Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
The article seems to me to contradict itself. In its discussion of the "two wills of God", it says, quite rightly, "God’s Directive Will, is that will whereby He directs or causes whatever comes to pass." Then, discussing God's Permissive Will, it says, "But God does not cause anyone to sin." As such, I can't say that the article is representative of Calvinism.To quote from a b-grade science fiction movie, "There can be only one". Just as there is only one Word. But that's a little ontological I fear, not really what you're thinking in your posts.
I am serious, there is in fact one eternal decree, that is why it is called "God's eternal decree" rather than God's eternal decrees.
In my reading I have found this to be the case - In Calvinist theology, the belief in one eternal decree is rooted in the teachings of John Calvin and is expounded upon in his work "Institutes of the Christian Religion." Calvin argued that God's sovereignty and control over all things, including salvation and damnation, is a central tenet of the Christian faith and that this sovereignty is expressed through the doctrine of predestination. This belief was further developed by later Calvinist theologians such as Theodore Beza, who wrote "The Christian Faith,” and Jonathan Edwards, who wrote "A Treatise Concerning Religious Affections." These works helped to establish the doctrine of predestination as a cornerstone of Calvinist theology and the idea that there is only one eternal decree remains a central aspect of Reformed theology to this day.
Visit This web page, it is about the eternal decree..
You may be right. @Clare73 is wise enough to read the web page I suggested. She will know what to do with it. I am confident of that.
Amen Sister!!! Preach it!!!!I see nothing in the Bible of a God who unwillingly grants what he does not wish to happen (Ex 4:11b, Dt 32:39, 1 Sa 2:7, 1 Kgs 11:14, 23, 12:15, 24, Job 1:12, Isa 45:7, 53:10, 54:16, Jer 44:27-28, Lam 3:37-38, Amos 3:6, Zec 11:16, Mt 10:29, Jn 9:2-3, Rev 17:17).
I see it as a ridiculous notion of man to attribute such weakness to God.
how do you deal with this then?Amen Sister!!! Preach it!!!!
What is the question? Did not the Lord ordain every bit of that?how do you deal with this then?
- 1 Chronicles 21:15 And God sent an angel unto Jerusalem to destroy it: and as he was destroying, the LORD beheld, and he repented him of the evil, and said to the angel that destroyed, It is enough, stay now thine hand. And the angel of the LORD stood by the threshingfloor of Ornan the Jebusite.
- Amos 7:6 The LORD repented for this: This also shall not be, saith the Lord GOD.
- Jonah 3:10 And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not.
you gave a cheer to this: "I see nothing in the Bible of a God who unwillingly grants what he does not wish to happen"What is the question? Did not the Lord ordain every bit of that?
What I'm about to say might contribute to "Christian indigestion" as one of my uncles puts it. Please, (Xeno and any other reader), understand me when I say I am 'Sola Scriptura' with the best of them, but I am not superstitiously so. I believe that all Scripture makes sense. I come to what I have by many of Scriptures' statements and themes. When I run into passages like Xeno has quoted here, they no more demonstrate to me a lack of immutability on God's part than they demonstrate a lack of mercy. I believe they are written and delivered to us to accommodate our temporal human thinking. When God says, in one place (Numbers 23:19), that he is not like man, that he should change his mind, and in another place (Jonah 3:10), that he changed his mind, the two are both true. And it is not as though I could not justify, or "explain away", the apparent contradictions —I could, but there is a principle that is common in Scripture that I mean to describe here.you gave a cheer to this: "I see nothing in the Bible of a God who unwillingly grants what he does not wish to happen"
and
looks problematic for that statement. Repentance implies regret, sorrow over a course of action, and postfactory unwillingness.
- 1 Chronicles 21:15 And God sent an angel unto Jerusalem to destroy it: and as he was destroying, the LORD beheld, and he repented him of the evil, and said to the angel that destroyed, It is enough, stay now thine hand. And the angel of the LORD stood by the threshingfloor of Ornan the Jebusite.
- Amos 7:6 The LORD repented for this: This also shall not be, saith the Lord GOD.
- Jonah 3:10 And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not.
One hesitates to attribute to God any of those things, but the statement equally attributes to God something that one ought to hesitate to attribute to God.
So what is the problem with God intending that 80 of them not respond? After all, God is not stupid. If, in the Catholic POV, he gives some a special invitation, and leaves the rest only "invited", and God is not stupid or ignorant, what is really the difference between the POV described in the video and Calvinism? Semantics.@Mark Quayle
The original post in this thread is relevant to our discission in "Is Calvinism Heresy?"
The video in the OP is useful but not wholly accurate.
The 100 invitations explanation given for Calvinism in it is not what I would say. I would say
For some forms of Calvinism, God sends 100 invitations and 20 of them are special, as the video describes, but God intends the 80 not to respond and their "limited freedom-of-will" is not able, by God's design, to respond.
"Nothing happens in a vacuum". One should more than hesitate to make claims concerning God that he doesn't himself hesitate to claim. We should not be careless in what we say about him. Besides considering the Anthropomorphic way God presents himself at times, I read many versions of Scripture; for example, in the story of Nineveh, where one version says that God "changed his mind", another says, that God "relented". I see no need to bring in the self-deterministic view of 'freewill'.One hesitates to attribute to God any of those things, but the statement equally attributes to God something that one ought to hesitate to attribute to God.
There is a kind of malice in deliberately and determinedly both extending an invitation and arranging matters - either externally or internally - so that the recipient cannot accept. But much more significant is that the scriptures contradict the idea of an invitation extended that is desired to fail.So what is the problem with God intending that 80 of them not respond? After all, God is not stupid. If, in the Catholic POV, he gives some a special invitation, and leaves the rest only "invited", and God is not stupid or ignorant, what is really the difference between the POV described in the video and Calvinism? Semantics.
I expect you mean, "designed" to fail. It does not fail, but accomplishes everything for which it was sent. The rebellious turn away from God, on purpose, when confronted with him, just as Romans 1 shows, even in the "non-Gospel" ways. Thus they bring any malice on themselves. "Jacob have I love, Esau have I hated." And it is only our temporal point of view that would point out that if they are predestined to the LOF that God is wrong to do so "before they were born or had done anything good or bad" (good ole Romans 9 again). Not so. God does not see time the way we do.There is a kind of malice in deliberately and determinedly both extending an invitation and arranging matters - either externally or internally - so that the recipient cannot accept. But much more significant is that the scriptures contradict the idea of an invitation extended that is desired to fail.
Nope, desired to fail, that is what I mean.I expect you mean, "designed" to fail.
Alas, you would say that, it is almost as if you believe you can have a POV other than a creaturely one. And do not posit that scripture reveals God's POV on this matter and your view, expressed in your post is the God's eye POV. Remember ....The way you are structuring this is understandable —I am a temporal human too— but the POV is faulty.
And yet he chooses only some (1 Pe 1:2), God's elect, as in the recipients of Peter's letter in Pontus, Galaia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia.Nope, desired to fail, that is what I mean.
The Bible verse commonly cited as expressing God's desire for all people to be saved is 1 Timothy 2:4, which states, "God our Savior, desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth." P
And "God our Saviour, desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth."And yet he chooses only some (1 Pe 1:2), God's elect, as in the recipients of Peter's letter in Pontus, Galaia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia.
Cannot the same be said for his choosing only some. . .1 Pe 1:2 tells me what he chooses; i.e., only the elect, no deductions needed?And "God our Saviour, desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth."
When I want to know what God desires the verse above tells me. Regarding humanity the verse above tells me what God desires, no deductions needed.
One is about desire, that which God says he wants. God desires all people to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth. The other is about the elect. Election is a different topic. One that is closer to this thread's original post. And I have discussed election in earlier posts in other threads.Cannot the same be said for his choosing only some. . .1 Pe 1:2 tells me what he chooses; i.e., only the elect, no deductions needed?
It's not either/or, it's both/and.
I want to tell you a short story, a summary, so to speak, of a much longer story.It's not either/or, it's both/and.
Contradiction of terms? "unconditional love for all humanity" and "election of only some."One is about desire, that which God says he wants. God desires all people to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth. The other is about the elect. Election is a different topic. One that is closer to this thread's original post. And I have discussed election in earlier posts in other threads.
According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC), election refers to the divine choice of those whom God has predestined to eternal beatitude (CCC 599 and following). The Catechism teaches that this election is an expression of God's unconditional love for humanity and that it is not based on any merit or foreseen faith on the part of the person chosen.
Keeping in mind that is not a NT usage of "mystery," where it is not about transcending human understanding, but simply about "secret;" i.e., something never before revealed; e.g., God's purpose to sum up all things in Christ (Eph 1:9), changes that will take place at the resurrection (1 Co 15:51), etc.The Catholic Church teaches that God's election is an expression of his unconditional love and that it is a mystery that transcends human understanding.
Contradiction of terms? "invitation to participate" and "election."All people are invited to participate in God's election through faith and obedience to his commands.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?