all sin and sinfulness in Creation.

Just so He can damn them? Still seems to fly in the face of everything I know of God.

Y'mean, like, Romans 9:19-23?

Look, no one is saying humans are created solely so God condemns them. There are hundreds of other things that human creation means -- God's patience, God's power in creation, God's willingness to show good toward evil to demonstrate His love, even when that love doesn't extend to salvation.

So "just so" -- eliminate that thought. It's not "just so". Reality isn't that simplistic. Neither is Calvinism.

I would point out, though, that every theology that recognizes God as omniscient has to address this point. So ... be careful. The theology you rhetorically stomp on may not be limited to Calvinism.

Red herring. We have all things pertaining to life and Godliness. We also know all things, yet here we are asking questions of each other.

As John says, we need reminders. The question itself is very valid, and very poignant, considering that it's not a red herring. Let's take it to one thing in particular.

Was everyone in the world given salvation or not? Is that some part of "all things"? Is every human being given "all things"? Obviously that extreme compromises the assertion Peter is making. 2 Peter 1 is addressed to Christians, not everyone. Scripture in numerous places pronounces condemnation on the wicked. Nothing says everyone's saved.

And the fact is, not every human being has all things pertaining to life and godliness.

So narrowing a bit, we in our current status as Christians have all things pertaining to life and godliness. Paul doesn't say we know everything that is. In fact, if that's God, then it's clearly impossible to know God completely. So ... not quite the direction Paul was going in. We have everything. We're not aware of everything.

Also we have the illustration in Daniel, of God having sent the answer, but it was detained and therefore not yet received. We also have "my people suffer for the lack of knowledge." Seems to be plenty of precedent for God to provide for (fill in the blank), yet we have not yet received, (fill in this blank the same way) and our action / will / etc will affect the outcome. So how does a Calvinist reconcile this?

God's foreordination of events as well as our regeneration and sanctification:

this divine grace of regeneration does not act in people as if they were blocks and stones; nor does it abolish the will and its properties or coerce a reluctant will by force, but spiritually revives, heals, reforms, and--in a manner at once pleasing and powerful--bends it back. As a result, a ready and sincere obedience of the Spirit now begins to prevail where before the rebellion and resistance of the flesh were completely dominant. It is in this that the true and spiritual restoration and freedom of our will consists. Thus, if the marvelous Maker of every good thing were not dealing with us, man would have no hope of getting up from his fall by his free choice, by which he plunged himself into ruin when still standing upright. Canons of Dordt -- 3.16​

The argument of irresistible Grace. I've resisted God's Grace plenty. I fail even at that! I don't think anybody would argue that just caring about Holiness and being victorious over sin is proof of God's election. And that wanting to be diligent about making both calling and election sure is too. Yet in your analogy, this "snatching" is entirely dependent also on our co-operation, is it not?

Note the word you use: "co-operation". You're stating that it takes us operating along with God. That's an ambiguous term, and an ambiguous requirement. Obviously you resisted. Hm. so you're not saved, because it would've taken you cooperating along with God?

I'm sure your position has an answer to this, normally involving, "I changed my mind."

What if it weren't you who changed your mind? What if you had God to thank for that, instead? (2 Thess 2:13, John 6:29, Pp 1:29, Rom 9:13-23, Rom 8:30,38-39).

That's the point. Our willful involvement with God is not our operation, but God's operation on our wills.

So, to use the term "cooperation" would be too strong a word. Yes, we're involved. Yes, we're willfully responding to God. But we're responding to God out of His work on our hearts (Pp 1:6).

This implies God steadfastly hates many from birth. Jacob / Esau, yes I know he has the right to, but ...

Well, actually, Romans 9 says not "I have a right to" but "I hated".

This might baffle me as much as pre-destination. How is free will something to be believed in? I must be missing what Calvinists mean by the term.

Free will is a viewpoint, is it not? You either believe in a viewpoint or you don't, do you not?

 

[razeontherock]

Thank you for the honest effort to address this! Much of it is, as I'd hoped, merely my own misunderstanding of Calvinism or ignorance of it, and nothing different from my own understanding from purely reading the Bible. A few questions remain:

Fact is, they're [sins] imputed -- assessed or evaluated or reckoned -- on the basis of our faith.

As I read the statements here by Calvinists, I'm left with the impression we have no part in our own faith either. I hope you recognize that simply doesn't sit well, even though I do agree Scripture is clear all our faith comes from God. Your above statement I have no issue with, but because it is so vitally important I don't want to assume anything!

So I need to point out the conflict btw us having our sins imputed to the cross of Christ (and everything associated with that) as a final act we have no say over, accomplished before we were born; vs. something we have a part in, and is dependent upon our co-operation with God's plan to be effectual. I agree w/ the latter, but this seems to brush away the Calvinist position I see on here so often, that the Gospel is "He put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. He didn't make it possible to be put away. He purged our sin not make it possible to be purged. He obtained eternal redemption not made it possible to be obtained." I like the idea very much, and agree Salvation is an instantaneous gift and sanctification is ongoing; but so far I haven't been able to read the Calvinist position on this, which still seems contradictory to me, as being explained by that simple difference.

Nobody said the human will isn't involved -- the issue is whether the human will is the initiative or cause.

While this was in response to my question about confession, it would also hold to the above inquiry into the process of imputation of sin wouldn't it? If so, maybe this angle will be an easier way to gain clarity on the issue(s) where I'm still murky on what Calvinism actually claims. So we have God's sovereign calling, choosing, destined, or more likely that problematic term predestination, causing Faith to begin with, leading to us being declared the righteousness of God in Christ Jesus. I have no problem with that. Then we have our will involved, and maybe a good analogy is it functions like the rudder on a ship; a key element, but tiny by comparison. Still good.

This scenario produces the problem that those whom God caused to confess their sins (sticking to what you actually said, in case my thinking is off) can still wind up in hell, due to our own problematic will. (Whether it's free or not, and what that means is as yet an unopened can of worms.) From what little I know of it's claims, this still seems to me to cause problems for Calvinism. Maybe it'd be better for me to leave it at that and see how (collectively) you might address that, rather than to continue to struggle with words.

Is the old man a moral agent of its own? What's the origin of indwelling sin? Did it come from outside and work into some pure heart of the "old man"?

Calvinism itself doesn't have one particular response here. In fact there are "outside-in" attacks on the will. But there are also "inside-in" responses of your human will -- corrupted moral agency from within.

As Calvinism is "both and not one, alone", specific Scriptures on what "indwelling sin" means, may vary from Calvinist to Calvinist. Both forms of corruption are embraced in Calvinism, but what each author may mean at a particular point, that varies to some extent.

Ok this subject matter is much easier. (Whew!) The old man has nothing pure in it's heart. We may not be able to identify indwelling sin, but we have problems from multiple sources, most notably the flesh, the world, and the devil. These correspond perfectly to the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life. Command of just that much was enough for Jesus to overcome His temptation in the wilderness even w/o the Holy Ghost, and in a figure you could even say He overcame the world at that time. Does He ever have the right to Judge every one of us!

Now when you say

"As Calvinism is "both and not one, alone","

are you meaning you don't base Doctrine on one stand alone Scripture? Does that also mean you don't discard multiple meanings?

-1) Scripture actually refers to a whole lot of people on both sides of salvation. A few? How about "a whole lot; yeah a remnant but a whole lot more than expected."

Ok poll numbers aren't in yet. This still gets to the single most difficult issue within Calvinism for me, and I expect for many others as well: I'm seeing a picture painted of God that creates many people specifically for hell, and the question arises why not just create them in hell in the first place? Their life can't possibly result in anything else. I carry it to the extreme to illustrate a point, and I'm still hoping what I'll find is my own lack of understanding of what Calvinism claims. So far I see you saying their life means more than just condemnation, but God's love doesn't extend to their Salvation. If they somehow had no eternal consequences, I could see a complete picture of God's Justice, but now I'm being facetious.

This next part isn't a question at all, but our agreement is so strong I want to touch base on it.

The basis for this destination is the person's own corrupted will. And what brought it to corruption? Human history (Rom 1:18ff, Rom 5:12ff). Who reinforced and wallowed in their corruption? Human individual will (again, Rom 1:18ff).

This also highlights my conception to date, that God's "election" has to include all of fallen mankind; and my main problem is - it sure doesn't look like it!

I would point out, though, that every theology that recognizes God as omniscient has to address this point.

Of God's Judgment, yes. Of God's predestination for all of mankind to be corrupt in will, (and every other aspect) have Christ's passion mirror that state perfectly, yet have by all accounts more than half of our species' destiny to be the lake of fire? No. Is the difference (btw Calvinism and other theologies on this point) really that simple? I'm hoping to find I'm missing something.

not every human being has all things pertaining to life and godliness.

So narrowing a bit, we in our current status as Christians have all things pertaining to life and godliness.

This is quite a can of worms in itself! Going by empirical evidence, a strong case could be made that if these two statements were true our papers would read very differently, and world history over the last 2,000 years would be quite a bit different as well. So I hope we agree that the difference btw what we manifest vs our Spiritual inheritance (potential) seems to have a greater impact on Earth than I can see Calvinism accounting for.

So, to use the term "cooperation" would be too strong a word. Yes, we're involved. Yes, we're willfully responding to God. But we're responding to God out of His work on our hearts (Pp 1:6).

Well put. Pp = what?

Putting this together with the next snip, you're are in fact saying God sovereignly predestinated to steadfastly hate more than half of our species?

Well, actually, Romans 9 says not "I have a right to" but "I hated". [Jacob/Esau]

 

[mlqurgw]

OK it seems you do actually desire to know what we believe rather than just a debate. I must say, though, that I in no way speak for all Calvinists. There are differing views among Calvinists on several issues. But when it come to the doctrines of grace commonly called TULIP we all pretty much agree. Though not all of us take them to the same extent. I am what may be called a High Calvinist. Others may be called middle or low Calvinists. That is why you may not get the exact same answers from all of us.

OK, this one reply certainly gave me a lot to think about. I'll separate things out, beginning with what I embrace as the Good news:

It seems that you, like most, have only a view of Calvinism that is spread by its opponents. Hopefully we can dispel the falsehoods and clear up the truth.

Now things that I would like to accept, but this seems too simplistic:

The truth is simple. It is when we try to add or take away from the truth that it becomes complicated. Here is the simple truth: All Adam's descendants are dead in trespasses and sins and deserve nothing from God but eternal destruction and wrath. God is not obligated to save anyone. He would be just and right if He damned all. But He delights in mercy. Yet His mercy is sovereign mercy. He told Moses in Ex. 33 when Moses asked Him to show him His glory that His glory is His sovereign mercy. He said to Moses " I will be merciful to whom I will be merciful." That is why Paul says in Rom. 9 that it is not of him that wills or of him that runs but of God who shows mercy. God chooses whom He will be merciful to and leaves the rest to their own wills. He not only gives the damned their due but what they willingly run to. To the elect He gives grace, which can only be defined as unmerited favor, and lovingly does all that is required for them to be saved. They earn nothing from God by anything they do nor do they save themselves by an act of their wills. The elect are saved because God determined to save them and sent His Son to do all that was required to accomplish their salvation. He is their wisdom, righteousness, sanctification and redemption, 1Cor. 1: 30. Because Christ Jesus has done all the Spirit comes to each chosen sinner and applies the grace of God in saving faith to each at the appointed time by the preaching of the Gospel of Christ. The Spirit gives life and faith in Christ so that the sinner looks to Him alone and not to himself. The sinner sees in Christ all that God requires of him. The Spirit's work is described in John 16: 8-11. All who believe in the finished work of Christ apart from themselves are saved. Faith is the evidence of salvation and life in Christ not the cause of it. We are not saved because we believe we believe because God in Christ has saved us. The focus is not on man but on Christ. He was born of a woman and made under the Law as the servant of God in order to bring in an everlasting righteousness that God can and will accept. He took the sin of the elect as His own and died under the wrath of God putting away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. He rose again the third day because God in justice was satisfied and death could no longer hold Him. Sin is gone for all whom He died. God no longer can in justice count it against any for whom Christ died. Her made a complete atonement for sin and justice has no claim on any for whom He suffered, died and rose again. That is why the good news is good news. He left nothing for the sinner to do in order to be accepted of God. He did it all and looking to His work as the substitute I can rest in Him. Telling a God hating sinner that he can be saved if he will only make a decision or exercise his depraved is not good news. Telling a dead man that he can live if he will only exercise his will and choose Christ is pointless. A dead man can do nothing. But if the Spirit of God in mercy and grace gives that dead man life faith in Christ is the natural result. All true believers willingly come to Christ because the Spirit has applied the Gospel of salvation in Christ alone to their hearts giving them faith and life in Him. I came to Christ because I was made to know that He was all I needed and all I could hope in. No sinner will ever come to Christ until he truly has no other hope.

"If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves." So how is all sin "put away," once for all? We can see it in ourselves, and read about it in the papers. The pat answer of "not by the Elect" doesn't fly, according to 1 John 1:8.

Being a sinner is what qualifies me to be saved. And yes all my sin that I have done, am doing or will do has been put away by Christ. He took all my sin before I was ever born and suffered because of it. If that isn't the case then what did He do? Everywhere the Scriptures speak of the death of Christ they speak of it as accomplishing something. Everywhere the Scriptures speak of the atonement of Christ they speak of it as an accomplished fact. I do not deny my sin but I do deny that God deals with me as a sinner. He can't because Christ has purged, blotted out, put away, and covered all my sin. He did it when He died on the cross. He bore my sin in His own body on the tree and in Him is no sin.

You're saying they're "purged" even while we're committing sin?

If they aren't then none are saved. BTW it isn't me that is saying it it is God who says it. Heb. 1:3

That confessing our sins either isn't necessary, or it accomplishes nothing? Seems to me the OT Priest hearing the confession and placing his hand on the head of the animal to be sacrificed was looking ahead to 1 John 1:9, written once we can now rely on the power of Jesus' finished work on the cross. And the all-important aspect of cleansing us from all unrighteousness is in the present tense, ongoing. This seems to me to be in conflict with the bulk of the snip above.

Do you even know what all your sins are you must confess? No confession of sin is not reciting a list or even going over the sins you know about. It is knowing that in your self is nothing but sin. It is taking sides with God against yourself. It is confessing before God that in yourself you deserve nothing but wrath.

How is our own will not involved in confession of sin?

Only those who have been made to know what sin truly is will confess it. They are made to know it by the Spirit's work giving them a new will.

And a new question, is sin itself (indwelling sin) a moral agent of it's own? Or is all of that really just our "old man?"

Sin is not a thing that we do but a matter of the heart. We commit sin because our hearts are by nature sinful. The old man does not die while we live in this body of death but all believers are made new creatures in Christ. We still have the old man in us which fights against the new man. Gal. 5:17,Rom. 7:14-25. Sin, by its very nature, is immoral. All sin is rebellion against God. It is a product of unbelief. We are not sinners because we commit sin but we sin because we are sinners. Sin is not an outward act but an inward principle.

Ok that reads nice but it also implies that God chose many (in comparison to few) who will never want Salvation. Just so He can damn them? Still seems to fly in the face of everything I know of God. Yes he has the right to do this, but ... perfect segue to

All whom God chose He makes to desire salvation. He does so by showing them the depravity of their hearts. The leper didn't come to Christ seeking mercy because he was clean. He came because he knew he was a leper. The elect of God may be a small number in any generation but the Scriptures clearly declare that they are as the stars of the sky and as innumerable as the sand of the sea. A multitude that no man can number. The only reason you think it implies that God chose some just in order to damn them is because you start from the premise that God intends to save all. The Scriptures nowhere declare that.

Red herring. We have all things pertaining to life and Godliness. We also know all things, yet here we are asking questions of each other.

No red herring at all but a legitimate question. Believers have all things that pertain to life and godliness but unbelievers are never told that they do. Unbelievers are told that the wrath of God abides on them not the love of God. John 3:36. To claim that God loves those whom He ends up pouring out wrath upon is to say that His love is meaningless.

Part of this paradox seems to me to be the difference btw eternal Spirit and temporal us, which seems to address the previous snip.

I disagree. All believers are eternal beings. All temporal things will soon be destroyed. God's love is described as an everlasting, or eternal, love. It has nothing to do with temporal things in the sense of salvation. Certainly it is manifested in temporal ways to believers but only because it is eternal. I simply don't see the paradox.

Also we have the illustration in Daniel, of God having sent the answer, but it was detained and therefore not yet received. We also have "my people suffer for the lack of knowledge." Seems to be plenty of precedent for God to provide for (fill in the blank), yet we have not yet received, (fill in this blank the same way) and our action / will / etc will affect the outcome. So how does a Calvinist reconcile this?

God works by the will of men. The wrath of man shall praise Him and the remainder of wrath He will restrain. Psa. 76:10 What God has ordained that men do He uses to bring about good to His people. Rom. 8:28. Joseph told his brothers that they did according to their wicked wills but God meant it for good. Peter told the Jews that they did exactly what God determined to be done and they did it by their wicked wills. Gen. 50:20. Acts 2:23

The argument of irresistible Grace. I've resisted God's Grace plenty.

No you haven't you just thought you were.

I fail even at that! I don't think anybody would argue that just caring about Holiness and being victorious over sin is proof of God's election. And that wanting to be diligent about making both calling and election sure is too.

Paul gives a list of proofs of election in 1Thess. 1: 4-10: the Gospel came in power and in assurance, they became followers of the Lord, they received the word in much affliction and joy in the Holy Ghost, they were examples to all who believe, they sounded out the Word, they turned from idols to serve the living God, they wait for Christ from Heaven.

Yet in your analogy, this "snatching" is entirely dependent also on our co-operation, is it not?

Not at all. If I grab you by the nape of the neck and snatch you from danger you had nothing to do with it. God does not need our co-operation. He snatches us from danger by interposing the life and work of His Son. If you were drowning and have come to the point that you were lifeless and I reached in and snatched you from the water and breathed life into you what did you have to do with it?

This implies God steadfastly hates many from birth. Jacob / Esau, yes I know he has the right to, but ...

The only but is your presupposition.

This might baffle me as much as pre-destination. How is free will something to be believed in? I must be missing what Calvinists mean by the term.

All men believe in free will by nature. The believe in it so much that they risk their eternal souls on it. Man will give up all he has in order to hang on to his free will.

 

[Pete_Martinez]

Well I also am not seeking to make you a calvinist either. It's the conclusion I came to from a few preachers and reading the bible.

Verses like...
Pro 16:4 The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.
Isa 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
Col 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
Col 1:17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

The same principalities and powers (in the greek translation by the way) mentioned in...
Eph 6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
Rom 8:38 For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come,
Rom 8:39 Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Do I believe man has free will? Absolutely. But if we believe what the bible says about free will, then we know that...
Rom 3:9 What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;
Rom 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
Rom 3:11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
Rom 3:12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

But could God possibly allow men follow their own free will, and have it serve his own purposes?
Act 4:24 And when they heard it, they lifted their voices together to God and said, "Sovereign Lord, who made the heaven and the earth and the sea and everything in them,
Act 4:25 who through the mouth of our father David, your servant, said by the Holy Spirit, "'Why did the Gentiles rage, and the peoples plot in vain?
Act 4:26 The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers were gathered together, against the Lord and against his Anointed'--
Act 4:27 for truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel,
Act 4:28 to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place.

Plus in the Old Testament when he used Assyria to punish Israel...
Isa 10:12 Wherefore it shall come to pass, that when the Lord hath performed his whole work upon mount Zion and on Jerusalem, I will punish the fruit of the stout heart of the king of Assyria, and the glory of his high looks.
Isa 10:13 For he saith, By the strength of my hand I have done it, and by my wisdom; for I am prudent: and I have removed the bounds of the people, and have robbed their treasures, and I have put down the inhabitants like a valiant man:

In Romans Paul was using a greek school of thought, I forget what it's called. Where the scholar dictates to the pupil both the answers and the questions that would naturally come up. Please look this up for yourself. But anyways, if you're not asking the questions that Paul naturally would assume would be asked, then you're not understanding Paul.

For example...
Rom 9:18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
Rom 9:19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?

That's just the beginning, that's something to think about. There's other verses I'd like to use but I can't think right now too well.

Another basic question we have to ask ourselves is this.
Is humanity so full of wonderful goodness that God just absolutely positively had to save them because heaven just wouldn't be heaven if no one went there? I mean usually we complain that people go to hell. And yet, the Angels sinned and he sent them no saviour.

Also, we have another important question to ask. Did God create everything with a purpose? If he didn't, then the people that end up in hell end up there accidentally, knowing that by creating everything some would end up lost.
On the other hand, if he did create with a purpose then the argument in Romans 9 stands. It's not an easy thing to accept. I remember I hated those "stupid calvinists" and their "gospel according to Romans 9". But one day, God's grace allowed me to see I didn't deserve mercy. And if it wasn't for his grace I'd still be living in my own ignorance and lust. And then Romans 9 didn't seem so bad.

 

[razeontherock]

Wow ml - quite the reply! After chewing all that over, one thing that really resonates with me is

"God no longer can in justice count it [sin] against any for whom Christ died"

I know that's true, but I never grasped that sufficiently before. Even if that were the only good to come of this, I trust you'll agree that alone is very much worth it. Good preaching there, Brother!

Any differences left are minor, but one thing still troubles me deeply:

there are lost people, professing unbelief, who also say they were Christian at one time. They currently have a state of unbelief running the whole range, up to and including not believing God exists at all, saying the Bible itself is what pushed them away, and probably every other imaginable position. And there are also people who are very adamant about spending many years pursuing true Christianity, only to be left with an emptiness they knew was fake, for themselves.

Seems these individuals must have been called by God to even care about such things? If that's true and I have a burden for such people, I need to be doing everything I can about it. I look for similarities in such cases and think I see a pattern emerging, but before I get too far how do you explain it?

Thanks for taking the time to make such an earnest reply,

Ray

EDIT: "Rom 9:18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
Rom 9:19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?"

This seems to be the exact (unspoken) line of reasoning being used by atheists I described above. Since when are they allowed to be right? (And are they really?)

 

[mlqurgw]

Wow ml - quite the reply! After chewing all that over, one thing that really resonates with me is

"God no longer can in justice count it [sin] against any for whom Christ died"

I know that's true, but I never grasped that sufficiently before. Even if that were the only good to come of this, I trust you'll agree that alone is very much worth it. Good preaching there, Brother!

If The Lord, who right now sits on the throne ruling all of creation, is pleased to use the least portion of something I might say I am humbled and thankful to Him.

Any differences left are minor, but one thing still troubles me deeply:

there are lost people, professing unbelief, who also say they were Christian at one time. They currently have a state of unbelief running the whole range, up to and including not believing God exists at all, saying the Bible itself is what pushed them away, and probably every other imaginable position. And there are also people who are very adamant about spending many years pursuing true Christianity, only to be left with an emptiness they knew was fake, for themselves.

The problem isn't that they don't want a God they just don't want the one true God. All men have an idea of who they would like for God to be and they imagine for themselves a god that fits their idea. But when they begin to find out that they are actually in His hands instead of the other way around they harden their heart and deny Him. That doesn't mean that there is no hope for them though. God saved Paul who was a blasphemer and murderer. He chose to save the worst and least of all men in order to glorify Himself in mercy. 1Cor. 1:19-28 He chose to save me. Our task is to preach Christ and leave the rest to God. The preaching of the Gospel of Christ Jesus the Lord is foolishness to the natural man but to those being saved it is the power of God. 1Cor. 1:18, Rom 1:16

Seems these individuals must have been called by God to even care about such things?

Not necessarily. The knowledge of God exists in all men but they suppress the truth and make a god of their own. Rom. 1:18-23 Seeking a god and seeking the one true God revealed in Christ is not the same thing.

If that's true and I have a burden for such people, I need to be doing everything I can about it. I look for similarities in such cases and think I see a pattern emerging, but before I get too far how do you explain it?

We ought to have a burden for the lost. If we don't we must question our own salvation. Any sinner who has received the grace of God in Christ and doesn't want to make Him known to others doesn't know Christ. As I said simply and clearly declare Christ to all who will hear you. The natural inclination for all unbelievers is to put up every block they can come up with in order to avoid doing business with Christ. Press Christ upon them. Press His claims on them. As much as you can make them deal with Christ. All their questions are only a wall thrown up to avoid dealing with Christ. You will never be able to answer their questions to their satisfaction until they have dealt with Christ.

Thanks for taking the time to make such an earnest reply,

Ray

You are very welcome.

EDIT: "Rom 9:18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
Rom 9:19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?"

This seems to be the exact (unspoken) line of reasoning being used by atheists I described above. Since when are they allowed to be right? (And are they really?)

No they aren't right. What they view as God's will and what the Scriptures declare to be God's will are not even close. What it actually is, as it is used by them, is nothing but a way out of dealing with the truth. Rather than dealing with the claims of Christ they seek to blame God. God never forces anyone to sin. They do that all on their own. He may, and does, purpose that they do sin. What they would like to make the passage say is that God made them do it. God doesn't need to make us sin we run to it and drink iniquity like water.

 

[Pete_Martinez]

I'll respond as well. Salvation is most definitely of the Lord. As for those who "fall away" there's a few interesting verses.

1Jn 2:19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.

Joh 2:23 Now when he was in Jerusalem at the passover, in the feast day, many believed in his name, when they saw the miracles which he did.
Joh 2:24 But Jesus did not commit himself unto them, because he knew all men,
Joh 2:25 And needed not that any should testify of man: for he knew what was in man

And having belief in Christ doesn't mean anything if he doesn't have a hold of you as well. Check this out...
Joh 8:30 As he spake these words, many believed on him.
Joh 8:42 Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.
Joh 8:43 Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word.
Joh 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
Joh 8:59 Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.

So much for belief in him...

And as Mlqurgw (say that three times fast!) said, people are presented with a false God and a false gospel. When they finally meet the true God their response is usually, well that's not my God! Well of course it isn't!

And yes, the reason for evangelism is simple. God does have people out there who he has predestined for salvation, and has decided to use the foolishness of preaching to bring them in the kingdom. If he really did predestinate, then we have even more reason to preach or help spread the gospel. There are brothers and sisters out there still walking in darkness who have yet to see the light.
An interesting tidbit in Acts...
Act 18:9 Then spake the Lord to Paul in the night by a vision, Be not afraid, but speak, and hold not thy peace:
Act 18:10 For I am with thee, and no man shall set on thee to hurt thee: for I have much people in this city.

Wait, what? He has many people in the city? But they haven't gotten their choice to reject or accept him yet! How can he then say, "I have many people in this city?"

 

[razeontherock]

Good stuff guys, thanks

 

[heymikey80]

As I read the statements here by Calvinists, I'm left with the impression we have no part in our own faith either. I hope you recognize that simply doesn't sit well, even though I do agree Scripture is clear all our faith comes from God. Your above statement I have no issue with, but because it is so vitally important I don't want to assume anything!

Yeah, it shouldn't sit well. Calvinists don't hold this, but rather instead are often answering, "Who's responsible for my having this faith?"

When we talk about involvement -- yep, we're completely involved. And God is very closely involved. We are the ones who believe; God is the One Who regenerates us in order to believe.

So I need to point out the conflict btw us having our sins imputed to the cross of Christ (and everything associated with that) as a final act we have no say over, accomplished before we were born; vs. something we have a part in, and is dependent upon our co-operation with God's plan to be effectual.

Well, imputing our righteousness from Christ and His sacrifice for sins, that occurs through faith. It's not the cause of faith -- faith isn't a cause; it's a catalyst, an instrument God uses to apply His grace of justification and sanctification to us.

I realize this is a fundamental shift in the way most people think of faith. So, just know the whole "cause/effect" schematic of "faith/salvation" that's often presented in evangelical circles, isn't what Calvinism generally means as "justification by faith".

I agree w/ the latter, but this seems to brush away the Calvinist position I see on here so often, that the Gospel is "He put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. He didn't make it possible to be put away. He purged our sin not make it possible to be purged. He obtained eternal redemption not made it possible to be obtained." I like the idea very much, and agree Salvation is an instantaneous gift and sanctification is ongoing; but so far I haven't been able to read the Calvinist position on this, which still seems contradictory to me, as being explained by that simple difference.

In Calvinism, faith is an effect of another grace: regeneration. That one's a consequence of Christ's crucifixion as well, but as it's a cause of faith, it can't very well be a result of faith.

Salvation is a process in Calvinism with certain operations taking place, step by step. They're named and organized in Scripture.

While this was in response to my question about confession, it would also hold to the above inquiry into the process of imputation of sin wouldn't it? If so, maybe this angle will be an easier way to gain clarity on the issue(s) where I'm still murky on what Calvinism actually claims. So we have God's sovereign calling, choosing, destined, or more likely that problematic term predestination, causing Faith to begin with, leading to us being declared the righteousness of God in Christ Jesus. I have no problem with that. Then we have our will involved, and maybe a good analogy is it functions like the rudder on a ship; a key element, but tiny by comparison. Still good.

The net result is that your will must be involved, but it's entirely determined what it shall do in the course of its history. God controls every input to your will. It's inevitable that He controls the outcome.

Ok this subject matter is much easier. (Whew!) The old man has nothing pure in it's heart. We may not be able to identify indwelling sin, but we have problems from multiple sources, most notably the flesh, the world, and the devil. These correspond perfectly to the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life. Command of just that much was enough for Jesus to overcome His temptation in the wilderness even w/o the Holy Ghost, and in a figure you could even say He overcame the world at that time. Does He ever have the right to Judge every one of us!

Now when you say

"As Calvinism is "both and not one, alone","

are you meaning you don't base Doctrine on one stand alone Scripture? Does that also mean you don't discard multiple meanings?

Um, multiple interpretations, no, I don't mean that. We look for the meaning that the Author of Scripture intends. That means, if there were multiple meanings, that it'd be clear from God that those multiple meanings are intended.

Rather to the subject we were discussing: Calvinism recognizes that God operates at multiple levels in Creation: the foundation of creation, also its uppermost ruler; the One Who created the unseen will of an individual as well as the billion billion suns of the universe. To take account of both, doesn't require that one become the other (the will operates on different laws than a star). But it does require that we recognize the size and the depth of power we're dealing with in respect of God.

Ok poll numbers aren't in yet. This still gets to the single most difficult issue within Calvinism for me, and I expect for many others as well: I'm seeing a picture painted of God that creates many people specifically for hell, and the question arises why not just create them in hell in the first place?

I don't see it as nearly as big an issue, because it's a shared issue. My question is, if you knew which ones you created would go into eternal punishment -- why create them at all?

In other words, this is a question for anyone who sees God as capable of knowing the end of men. It's not a question of determinism specifically. It's a question of all views of prior knowledge.

You won't escape this question by softening determinism. The challenge remains, even for people accepting free will:

God knew they would eternally suffer.
God created them.
God could have created differently.
​

Responsibility is more complex than we imagine. There is not a single, one, responsible party. Motives and intents, they factor in as well as the position and status of the agent. The issues here are over our models of responsibility, which are largely broken and corrupted, themselves.

Their life can't possibly result in anything else. I carry it to the extreme to illustrate a point, and I'm still hoping what I'll find is my own lack of understanding of what Calvinism claims.

Once you get the above qualification under your belt, then you may be able to tackle this a little better.

First off, not everyone shares your priority on salvation. It's very clear that the people God will condemn do not see salvation as priority enough to seek Him out and get His salvation straight.

Once I got past that realization, the rest was fairly straightforward. They don't see it as a priority. They won't be convinced that it is. And the fact is, they were made for those baser functions in Creation, which it seems they want to pursue.

In a sense, it's disappointing to me that my race is not persuaded. But there is a certain equity in that they're made for the destiny God has intended for them.

So far I see you saying their life means more than just condemnation, but God's love doesn't extend to their Salvation. If they somehow had no eternal consequences, I could see a complete picture of God's Justice, but now I'm being facetious.

Yes, but I'd think it makes an interesting point. At some point the person who willingly lives out an unjust life must come before judgment.

This is quite a can of worms in itself! Going by empirical evidence, a strong case could be made that if these two statements were true our papers would read very differently, and world history over the last 2,000 years would be quite a bit different as well. So I hope we agree that the difference btw what we manifest vs our Spiritual inheritance (potential) seems to have a greater impact on Earth than I can see Calvinism accounting for.

Mmm, it's something of a question. We are not instantly sanctified, we know that, and Paul remarks on it numerous times. To me that's an indication that the Spirit is working on His timing to change us. Given all this access, we don't know how to use it. God is growing up those born of the Spirit, so that we will in the Last Day be seen to be His sons.

Well put. Pp = what?

Paul's good at putting things. Philippians.

Putting this together with the next snip, you're are in fact saying God sovereignly predestinated to steadfastly hate more than half of our species?

The issue here is what predestination is. Has God appointed the condemnation of many sinful people? Yes. But He's done it entirely differently from predesignating them for condemnation.

Watch the Scriptural terms at work -- and indeed, theological terms in Calvinism: they and we were all appointed to wrath for our sins. However, God predestined to mercy those He would save.

This view is sometimes erroneously called "single predestination", but the concepts are actually "double predestination" in theological terminology. "Single predestination" denies people were appointed for wrath. It wants to wait for the Judgment. So the fact that God appointed to wrath the entire race of mankind is a different kind of predestination from the term used in Scripture. It is a destiny of punishment for our own sinful lives.

Everyone receives it; Christ suffered it for us. We're in a covenantal union with Christ. We receive His justification and indeed eternal life through that union.

 

[razeontherock]

Now that is a strong close! Thanks for taking the time to hash this all out. I've always noticed the difference btw appointed vs predestined, but never could make any sense of it. I'll use my Strong's next on that one.

"Given all this access, we don't know how to use it." Hey, now you sound like me! God gave me a vision to get this point through, where I was a small child, alone in the cockpit of a huge jetliner. Controls everywhere, wasn't tall enough to see where we were going.

" Salvation is a process in Calvinism with certain operations taking place, step by step. They're named and organized in Scripture."

Book chapter verse? Also, you claim we are regenerated before we believe; Scripture for that? Do you hold regeneration to be an ongoing process, and does sin have any effect on it?

" imputing our righteousness from Christ and His sacrifice for sins, that occurs through faith"

What you said on that subject I agree with already. Do you think my seeing the OT blood sacrifice, where the Priest lays his hand on the head of the animal as typifying this, as incorrect?

 

[heymikey80]

I'm sorry, this scrolled off while I was away, I'm just getting to it now.

I've always noticed the difference btw appointed vs predestined, but never could make any sense of it. I'll use my Strong's next on that one.

Yes, they are different words in Greek, with different uses and implications.

"Given all this access, we don't know how to use it." Hey, now you sound like me! God gave me a vision to get this point through, where I was a small child, alone in the cockpit of a huge jetliner. Controls everywhere, wasn't tall enough to see where we were going.

Yes! That's a great illustration. My pastor talked abouto something more basic: that we're alive spiritually, and so we grow into our sanctification.

" Salvation is a process in Calvinism with certain operations taking place, step by step. They're named and organized in Scripture."

Book chapter verse? Also, you claim we are regenerated before we believe; Scripture for that? Do you hold regeneration to be an ongoing process, and does sin have any effect on it?

Romans 8:29-30. By saying that "They're organized in Scripture" I don't mean they're always specifically described -- though in many cases they are. Still, when you dive into the grammar these Greek speaking guys inherently used, they used the terms in an organized way.

" imputing our righteousness from Christ and His sacrifice for sins, that occurs through faith"

What you said on that subject I agree with already. Do you think my seeing the OT blood sacrifice, where the Priest lays his hand on the head of the animal as typifying this, as incorrect?

Yes, I'm just trying to place it here, so you're confirmed that this is where we're placing it in the whole scheme of things. I think the sacrificial model is powerfully confirmed in Hebrews 10.