Please help me figure this out!

[maves]

Hello everyone!
I am really struggling with the concepts in Calvinism.
About a month ago, I broke down as I considered the conclusions that Calvinism led me to. I even cried at the kitchen table considering it. I cannot think of any way that this group of ideas does not lead to the conclusion that God is the author of sin, which He is NOT. God does not tempt any man to sin.
But according to Calvinism, all men are not just born spiritually dead, they cannot even recognize any goodness to be found in the Gospel unless God regenerates them first. I am so confused by this- did not Adam and Eve come to know good from evil by partaking of the fruit?
In no way am I insinuating that they are naturally inclined to seek God or can attain the righteousness that God requires. They need God's grace to be reconciled to Him. But I thought that God invites all men, but only some accept the free gift of salvation.

God has made known to men his law (through the Mosaic law to Jews and the natural conscience to Gentiles [through which they become "a law unto themselves"]), and through the incarnation, Jesus Christ- His perfect sinless life and His offer to bear the sins of men and become a ransom for them. So, all men are without excuse. Everyone, therefore, has the ability to repent; God has revealed Himself to everyone. So, if someone does not repent, is it not their fault?

From what I have understood, the fault is on mankind for rejecting God. But according to Calvinism, it is God that actively chooses who will be saved (and, by consequence, who will not). So, was it God who first made Adam and Eve sin in the Garden, then? Calvin himself has said, "God, in a secret and marvellous way, justly wills, the things which men unjustly do." . . . "Although God and the devil will the same thing: they do so in an utterly different manner." The last quotation is just profoundly disgusting to me for reasons I don't think I even have to explain. The former quotation also disgusts me because it contradicts the Bible (I believe so, at least), and puts the blame on God. I do not deny that God uses the sin of people for his glorious purpose! Because God is in control of everything and can even use sinners for the greater good. God is completely sovereign and uses all things for good.

I have agreed with the traditional Southern Baptist view of predestination. I affirm total depravity to the extent the Bible does (men are totally depraved but can still recognize their need for a savior) and eternal security absolutely. With the rest, I hold to a typical "Arminian" view.

I also just feel an extreme aversion to agree with Calvin after taking a look at his life. I've read historical articles about him that weren't even trying to paint him in a bad light (from secular sources!), and I was appalled to hear about his life. I don't know, I don't like taking theology from someone who burns his theological opponents at the stake (AND did it in the name of our Savior. It's not like he wasn't a professing believer at the time. I am simply examining his fruit. I apologize if I put it a bit too harshly, but that seems to be what happened).

I just want to worship God, though. I will always thank Him for what He has done- saving me by grace through Christ's sacrifice on my behalf. I just want to worship Him, however He is like.

I worship Him because He is love. He is just and merciful. These are things I know from the Bible, and I trust His word.

I am someone who struggles with doubt, though. This really makes me doubt sometimes. What if I am wrong after all, and the Calvinists are more correct about God than I am?

I feel tempted to say that I would not worship the "God of Calvinism", just because I know God is not unjust. But would this condemn me? This is the thing I am most worried about, and the reason why I write this. That's why I am asking you all. I am really struggling here.

What I want to do is just affirm what is in the Bible and not take sides. Not try to figure everything out. But, it is in my personality to desire to figure everything out. Whenever people describe me, that is the first attribute they refer to. People describe me as someone who cannot rest until I know all I can, someone who investigates and needs answers.

I am content with just affirming what the Bible says. But if I say "if God is the God that Calvinism proposes, I do not want Him" is that wrong? Right now, I am willing to accept Him, even that way. I will still find Him merciful. But I just don't want to accept Him reluctantly. I want to accept Him with my full heart. I love God, I really do. He is the author of all good things. He created me and made me in His image. He gave me a purpose in life. Even when I messed up, He had mercy on me. Even in that sorry state, He sets before me good works for me to walk in. He says that I can be His child. Everything about Him is beautiful. But I am struggling here. I know it is just grace through faith that saves me. I know I am saved. But if I knock down and refute how Calvinists portray Him, and I am wrong, will He say to me, "depart from me, I never knew you"? Because I would be cursing Him to His face if I did that. And I love Him, I don't want to do that.

That is my honest question. Please help me. I am really struggling with this.

 

[trophy33]

...according to Calvinism...

When you say this, what official sources do you have in mind?

The Canons of Dordrecht? The Institutes?

There are many websites, authors or opinions that may seem to be Calvinistic, but are just individual views and may be too extreme. And this principle applies to any theology, its always best to read the official creeds.

 

[d taylor]

Calvinism is a man made theology that uses The Bible to support their beliefs

A few reads on Calvinism.

If People Are Born Unable to Believe: Six Options – Grace Evangelical Society

A Is for “Able to Believe” – Grace Evangelical Society

Calvinism Has a Box of Mystery Verses – Grace Evangelical Society

Three False Calvinist Assumptions – Grace Evangelical Society

 

[Lukaris]

I would suggest reading Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis as an aide when reading the Bible. Probably reading this book alongside some key New Testament scripture first like any of the Gospels & Romans, Ephesians, or Colossians etc.
Mr Lewis seemed to have such a perhaps prophetic gift to explain our faith in a way that was basic, clear, hopeful, profound to almost any Christian.

Mere Christianity - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Maria Billingsley]

Hello everyone!
I am really struggling with the concepts in Calvinism.
About a month ago, I broke down as I considered the conclusions that Calvinism led me to. I even cried at the kitchen table considering it. I cannot think of any way that this group of ideas does not lead to the conclusion that God is the author of sin, which He is NOT. God does not tempt any man to sin.
But according to Calvinism, all men are not just born spiritually dead, they cannot even recognize any goodness to be found in the Gospel unless God regenerates them first. I am so confused by this- did not Adam and Eve come to know good from evil by partaking of the fruit?
In no way am I insinuating that they are naturally inclined to seek God or can attain the righteousness that God requires. They need God's grace to be reconciled to Him. But I thought that God invites all men, but only some accept the free gift of salvation.

God has made known to men his law (through the Mosaic law to Jews and the natural conscience to Gentiles [through which they become "a law unto themselves"]), and through the incarnation, Jesus Christ- His perfect sinless life and His offer to bear the sins of men and become a ransom for them. So, all men are without excuse. Everyone, therefore, has the ability to repent; God has revealed Himself to everyone. So, if someone does not repent, is it not their fault?

From what I have understood, the fault is on mankind for rejecting God. But according to Calvinism, it is God that actively chooses who will be saved (and, by consequence, who will not). So, was it God who first made Adam and Eve sin in the Garden, then? Calvin himself has said, "God, in a secret and marvellous way, justly wills, the things which men unjustly do." . . . "Although God and the devil will the same thing: they do so in an utterly different manner." The last quotation is just profoundly disgusting to me for reasons I don't think I even have to explain. The former quotation also disgusts me because it contradicts the Bible (I believe so, at least), and puts the blame on God. I do not deny that God uses the sin of people for his glorious purpose! Because God is in control of everything and can even use sinners for the greater good. God is completely sovereign and uses all things for good.

I have agreed with the traditional Southern Baptist view of predestination. I affirm total depravity to the extent the Bible does (men are totally depraved but can still recognize their need for a savior) and eternal security absolutely. With the rest, I hold to a typical "Arminian" view.

I also just feel an extreme aversion to agree with Calvin after taking a look at his life. I've read historical articles about him that weren't even trying to paint him in a bad light (from secular sources!), and I was appalled to hear about his life. I don't know, I don't like taking theology from someone who burns his theological opponents at the stake (AND did it in the name of our Savior. It's not like he wasn't a professing believer at the time. I am simply examining his fruit. I apologize if I put it a bit too harshly, but that seems to be what happened).

I just want to worship God, though. I will always thank Him for what He has done- saving me by grace through Christ's sacrifice on my behalf. I just want to worship Him, however He is like.

I worship Him because He is love. He is just and merciful. These are things I know from the Bible, and I trust His word.

I am someone who struggles with doubt, though. This really makes me doubt sometimes. What if I am wrong after all, and the Calvinists are more correct about God than I am?

I feel tempted to say that I would not worship the "God of Calvinism", just because I know God is not unjust. But would this condemn me? This is the thing I am most worried about, and the reason why I write this. That's why I am asking you all. I am really struggling here.

What I want to do is just affirm what is in the Bible and not take sides. Not try to figure everything out. But, it is in my personality to desire to figure everything out. Whenever people describe me, that is the first attribute they refer to. People describe me as someone who cannot rest until I know all I can, someone who investigates and needs answers.

I am content with just affirming what the Bible says. But if I say "if God is the God that Calvinism proposes, I do not want Him" is that wrong? Right now, I am willing to accept Him, even that way. I will still find Him merciful. But I just don't want to accept Him reluctantly. I want to accept Him with my full heart. I love God, I really do. He is the author of all good things. He created me and made me in His image. He gave me a purpose in life. Even when I messed up, He had mercy on me. Even in that sorry state, He sets before me good works for me to walk in. He says that I can be His child. Everything about Him is beautiful. But I am struggling here. I know it is just grace through faith that saves me. I know I am saved. But if I knock down and refute how Calvinists portray Him, and I am wrong, will He say to me, "depart from me, I never knew you"? Because I would be cursing Him to His face if I did that. And I love Him, I don't want to do that.

That is my honest question. Please help me. I am really struggling with this.

I am praying for you.

Calvinism , when zeroing in on its logical conclusion, makes God , shall I dare say, almost evil. We know this is not true so common sense tells us that Calvinism may be a false teaching by Augustine ( Calvin based his teachings on Augustine).

Since you are in the first stages of discovery, please give yourself some grace! You are not the only one maneuvering and questioning through this difficult time of transition. You are a victim. I suggest you find some people who are like minded. Try Leighton Flowers, Soteriology 101 on YouTube. He helps people just like you to recover. Remember, this has nothing to do with your pure faith in our Lord Jesus Christ of Nazareth, it has to do with questionable theology.
Be blessed.

 

[maves]

When you say this, what official sources do you have in mind?

The Canons of Dordrecht? The Institutes?

There are many websites, authors or opinions that may seem to be Calvinistic, but are just individual views and may be too extreme. And this principle applies to any theology, its always best to read the official creeds.

"Calvin's Calvinism: A Treatise on the Eternal Predestination of God", "Calvin: A Biography", and of course "Institutes of the Christian Religion" were my references.
Of course, I've also heard John Piper and John MacArthur, but not to an extreme, and my tension isn't just with them.

My problem is that I don't know any picture of Calvinism where God justly condemns sinners. But if it IS their choice to sin, then yes, their condemnation is just, and vengeance is God's.

 

[trophy33]

"Calvin's Calvinism: A Treatise on the Eternal Predestination of God", "Calvin: A Biography", and of course "Institutes of the Christian Religion" were my references.
Of course, I've also heard John Piper and John MacArthur, but not to an extreme, and my tension isn't just with them.

My problem is that I don't know any picture of Calvinism where God justly condemns sinners. But if it IS their choice to sin, then yes, their condemnation is just, and vengeance is God's.

And what exactly from the Institutes bothers you?

 

[maves]

I am praying for you.

Calvinism , when zeroing in on its logical conclusion, makes God , shall I dare say, almost evil. We know this is not true so common sense tells us that Calvinism may be a false teaching by Augustine ( Calvin based his teachings on Augustine).

Since you are in the first stages of discovery, please give yourself some grace! You are not the only one maneuvering and questioning through this difficult time of transition. You are a victim. I suggest you find some people who are like minded. Try Leighton Flowers, Soteriology 101 on YouTube. He helps people just like you to recover. Remember, this has nothing to do with your pure faith in our Lord Jesus Christ of Nazareth, it has to do with questionable theology.
Be blessed.

Thank you so much Maria. You are so encouraging!
I do certainly believe the same thing. I find that by following the logic, I end up in a place that paints a picture of God that I do not recognize.
However, I have been doubting this, and it's been tugging at me. What if they are right? And what if, in saying all these things (such as "this makes God unjust/this is not the God I worship") I am storing up wrath for myself?
I do not want to do those things. I also recognize that on occasion, God shows Himself to people in such a way that they cannot help but believe.
What I want to do is affirm the Bible- that God is love. God wishes all men to come to repentance, that none should perish. God wishes that all men should come to a knowledge of the truth! This is the goodness of God. This is why I want to spend eternity to Him and why Christ's sacrifice is so sweet to me.

I want to believe in the plain words of Scripture, the simplicity that is Christ. It is incredibly disturbing to me when Calvin states that the Bible is a "knotty, difficult text" and saying that it requires "extensive knowledge" to figure out. As if it is something that needs to be decoded. No, when John says that Jesus is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world, I want to believe!

If Calvinism is heretical, I want to war against it. But with so many people that support it, it shows that there are enough believers who support it, and there is some reason for them to do so.

I want to believe in God. I will ask him to forgive me if I say anything that is untrue of Him based on my limited knowledge. I am fortunate enough that He has assured me of eternal life through His son.

I just do not want to insinuate that there is a case in which I would not worship Him and risk trampling underfoot the gifts that He has promised.

I worship God because "all His ways are justice" (Deuteronomy 32:4). I will not worship an unjust God, a tyrant. I know that this is not any official creed or statement, but I have heard Calvinists make commentary on their beliefs by saying "God's sovereign choosing offends our human idea of justice". This is really quite confusing to me. How are we to worship God's goodness if we cannot even fathom why He is good?

Thank you for reading, and helping me along this journey. We are all in God's family and for that I am grateful, no matter what comes.

And what exactly from the Institutes bothers you?

These bother me greatly:
"Salvation is freely offered to some while others are barred from access to it." from Book 3, Chapter 21.
"We call predestination God’s eternal decree, by which he compacted with himself what he willed to become of each man. For all are not created in equal condition; rather, eternal life is fore-ordained for some, eternal damnation for others." from the same chapter.

Please read my concerns above, as well.

 

[eleos1954]

Hello everyone!
I am really struggling with the concepts in Calvinism.
About a month ago, I broke down as I considered the conclusions that Calvinism led me to. I even cried at the kitchen table considering it. I cannot think of any way that this group of ideas does not lead to the conclusion that God is the author of sin, which He is NOT. God does not tempt any man to sin.
But according to Calvinism, all men are not just born spiritually dead, they cannot even recognize any goodness to be found in the Gospel unless God regenerates them first. I am so confused by this- did not Adam and Eve come to know good from evil by partaking of the fruit?
In no way am I insinuating that they are naturally inclined to seek God or can attain the righteousness that God requires. They need God's grace to be reconciled to Him. But I thought that God invites all men, but only some accept the free gift of salvation.

God has made known to men his law (through the Mosaic law to Jews and the natural conscience to Gentiles [through which they become "a law unto themselves"]), and through the incarnation, Jesus Christ- His perfect sinless life and His offer to bear the sins of men and become a ransom for them. So, all men are without excuse. Everyone, therefore, has the ability to repent; God has revealed Himself to everyone. So, if someone does not repent, is it not their fault?

From what I have understood, the fault is on mankind for rejecting God. But according to Calvinism, it is God that actively chooses who will be saved (and, by consequence, who will not). So, was it God who first made Adam and Eve sin in the Garden, then? Calvin himself has said, "God, in a secret and marvellous way, justly wills, the things which men unjustly do." . . . "Although God and the devil will the same thing: they do so in an utterly different manner." The last quotation is just profoundly disgusting to me for reasons I don't think I even have to explain. The former quotation also disgusts me because it contradicts the Bible (I believe so, at least), and puts the blame on God. I do not deny that God uses the sin of people for his glorious purpose! Because God is in control of everything and can even use sinners for the greater good. God is completely sovereign and uses all things for good.

I have agreed with the traditional Southern Baptist view of predestination. I affirm total depravity to the extent the Bible does (men are totally depraved but can still recognize their need for a savior) and eternal security absolutely. With the rest, I hold to a typical "Arminian" view.

I also just feel an extreme aversion to agree with Calvin after taking a look at his life. I've read historical articles about him that weren't even trying to paint him in a bad light (from secular sources!), and I was appalled to hear about his life. I don't know, I don't like taking theology from someone who burns his theological opponents at the stake (AND did it in the name of our Savior. It's not like he wasn't a professing believer at the time. I am simply examining his fruit. I apologize if I put it a bit too harshly, but that seems to be what happened).

I just want to worship God, though. I will always thank Him for what He has done- saving me by grace through Christ's sacrifice on my behalf. I just want to worship Him, however He is like.

I worship Him because He is love. He is just and merciful. These are things I know from the Bible, and I trust His word.

I am someone who struggles with doubt, though. This really makes me doubt sometimes. What if I am wrong after all, and the Calvinists are more correct about God than I am?

I feel tempted to say that I would not worship the "God of Calvinism", just because I know God is not unjust. But would this condemn me? This is the thing I am most worried about, and the reason why I write this. That's why I am asking you all. I am really struggling here.

What I want to do is just affirm what is in the Bible and not take sides. Not try to figure everything out. But, it is in my personality to desire to figure everything out. Whenever people describe me, that is the first attribute they refer to. People describe me as someone who cannot rest until I know all I can, someone who investigates and needs answers.

I am content with just affirming what the Bible says. But if I say "if God is the God that Calvinism proposes, I do not want Him" is that wrong? Right now, I am willing to accept Him, even that way. I will still find Him merciful. But I just don't want to accept Him reluctantly. I want to accept Him with my full heart. I love God, I really do. He is the author of all good things. He created me and made me in His image. He gave me a purpose in life. Even when I messed up, He had mercy on me. Even in that sorry state, He sets before me good works for me to walk in. He says that I can be His child. Everything about Him is beautiful. But I am struggling here. I know it is just grace through faith that saves me. I know I am saved. But if I knock down and refute how Calvinists portray Him, and I am wrong, will He say to me, "depart from me, I never knew you"? Because I would be cursing Him to His face if I did that. And I love Him, I don't want to do that.

That is my honest question. Please help me. I am really struggling with this.

The main problem with Calvinism is it dismisses free will ..... we are free to choose to follow the Lord or not. If we are not free to choose to follow the Lord .... then there is no need for His(Jesus) death .... ie it was/is "predetermined" .... so it refutes the need of Jesus willingly laying His life down for us.

 

[Blade]

Like the song playing.. By Faith. Its always wise to read study what some other great men/women of God say but at sometime point we must find Him the king of kings lord or lords the one that gave His life for the world. To see this world through His eyes... it is the unrighteous the lost the sinner ..they are the reason He came. I would do what Luke 11:13 says then thank the Father no matter how I feel I blindly take Him at His word.

Ask Him to open you eyes to what He said in His word not what some man/woman said they personally believe. We do tend to follow some teachers or prophets or pastors which is wise yet we must find the truths on our own.. Again as the song is saying now "I believe it". We believe because He found us because we found Him and as we draw near to Him He will always every time draw near to us. Not here to debate Calvinism which with in it are many truths we all believe. For me as long as it goes in line with and is written in His word but I have never followed Calvinism.

So I would do what my heart wanted and just play that music and worship Him.. talk to Him knowing He will talk back and He will always back up what He says by His word. It will always be with peace and.. well what are the fruits of the spirit?

Its like this man said he had a vision and was taken to this very high MTN with Christ where there was this huge statue of Jesus and he looked at Jesus with a tear running down His face saying I want them to come to me. The point of this is to come right to Him not through the eyes the life of some men women of God. As long as we follow some man we only see what they personally believe. So read His word .. let Him by the sweet sweet holy Spirit talk to you. Get stuck find what that verses say and what they meant how who they were written to.. see what other say.. just make sure its written.

HAHA just saying go right to Christ.. by pass everyone else just praise Him worship Him putting all this in to His hands let Him figure it out.. and TRUST.. right back to the start "By faith". Have faith. Not sure I helped .. just won't debate this... just allot I personally do not agree with.

 

[Clare73]

Hello everyone!
I am really struggling with the concepts in Calvinism.
About a month ago, I broke down as I considered the conclusions that Calvinism led me to. I even cried at the kitchen table considering it. I cannot think of any way that this group of ideas does not lead to the conclusion that God is the author of sin, which He is NOT.

Seems you are misunderstanding the facts of the case. . .

Did God make Adam rebel? He did not.
Then God is not the author of sin.

Did Adam's rebellion have consequences? Indeed, it did, serious physical consequences; i.e., depravity and physical death.
God is the author of all natural law and its consequences.
We are the author of whether we suffer them or not.

Adam's rebellion likewise had serious spiritual consequences; i.e., spiritual death (loss of God's divine eternal life within the human spirit).
God is the author of justice.

That we inherit the physical consequences (depravity and mortality) of Adam's rebellion is simply the law of nature, as we "inherit" two eyes, two ears and a nose.
But God is not the cause of our depravity and mortality. . .Adam is, by the laws of nature through which we inherit them,
just as God is not the cause of my broken leg. . .I am, if I violate nature's law of gravity.

Now. . .just because Adam, not his descendants, got himself and all his household
(descendants, who by natural law inherit his rebellious nature, his resentment and refusal to submit to and be governed by the king in all things, Ro 5:10)
in this mess does not mean the king owes them anything. If they are all exiled to an island in a forgotten part of his kingdom, they have no just claim against the king to whom they refuse to submit and to be governed by in all things. They have all they have earned. The king's just obligation to them is satisfied.

According to the NT, that is the natural (unregenerate) human position (Jn 3:3-5, Ro 8:7-8, 1 Co 2:14), we have no just claim against God, we have all we have earned. His just obligation to those who refuse to submit to and be governed by him in all things is satisfied.
That being the case, God owes no one anything, he is cleared and just (righteous).

Then if he sovereignly for his own purposes chooses to rescue some from this position, the others have no grounds for complaint, for he does not owe them anything. If in his infinite wisdom, his purposes are best accomplished by not rescuing all from this position (Ro 9:23), others still have no just grounds for complaint, for he owes them nothing.
They share the disposition of their ancestors--refusal to submit to and be governed by him in all things.

None of the above makes God the author of sin, or unjust.
Nor do any of his enemies, the unregenerate who will not submit to him to be governed by him in all things, have a just claim to his love.
He is completely just (having fulfilled all justice), as well as completely sovereign, owing no one anything, sovereignly dispensing his favor/love (i.e., new birth, the guarantee of everything else) as he pleases, and is as unaccountable as the wind in doing so (Jn 3:7-8).

God does not tempt any man to sin.
But according to Calvinism, all men are not just born spiritually dead, they cannot even recognize any goodness to be found in the Gospel unless God regenerates them first. I am so confused by this- did not Adam and Eve come to know good from evil by partaking of the fruit?
In no way am I insinuating that they are naturally inclined to seek God or can attain the righteousness that God requires. They need God's grace to be reconciled to Him. But I thought that God invites all men, but only some accept the free gift of salvation.

God has made known to men his law (through the Mosaic law to Jews and the natural conscience to Gentiles [through which they become "a law unto themselves"]), and through the incarnation, Jesus Christ- His perfect sinless life and His offer to bear the sins of men and become a ransom for them. So, all men are without excuse. Everyone, therefore, has the ability to repent; God has revealed Himself to everyone. So, if someone does not repent, is it not their fault?

From what I have understood, the fault is on mankind for rejecting God. But according to Calvinism, it is God that actively chooses who will be saved (and, by consequence, who will not). So, was it God who first made Adam and Eve sin in the Garden, then? Calvin himself has said, "God, in a secret and marvellous way, justly wills, the things which men unjustly do." . . . "Although God and the devil will the same thing: they do so in an utterly different manner." The last quotation is just profoundly disgusting to me for reasons I don't think I even have to explain. The former quotation also disgusts me because it contradicts the Bible (I believe so, at least), and puts the blame on God. I do not deny that God uses the sin of people for his glorious purpose! Because God is in control of everything and can even use sinners for the greater good. God is completely sovereign and uses all things for good.

I have agreed with the traditional Southern Baptist view of predestination. I affirm total depravity to the extent the Bible does (men are totally depraved but can still recognize their need for a savior) and eternal security absolutely. With the rest, I hold to a typical "Arminian" view.

I also just feel an extreme aversion to agree with Calvin after taking a look at his life. I've read historical articles about him that weren't even trying to paint him in a bad light (from secular sources!), and I was appalled to hear about his life. I don't know, I don't like taking theology from someone who burns his theological opponents at the stake (AND did it in the name of our Savior. It's not like he wasn't a professing believer at the time. I am simply examining his fruit. I apologize if I put it a bit too harshly, but that seems to be what happened).

I just want to worship God, though. I will always thank Him for what He has done- saving me by grace through Christ's sacrifice on my behalf. I just want to worship Him, however He is like.

I worship Him because He is love. He is just and merciful. These are things I know from the Bible, and I trust His word.

I am someone who struggles with doubt, though. This really makes me doubt sometimes. What if I am wrong after all, and the Calvinists are more correct about God than I am?

I feel tempted to say that I would not worship the "God of Calvinism", just because I know God is not unjust. But would this condemn me? This is the thing I am most worried about, and the reason why I write this. That's why I am asking you all. I am really struggling here.

What I want to do is just affirm what is in the Bible and not take sides. Not try to figure everything out. But, it is in my personality to desire to figure everything out. Whenever people describe me, that is the first attribute they refer to. People describe me as someone who cannot rest until I know all I can, someone who investigates and needs answers.

I am content with just affirming what the Bible says. But if I say "if God is the God that Calvinism proposes, I do not want Him" is that wrong? Right now, I am willing to accept Him, even that way. I will still find Him merciful. But I just don't want to accept Him reluctantly. I want to accept Him with my full heart. I love God, I really do. He is the author of all good things. He created me and made me in His image. He gave me a purpose in life. Even when I messed up, He had mercy on me. Even in that sorry state, He sets before me good works for me to walk in. He says that I can be His child. Everything about Him is beautiful. But I am struggling here. I know it is just grace through faith that saves me. I know I am saved. But if I knock down and refute how Calvinists portray Him, and I am wrong, will He say to me, "depart from me, I never knew you"? Because I would be cursing Him to His face if I did that. And I love Him, I don't want to do that.

That is my honest question. Please help me. I am really struggling with this.

 

[trophy33]

These bother me greatly:
"Salvation is freely offered to some while others are barred from access to it." from Book 3, Chapter 21.

"The covenant of life is not preached equally to all, and among those to whom it is preached, does not always meet with the same reception. This diversity displays the unsearchable depth of the divine judgment, and is without doubt subordinate to God’s purpose of eternal election. But if it is plainly owing to the mere pleasure of God that salvation is spontaneously offered to some, while others have no access to it, great and difficult questions immediately arise..."

Well, its the fact of life that some are preached to and some are not... and that some believe the message and some do not. Your quoted sentence is taken out of the context.

"We call predestination God’s eternal decree, by which he compacted with himself what he willed to become of each man. For all are not created in equal condition; rather, eternal life is fore-ordained for some, eternal damnation for others." from the same chapter.

He then defends the election to eternal life. And in the chapter 23, he defends the election to reprobation, in this way:
The human mind, when it hears this doctrine, cannot restrain its petulance, but boils and rages as if aroused by the sound of a trumpet. Many professing a desire to defend the Deity from an invidious charge admit the doctrine of election, but deny that any one is reprobated (Bernard. in Die Ascensionis, Serm. 2). This they do ignorantly and childishly since there could be no election without its opposite reprobation. God is said to set apart those whom he adopts for salvation. It were most absurd to say, that he admits others fortuitously, or that they by their industry acquire what election alone confers on a few. Those, therefore, whom God passes by he reprobates...

It seems quite logical. If God elects some to eternal life, it automatically means the rest is predestined to be reprobates.

What I do not agree with is this next statement of his:
Those, therefore, whom God passes by he reprobates, and that for no other cause but because he is pleased to exclude them from the inheritance which he predestines to his children.

I think Calvin formulated this quite badly. The use of the word "pleased" makes it sound like God finds a pleasure in the death or suffering of some, but this goes obviously against His character.
What he probably meant to say is something like "God does as he pleases, because He is sovereign in His decisions". But, as more moderate Calvinists would maybe say, these decisions of His have eternal reasons we do not recognize (but are there).

Calvin's style is a complicated one, some things are also difficult to translate from his French well (even native French speakers have problems to read the Institutes). Maybe try to read some more distilled, but still official versions of the helvetic faith, for example Helvetic Confession or Heidelberg Catechism.

P.S. I am not a Calvinist, just trying to simplify things for you.

 

[maves]

Seems you are misunderstanding the facts of the case. . .

Did God make Adam rebel? He did not.
Then God is not the author of sin.

Did Adam's rebellion have consequences? Indeed, it did, serious physical consequences; i.e., depravity and physical death.
God is the author of all natural law and its consequences.
We are the author of whether we suffer them or not.

Adam's rebellion likewise had serious spiritual consequences; i.e., spiritual death (loss of God's divine eternal life within the human spirit).
God is the author of justice.

That we inherit the physical consequences (depravity and mortality) of Adam's rebellion is simply the law of nature, as we "inherit" two eyes, two ears and a nose.
But God is not the cause of our depravity and mortality, Adam is, by the laws of nature through which we inherit them,
just as God is not the cause of my broken leg, I am, if I violate nature's law of gravity.

Now. . .just because Adam, not his descendants, got himself and all his household
(descendants, who by natural law inherit his rebellious nature, his resentment and refusal to submit to and be governed by the king in all things, Ro 5:10)
in this mess does not mean the king owes them anything. If they are all exiled to an island in a forgotten part of his kingdom, they have no just claim against the king to whom they refuse to submit and to be governed by in all things. They have all they have earned. The king's just obligation to them is satisfied.

According to the NT, that is the natural (unregenerate) human position (Jn 3:3-5, Ro 8:7-8, 1 Co 2:14), we have no just claim against God, we have all we have earned. His just obligation to those who refuse to submit to and be governed by him in all things is satisfied.
That being the case, God owes no one anything, he is cleared and just (righteous).

Then if he sovereignly for his own purposes chooses to rescue some from this position, the others have no grounds for complaint, for he does not owe them anything. If in his infinite wisdom, his purposes are best accomplished by not rescuing all from this position (Ro 9:23), others still have no just grounds for complaint, for he owes them nothing.
They share the disposition of their ancestors--refusal to submit to and be governed by him in all things.

None of the above makes God the author of sin, or unjust.
Nor do any of his enemies, the unregenerate who will not submit to him to be governed by him in all things, have a just claim to his love.
He is completely just (having fulfilled all justice), as well as completely sovereign, owing no one anything, sovereignly dispensing his favor/love (i.e., new birth, the guarantee of everything else) as he pleases, and is as unaccountable as the wind in doing so (Jn 3:7-8).

I appreciate your response! Your explanation of original sin was very eloquent and well-supported.

I am glad that you have clarified that Adam was the first instigator of this broken relationship, as well.

However, I am still a bit confused. When Peter says, "the Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance", what is His purpose in being patient, then? I would argue that it must take the lack of cooperation from the other party for someone to be properly patient. For example, I must be patient in waiting for a bus to arrive. But if I can snap my fingers and make the bus arrive, I have no need to be patient.

There are similar motifs in 1 Timothy, where Paul writes about how God "desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth" for Jesus is "the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe". Thus, His atonement cannot be limited.

I just don't see these doctrines fitting within the Calvinist paradigm. But I am always willing to consider.

 

[maves]

It seems quite logical. If God elects some to eternal life, it automatically means the rest is predestined to be reprobates.

What I do not agree with is this next statement of his:
Those, therefore, whom God passes by he reprobates, and that for no other cause but because he is pleased to exclude them from the inheritance which he predestines to his children.

I think Calvin formulated this quite badly. The use of the word "pleased" makes it sound like God finds a pleasure in the death or suffering of some, but this goes obviously against His character.
What he probably meant to say is something like "God does as he pleases, because He is sovereign in His decisions". But, as more moderate Calvinists would maybe say, these decisions of His have eternal reasons we do not recognize (but are there).

Yes, I do understand how the subsequent reprobation of others follows, that is precisely my problem in some explanations of Calvinist doctrine.

But I am glad that you also disagree that God would be pleased with that exclusion and desertion of the non-elect. As God has said, "As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from their ways and live".

(I do believe the latter part of that verse emphasizes man's responsibility, though, if I may say that haha)

I do like the Heidelberg Catechism! I have not read it all, but I do appreciate it very much from what I have read.

Also, if I may ask- you can totally just ignore my request if it is not comfortable for you to answer- if you are not a Calvinist, what would you identify yourself with when it comes to soteriology? I'm just curious as to where you're coming from.

 

[Clare73]

I appreciate your response! Your explanation of original sin was very eloquent and well-supported.

I am glad that you have clarified that Adam was the first instigator of this broken relationship, as well.

However, I am still a bit confused. When Peter says, "the Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance", what is His purpose in being patient, then?

Good question. . .
Peter is writing to Christians to correct the notion of the false teachers that since Christ's return had not occurred up to this time, it would never occur.
His response is framed in terms of them, the Lord is patient (taking adequate time) toward "you" (the elect), not wanting any (of the elect) to perish.

I would argue that it must take the lack of cooperation from the other party for someone to be properly patient. For example, I must be patient in waiting for a bus to arrive. But if I can snap my fingers and make the bus arrive, I have no need to be patient.

There are similar motifs in 1 Timothy, where Paul writes about how God "desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth"

Good point. . .however, on the other hand, God chooses some (not all) people to be saved (1 Pe 1:2).

for Jesus is "the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe". Thus, His atonement cannot be limited.

I just don't see these doctrines fitting within the Calvinist paradigm. But I am always willing to consider.

Well, the first example (2 Pe 3:9) is a common misunderstanding.

The second example (1 Tim 2:4) must deal with Scriptures such as 1 Pe 1:2.

One's doctrine is correct when it is in agreement with all Scripture.
So let's look at 1 Tim 2:4: "God desires all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth."

God wants all men to be saved, but not all men want to be saved in God's way.
"You refuse to come to me to have life." (Jn 5:40)
"I would have gathered you, but you would not." (Mt 23:37)

Those who are saved must come to the knowledge of the truth, because this is God's way to save sinners.
They won't come to the knowledge of the truth, they don't want to be saved in God's way, complete submission to him to be governed by him in all things.

 

[trophy33]

Yes, I do understand how the subsequent reprobation of others follows, that is precisely my problem in some explanations of Calvinist doctrine.

But I am glad that you also disagree that God would be pleased with that exclusion and desertion of the non-elect. As God has said, "As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from their ways and live".

I would even guess that its some form of misunderstanding of his French. The theological language of Calvin is sometimes hard to understand, without a proper definition of words. But who knows.

I do like the Heidelberg Catechism! I have not read it all, but I do appreciate it very much from what I have read.

Great!

Also, if I may ask- you can totally just ignore my request if it is not comfortable for you to answer- if you are not a Calvinist, what would you identify yourself with when it comes to soteriology? I'm just curious as to where you're coming from.

I am not a Calvinist, because I do not believe the view that the guilt of Adam is passed to his offspring, for example. Which is a common view in Calvinism. Its also frequently unnecessarily "dark" and pessimistic in its theology.

I have been a Calvinist for a long time, but last years I am adopting the views (or, maybe better to say, the style of thinking) of Leibniz as presented in his book Theodicy. Leibniz was a Lutheran, but he was also a genius of his own and trying to build bridges between various Christian theologies. The book is composed as a postmortem answer to a French Calvinist and historian Pierre Bayle.

The book would seem quite familiar to a person in the reformation camp (terms like predestination, predetermination etc), but the perfect character of God, namely his wisdom and love, is presented and defended in much better and optimistic way than in the most of Calvinistic works, I think.

G.W. Leibniz: Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz - Wikipedia
Theodicy: The Project Gutenberg eBook of Theodicy, by G. W. Leibniz

"Our end is to banish from men the false ideas that represent God to them as an absolute prince employing a despotic power, unfitted to be loved and unworthy of being loved. These notions are the more evil in relation to God inasmuch as the essence of piety is not only to fear him but also to love him above all things"

You may find the work useful, too. However, its not the easiest of readings.

 

[Carl Emerson]

Hello everyone!
I am really struggling with the concepts in Calvinism.
About a month ago, I broke down as I considered the conclusions that Calvinism led me to. I even cried at the kitchen table considering it. I cannot think of any way that this group of ideas does not lead to the conclusion that God is the author of sin, which He is NOT. God does not tempt any man to sin.
But according to Calvinism, all men are not just born spiritually dead, they cannot even recognize any goodness to be found in the Gospel unless God regenerates them first. I am so confused by this- did not Adam and Eve come to know good from evil by partaking of the fruit?
In no way am I insinuating that they are naturally inclined to seek God or can attain the righteousness that God requires. They need God's grace to be reconciled to Him. But I thought that God invites all men, but only some accept the free gift of salvation.

God has made known to men his law (through the Mosaic law to Jews and the natural conscience to Gentiles [through which they become "a law unto themselves"]), and through the incarnation, Jesus Christ- His perfect sinless life and His offer to bear the sins of men and become a ransom for them. So, all men are without excuse. Everyone, therefore, has the ability to repent; God has revealed Himself to everyone. So, if someone does not repent, is it not their fault?

From what I have understood, the fault is on mankind for rejecting God. But according to Calvinism, it is God that actively chooses who will be saved (and, by consequence, who will not). So, was it God who first made Adam and Eve sin in the Garden, then? Calvin himself has said, "God, in a secret and marvellous way, justly wills, the things which men unjustly do." . . . "Although God and the devil will the same thing: they do so in an utterly different manner." The last quotation is just profoundly disgusting to me for reasons I don't think I even have to explain. The former quotation also disgusts me because it contradicts the Bible (I believe so, at least), and puts the blame on God. I do not deny that God uses the sin of people for his glorious purpose! Because God is in control of everything and can even use sinners for the greater good. God is completely sovereign and uses all things for good.

I have agreed with the traditional Southern Baptist view of predestination. I affirm total depravity to the extent the Bible does (men are totally depraved but can still recognize their need for a savior) and eternal security absolutely. With the rest, I hold to a typical "Arminian" view.

I also just feel an extreme aversion to agree with Calvin after taking a look at his life. I've read historical articles about him that weren't even trying to paint him in a bad light (from secular sources!), and I was appalled to hear about his life. I don't know, I don't like taking theology from someone who burns his theological opponents at the stake (AND did it in the name of our Savior. It's not like he wasn't a professing believer at the time. I am simply examining his fruit. I apologize if I put it a bit too harshly, but that seems to be what happened).

I just want to worship God, though. I will always thank Him for what He has done- saving me by grace through Christ's sacrifice on my behalf. I just want to worship Him, however He is like.

I worship Him because He is love. He is just and merciful. These are things I know from the Bible, and I trust His word.

I am someone who struggles with doubt, though. This really makes me doubt sometimes. What if I am wrong after all, and the Calvinists are more correct about God than I am?

I feel tempted to say that I would not worship the "God of Calvinism", just because I know God is not unjust. But would this condemn me? This is the thing I am most worried about, and the reason why I write this. That's why I am asking you all. I am really struggling here.

What I want to do is just affirm what is in the Bible and not take sides. Not try to figure everything out. But, it is in my personality to desire to figure everything out. Whenever people describe me, that is the first attribute they refer to. People describe me as someone who cannot rest until I know all I can, someone who investigates and needs answers.

I am content with just affirming what the Bible says. But if I say "if God is the God that Calvinism proposes, I do not want Him" is that wrong? Right now, I am willing to accept Him, even that way. I will still find Him merciful. But I just don't want to accept Him reluctantly. I want to accept Him with my full heart. I love God, I really do. He is the author of all good things. He created me and made me in His image. He gave me a purpose in life. Even when I messed up, He had mercy on me. Even in that sorry state, He sets before me good works for me to walk in. He says that I can be His child. Everything about Him is beautiful. But I am struggling here. I know it is just grace through faith that saves me. I know I am saved. But if I knock down and refute how Calvinists portray Him, and I am wrong, will He say to me, "depart from me, I never knew you"? Because I would be cursing Him to His face if I did that. And I love Him, I don't want to do that.

That is my honest question. Please help me. I am really struggling with this.

Let me come from a different angle...

Does our salvation depend on being theologically accurate ???

I believe that for those intellectually gifted there needs to be a greater dose of humility.

"Unless you become as a little child..."

Consider Ps 131

1 Lord, my heart is not proud, nor my eyes arrogant;
Nor do I involve myself in great matters,
Or in things too difficult for me.

2 I have certainly soothed and quieted my soul;
Like a weaned child resting against his mother,
My soul within me is like a weaned child.

3 Israel, wait for the Lord
From this time on and forever.

Hey - I have a take on the issue you raise that I am comfortable with but I hold it lightly.

So I suggest some work be done on your inner self that is to some extent demanding answers.

Remember that the first temptation was to know...

This desire is better surrendered to Him otherwise you will be driven to chase answers that may not be needful to know.

Better to rejoice in what we do know rather than have concern about what we don't.

Comments meant in Love.

 

[Rapture Bound]

Let me come from a different angle...

Does our salvation depend on being theologically accurate ???

I believe that for those intellectually gifted there needs to be a greater dose of humility.

"Unless you become as a little child..."

Consider Ps 131

1 Lord, my heart is not proud, nor my eyes arrogant;
Nor do I involve myself in great matters,
Or in things too difficult for me.

2 I have certainly soothed and quieted my soul;
Like a weaned child resting against his mother,
My soul within me is like a weaned child.

3 Israel, wait for the Lord
From this time on and forever.

Hey - I have a take on the issue you raise that I am comfortable with but I hold it lightly.

So I suggest some work be done on your inner self that is to some extent demanding answers.

Remember that the first temptation was to know...

This desire is better surrendered to Him otherwise you will be driven to chase answers that may not be needful to know.

Better to rejoice in what we do know rather than have concern about what we don't.

Comments meant in Love.

Carl, you said "
"Does our salvation depend on being theologically accurate ???"

You certainly have made some goods points here, and I agree with the main point you are making. It appears to me, that the answer to your question [although you meant is as a rhetorical question] is both "yes" and "no". By "yes" - I mean we need to be accurate concerning the person and atoning work of Jesus Christ in the sense of understanding and believing/embracing the scriptural truth that the only way a person can be justified before God is by grace through faith ... and apart from works Ephesians 2:8-10.

By "no" - I mean every other theological matter really doesn't matter if we get the above wrong. Every other theologically issue essentially becomes a secondary issue when it comes to the matter of a person receiving eternal life through Christ. But as simple and childlike as my truth statement appears to some, so very many have their "list" of other requirements that a person must "attain to" receiving eternal life other than trusting in Christ's substitutionary atoning work for them. To them it seems "too easy" = it is too "childlike" and simple - "there's gotta be more to it than that". In the end, they fail to embrace the "simplicity as it is in Christ" [2 Corinthians 11:3].

2 Peter 3:16, "“As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.”

Did you see that? "they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.” In other words, they allow these hard to understand issues to destroy them [to one degree or another]. Mature believers are to "major in the majors" [the primary doctrines of salvation] rather than "major in the minors" [and are not to allow the minor secondary doctrines to weaken our faith] as illustrated in the following example : a person must first embrace, and gain a solid working knowledge, of the primary axioms of Algebra 1 before attempting to take a class in Calculus 1 [a math student must not allow those difficult questions that arise in Calculus 1 to cause them to assume that Algebra 1 doesn't contain the principles of genuine mathematics.

In 2 Peter 3:16 we are clearly told that there are topics/questions that will be very difficult to understand in their fullness ... and predestination is one of those that appears to be near the top of the list for so many people. However, to what degree we understand it is not a salvation issue - although Calvin's spurious 5- point T.U.L.I.P. version of it has really caused many a believer to stumble [to one degree or another] in their faith [or even perhaps be a contributing factor in hindering some from receiving Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior].

However, the issue becomes even more confusing and convoluted when we consider that John Calvin got it right when it came to the only theological issue that really matters concerning a person's eternal destiny .... justification by God's grace through faith ... apart from works. So, although Calvin taught a confusing [and at times dishonoring] version of God's character in his teachings on predestination [in my opinion] ... God will easily sort out this whole mess concerning Him at the Judgment seat of Christ [and not us - lol]. As for myself, I really expect to meet the guy in heaven one day.

Also, [in my opinion] I certainly don't think that Calvin intentionally smeared the righteous character of God at times ... it was merely through his lack of understanding. And before we are too hard on Calvin [we must separate the person from his doctrine concerning predestination], who among us understands the totality, that is, has a 100% understanding of God's predestination? Is the degree of our understanding of the topic a litmus test as to who is a genuine believer and who isn't, or who gets into Heaven and who doesn't? ... hopefully most of us can come to agreement that the answer is an emphatic "no." And this is not to say that we shouldn't expose Calvin's grievous errors ... but, in the end, we all " see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known." [ 1 Corinthians 13:12].

 

[Rapture Bound]

Hello everyone!
I am really struggling with the concepts in Calvinism.
About a month ago, I broke down as I considered the conclusions that Calvinism led me to. I even cried at the kitchen table considering it. I cannot think of any way that this group of ideas does not lead to the conclusion that God is the author of sin, which He is NOT. God does not tempt any man to sin.
But according to Calvinism, all men are not just born spiritually dead, they cannot even recognize any goodness to be found in the Gospel unless God regenerates them first. I am so confused by this- did not Adam and Eve come to know good from evil by partaking of the fruit?
In no way am I insinuating that they are naturally inclined to seek God or can attain the righteousness that God requires. They need God's grace to be reconciled to Him. But I thought that God invites all men, but only some accept the free gift of salvation.

God has made known to men his law (through the Mosaic law to Jews and the natural conscience to Gentiles [through which they become "a law unto themselves"]), and through the incarnation, Jesus Christ- His perfect sinless life and His offer to bear the sins of men and become a ransom for them. So, all men are without excuse. Everyone, therefore, has the ability to repent; God has revealed Himself to everyone. So, if someone does not repent, is it not their fault?

From what I have understood, the fault is on mankind for rejecting God. But according to Calvinism, it is God that actively chooses who will be saved (and, by consequence, who will not). So, was it God who first made Adam and Eve sin in the Garden, then? Calvin himself has said, "God, in a secret and marvellous way, justly wills, the things which men unjustly do." . . . "Although God and the devil will the same thing: they do so in an utterly different manner." The last quotation is just profoundly disgusting to me for reasons I don't think I even have to explain. The former quotation also disgusts me because it contradicts the Bible (I believe so, at least), and puts the blame on God. I do not deny that God uses the sin of people for his glorious purpose! Because God is in control of everything and can even use sinners for the greater good. God is completely sovereign and uses all things for good.

I have agreed with the traditional Southern Baptist view of predestination. I affirm total depravity to the extent the Bible does (men are totally depraved but can still recognize their need for a savior) and eternal security absolutely. With the rest, I hold to a typical "Arminian" view.

I also just feel an extreme aversion to agree with Calvin after taking a look at his life. I've read historical articles about him that weren't even trying to paint him in a bad light (from secular sources!), and I was appalled to hear about his life. I don't know, I don't like taking theology from someone who burns his theological opponents at the stake (AND did it in the name of our Savior. It's not like he wasn't a professing believer at the time. I am simply examining his fruit. I apologize if I put it a bit too harshly, but that seems to be what happened).

I just want to worship God, though. I will always thank Him for what He has done- saving me by grace through Christ's sacrifice on my behalf. I just want to worship Him, however He is like.

I worship Him because He is love. He is just and merciful. These are things I know from the Bible, and I trust His word.

I am someone who struggles with doubt, though. This really makes me doubt sometimes. What if I am wrong after all, and the Calvinists are more correct about God than I am?

I feel tempted to say that I would not worship the "God of Calvinism", just because I know God is not unjust. But would this condemn me? This is the thing I am most worried about, and the reason why I write this. That's why I am asking you all. I am really struggling here.

What I want to do is just affirm what is in the Bible and not take sides. Not try to figure everything out. But, it is in my personality to desire to figure everything out. Whenever people describe me, that is the first attribute they refer to. People describe me as someone who cannot rest until I know all I can, someone who investigates and needs answers.

I am content with just affirming what the Bible says. But if I say "if God is the God that Calvinism proposes, I do not want Him" is that wrong? Right now, I am willing to accept Him, even that way. I will still find Him merciful. But I just don't want to accept Him reluctantly. I want to accept Him with my full heart. I love God, I really do. He is the author of all good things. He created me and made me in His image. He gave me a purpose in life. Even when I messed up, He had mercy on me. Even in that sorry state, He sets before me good works for me to walk in. He says that I can be His child. Everything about Him is beautiful. But I am struggling here. I know it is just grace through faith that saves me. I know I am saved. But if I knock down and refute how Calvinists portray Him, and I am wrong, will He say to me, "depart from me, I never knew you"? Because I would be cursing Him to His face if I did that. And I love Him, I don't want to do that.

That is my honest question. Please help me. I am really struggling with this.

Hi maves, I feel your pain - I was once firmly in your shoes ... but fortunately am now wearing a much more comfortable pair - lol
I've just posted on my thread my thoughts on the issue [that although not directly, but indirectly, addresses the dilemma that you speak of]. In other words, the issue of predestination [and Calvin's version of it] involves the issue of the character of God ... which in turn comes under the broader umbrella of a question sometimes referred to as Epicurus' trilemma - "If God is unable to prevent evil, then he is not all-powerful. If God is not willing to prevent evil, then he is not all-good. If God is both willing and able to prevent evil, then why does evil exist?"

Just skip done to the bottom of my post to view 3 videos that I believe will provide you with some very helpful insights. The rest of my post deals with the various deeper elements associated with the topic.
God Bless!

 

[Clare73]

I would even guess that its some form of misunderstanding of his French. The theological language of Calvin is sometimes hard to understand, without a proper definition of words. But who knows.
Great!
I am not a Calvinist, because I do not believe the view that the guilt of Adam is passed to his offspring, for example. Which is a common view in Calvinism. Its also frequently unnecessarily "dark" and pessimistic in its theology.

Agreed. . .Adam's guilt is not inherited (passed on), rather it is the sinful nature (depravity) that is inherited (passed on), but

I suggest that when you sort out Ro 5:12-15,
being true to its words,
omitting none of the "contradictory" issues presented there; i.e.,

sin is not accounted where there is no law vs. all sinned when there was no law with death penalty attached (as there was in the Garden),
the wages of sin is death (Ro 6:23), no sin was accounted between Adam and Moses vs. all died then, which is caused by sin,
so what sin caused their death,
and its conclusion in Ro 5:18 (the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men),


you may understand that in Ro 5:18-19 Paul is presenting imputation of Adam's guilt to all those born of (the first) Adam,
as well as imputation of Christ's righteousness to all those born of (the second Adam) Christ by faith (Ro 4:1-11),
just as righteousness was imputed to Abraham by faith (Ge 15:6, Ro 4:3).

Adam's guilt is not inherited (passed to his offspring by birth), it is the sinful nature that is inherited (passed on).
Adam's guilt is imputed (by God at birth) to all those born of Adam, just as Christ's righteousness is imputed (by God at the new birth) to all those born of Christ.

I have been a Calvinist for a long time, but last years I am adopting the views (or, maybe better to say, the style of thinking) of Leibniz as presented in his book Theodicy. Leibniz was a Lutheran, but he was also a genius of his own and trying to build bridges between various Christian theologies. The book is composed as a postmortem answer to a French Calvinist and historian Pierre Bayle.

The book would seem quite familiar to a person in the reformation camp (terms like predestination, predetermination etc), but the perfect character of God, namely his wisdom and love, is presented and defended in much better and optimistic way than in the most of Calvinistic works, I think.

G.W. Leibniz: Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz - Wikipedia
Theodicy: The Project Gutenberg eBook of Theodicy, by G. W. Leibniz

"Our end is to banish from men the false ideas that represent God to them as an absolute prince employing a despotic power, unfitted to be loved and unworthy of being loved. These notions are the more evil in relation to God inasmuch as the essence of piety is not only to fear him but also to love him above all things"

You may find the work useful, too. However, its not the easiest of readings.