The Bible or Calvinism

[RisenInJesus]

So you'd rather make dishonest assessments of Reformed Theology than to make an honest argument? You say you don't have the time to read and study men, but look how much time you spent on the Servetus issue.

Why would you accuse me of making dishonest assessments of Reformed Theology just because I can't or don't see the need to read thousands of pages written by Calvin and all the confessions and catechisms? I have read portions and excerpts and have read and listened to enough teachings by Reformed pastor and authors to understand the Reformed position. I haven't spent a huge amount of time on the Servetus issue and I didn't say I don't have time to study men. I said I don't have time, nor do I think it is necessary, to read thousands of pages written BY MEN who are explaining what the Bible says from their Reformed position (or any position for that matter). Neither do I read paraphrases of the Bible.

 

[Hammster]

For the Calvinist, hardening is the infallible cause of sin, just as predestination to death is the infallible cause of hardening.

I twice asked a question which you did not answer, "Is it unjust to decide to send someone to Hell before they have done anything wrong?" I take it that by not answering you admit that it is unjust, yet you resist acknowledging it.

On Calvinism God decides to send certain people to Hell before they have done anything wrong. That is the most obvious problem with Calvinism. Hopefully now you understand the legitimate objection to Calvinism.

You've not supported that argument. You've made an argument that hardening equals causing to sin, and because God determined to harden the reporobate, He must have caused them to sin. I've just reread what you've written, and I'm not seeing where Calvin said that.

 

[RisenInJesus]

So to one of the chosen, one must choose God? Doesn't that make Him the elect/chosen? Words mean things.

No, one must respond to God.

 

[Hammster]

No, one must respond to God.

I agree with that.

 

[actionsub]

I suppose it depends on whose perspective one chooses to accept. Before Servetus even arrived in Geneva, John Calvin seemed to already have premeditated his murder indicated in a letter he wrote to William Farel seven years prior:

Servetus lately wrote to me and coupled with his letter a long volume of his delirious fancies and the Thrasonic boast, that I should see something astonishing and unheard of. He takes it upon himself to come hither, if it be agreeable to me. But I am unwilling to pledge my word for his safety, for if he shall come, I shall never permit him depart alive provided my authority be of any avail.
Parker, p.118

I think there is a big problem when the church authorities, contrary to the scriptures, are aligned with the civil government authorities. It has always led to abusive and extremely unchristian power.

I don't think Servetus is our go-to guy in order to discredit Calvinism. Deacon Dean several posts back, as well as another whose handle escapes me, made the case quite eloquently as to why.

 

[zippy2006]

You've not supported that argument. You've made an argument that hardening equals causing to sin, and because God determined to harden the reporobate, He must have caused them to sin. I've just reread what you've written, and I'm not seeing where Calvin said that.

So again, my main point is that on Calvinism God decides to send certain people to Hell before they have done anything wrong. That is precisely Calvin's argument in Institutes III, 23, 1.

Other support:

…it is utterly inconsistent to transfer the preparation for destruction to anything but God’s secret plan… God’s secret plan is the cause of hardening. (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 23, Paragraph 1)

…individuals are born, who are doomed from the womb to certain death, and are to glorify him by their destruction. (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 23, Paragraph 6)

With Augustine I say: the Lord has created those whom he unquestionably foreknew would go to destruction. This has happened because he has willed. (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 23, Paragraph 5)​

 

[zippy2006]

You've not supported that argument. You've made an argument that hardening equals causing to sin, and because God determined to harden the reporobate, He must have caused them to sin. I've just reread what you've written, and I'm not seeing where Calvin said that.

A secondary point may arise concerning the manner in which reprobation actually occurs. According to my understanding of Calvinism, it happens in this way: first God decides to pass over the individual, then God hardens the individual's heart, then the individual falls into sin, then the individual dies and is damned.

Your objection is that hardness of heart does not necessarily lead to sin. I have a number of things to say about that:

1. Biblically, hardness of heart and sin go hand in hand. If someone's heart is hardened then they are simultaneously turning away from God. This is part and parcel of the Biblical logic.
2. In Institutes III, 23, 1, Calvin's topic is reprobation. He is talking about "reprobation," "vessels of wrath fitted for destruction," "hardening," and "preparation for destruction." What sense does it make to talk about hardening apart from sin if, according to Calvin, hardening goes hand in hand with reprobation? Presumably Calvin believes that sin is a proximate cause of reprobation, therefore if hardening leads to reprobation it must do so through sin.
3. I don't understand how this answers my main objection noted in my last post. Suppose hardening does not lead to sin. Does that somehow mean that God does not decide to send certain people to Hell before they have done anything wrong? Calvin is clear that God reprobates prior to any demerit. Is his reprobation therefore ineffective if hardening does not lead to sin? Can someone resist sin without God's help? The logic just doesn't pan out. You seem to be questioning whether God's decree of reprobation will be effective.
4. Probably you are trying to preserve human responsibility for sin by claiming that hardening is not a full cause of sin--the human will is also a partial cause of sin alongside the hardening. But if humans are not led inevitably to sin by hardening, then they can avoid sin without God's help, for the God who hardens is not simultaneously granting grace to avoid sin. But if they can avoid sin without God's help then they can achieve righteousness apart from God, and we fall into Pelagianism. Therefore we must say that sin necessarily follows hardening and God's withdrawal of grace.

 

[Hammster]

So again, my main point is that on Calvinism God decides to send certain people to Hell before they have done anything wrong. That is precisely Calvin's argument in Institutes III, 23, 1.

Other support:

…it is utterly inconsistent to transfer the preparation for destruction to anything but God’s secret plan… God’s secret plan is the cause of hardening. (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 23, Paragraph 1)

…individuals are born, who are doomed from the womb to certain death, and are to glorify him by their destruction. (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 23, Paragraph 6)

With Augustine I say: the Lord has created those whom he unquestionably foreknew would go to destruction. This has happened because he has willed. (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 23, Paragraph 5)​

Nothing quoted supports your assertion.

 

[Hammster]

A secondary point may arise concerning the manner in which reprobation actually occurs. According to my understanding of Calvinism, it happens in this way: first God decides to pass over the individual, then God hardens the individual's heart, then the individual falls into sin, then the individual dies and is damned.

There's your problem right in bold. It's a straw man. All men sin, even you. So how does Calvinism, if your understanding is correct, account for that?

 

[zippy2006]

Nothing quoted supports your assertion.

Are you even being serious? Do you really think those passages do not support the view that God decides to send people to Hell before they have done anything wrong? Let's take them one by one:

…it is utterly inconsistent to transfer the preparation for destruction to anything but God’s secret plan… God’s secret plan is the cause of hardening. (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 23, Paragraph 1)
​

God prepares destruction for individuals by his secret plan, and it is due to nothing other than God's secret plan. Since it is not due to something they have done wrong, God decides to destroy them before they have done anything wrong.

…individuals are born, who are doomed from the womb to certain death, and are to glorify him by their destruction. (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 23, Paragraph 6)
​

Doomed from the womb to certain death. Obviously this is God deciding to send people to Hell before they have done anything wrong. Or do you think that babies in the womb have done something wrong?

With Augustine I say: the Lord has created those whom he unquestionably foreknew would go to destruction. This has happened because he has willed. (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 23, Paragraph 5)
​

God creates those who he foreknew would go to destruction and they go to destruction because he willed it. Another clear support for the claim above.

There's your problem right in bold. It's a straw man.

Why? Because you say so? Why can't you give any evidence to the contrary?

It is not a strawman. Go ask a Calvinist theologian if God's decree of reprobation precedes his foreknowledge of demerits. On Calvinism it does, both in Infralapsarianism and Supralapsarianism.

All men sin, even you. So how does Calvinism, if your understanding is correct, account for that?

Like I said earlier, my position has no problem handling the claim that everyone sins. It's not even clear how this would be a problem for my position. Let's suppose everyone sins. How does this impede my argument in the least? You are ever-shy to give a reason.

 

[Hammster]

Are you even being serious? Do you really think those passages do not support the view that God decides to send people to Hell before they have done anything wrong? Let's take them one by one:

…it is utterly inconsistent to transfer the preparation for destruction to anything but God’s secret plan… God’s secret plan is the cause of hardening. (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 23, Paragraph 1)
​

God prepares destruction for individuals by his secret plan, and it is due to nothing other than God's secret play. Since it is not due to something they have done wrong, God decides to destroy them before they have done anything wrong.

…individuals are born, who are doomed from the womb to certain death, and are to glorify him by their destruction. (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 23, Paragraph 6)
​

Doomed from the womb to certain death. Obviously this is God deciding to send people to Hell before they have done anything wrong. Or do you think that babies in the womb have done something wrong?

With Augustine I say: the Lord has created those whom he unquestionably foreknew would go to destruction. This has happened because he has willed. (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 23, Paragraph 5)
​

God creates those who he foreknew would go to destruction and they go to destruction because he willed it. Another clear support for the claim above.



Why? Because you say so? Why can't you give any evidence to the contrary?

It is not a strawman. Go ask a Calvinist theologian if God's decree of reprobation precedes his foreknowledge of demerits. On Calvinism it does, both in Infralapsarianism and Supralapsarianism.



Like I said earlier, my position has no problem handling the claim that everyone sins. It's not even clear how this would be a problem for my position. Let's suppose everyone sins. How does this impede my argument in the least? You are ever-shy to give a reason.

The hardening does not cause sin. That hardening causes sin is your premise. Once you can let go of that, the rest will fall apart on its own.

 

[zippy2006]

The hardening does not cause sin. That hardening causes sin is your premise. Once you can let go of that, the rest will fall apart on its own.

I've already addressed this claim in detail and received no response:

Your objection is that hardness of heart does not necessarily lead to sin. I have a number of things to say about that:

1. Biblically, hardness of heart and sin go hand in hand. If someone's heart is hardened then they are simultaneously turning away from God. This is part and parcel of the Biblical logic.
2. In Institutes III, 23, 1, Calvin's topic is reprobation. He is talking about "reprobation," "vessels of wrath fitted for destruction," "hardening," and "preparation for destruction." What sense does it make to talk about hardening apart from sin if, according to Calvin, hardening goes hand in hand with reprobation? Presumably Calvin believes that sin is a proximate cause of reprobation, therefore if hardening leads to reprobation it must do so through sin.
3. I don't understand how this answers my main objection noted in my last post. Suppose hardening does not lead to sin. Does that somehow mean that God does not decide to send certain people to Hell before they have done anything wrong? Calvin is clear that God reprobates prior to any demerit. Is his reprobation therefore ineffective if hardening does not lead to sin? Can someone resist sin without God's help? The logic just doesn't pan out. You seem to be questioning whether God's decree of reprobation will be effective.
4. Probably you are trying to preserve human responsibility for sin by claiming that hardening is not a full cause of sin--the human will is also a partial cause of sin alongside the hardening. But if humans are not led inevitably to sin by hardening, then they can avoid sin without God's help, for the God who hardens is not simultaneously granting grace to avoid sin. But if they can avoid sin without God's help then they can achieve righteousness apart from God, and we fall into Pelagianism. Therefore we must say that sin necessarily follows hardening and God's withdrawal of grace.

We can summarize:

1. If you don't think hardness of heart leads to sin, you should try reading the Bible.
2. Suppose hardness of heart does not lead to sin. How does that undermine my argument?

 

[Hammster]

I've already addressed this claim in detail and received no response:



We can summarize:

1. If you don't think hardness of heart leads to sin, you should try reading the Bible.
2. Suppose hardness of heart does not lead to sin. How does that undermine my argument?

My objection is that sin isn't caused by the hardeness of heart. Hardness of heart may lead to sin (see Pharoah), but it's not the only cause (see Pharoah).

 

[RC1970]

Are you even being serious? Do you really think those passages do not support the view that God decides to send people to Hell before they have done anything wrong? Let's take them one by one:

…it is utterly inconsistent to transfer the preparation for destruction to anything but God’s secret plan… God’s secret plan is the cause of hardening. (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 23, Paragraph 1)
​

God prepares destruction for individuals by his secret plan, and it is due to nothing other than God's secret plan. Since it is not due to something they have done wrong, God decides to destroy them before they have done anything wrong.

…individuals are born, who are doomed from the womb to certain death, and are to glorify him by their destruction. (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 23, Paragraph 6)
​

Doomed from the womb to certain death. Obviously this is God deciding to send people to Hell before they have done anything wrong. Or do you think that babies in the womb have done something wrong?

With Augustine I say: the Lord has created those whom he unquestionably foreknew would go to destruction. This has happened because he has willed. (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 23, Paragraph 5)
​

God creates those who he foreknew would go to destruction and they go to destruction because he willed it. Another clear support for the claim above.



Why? Because you say so? Why can't you give any evidence to the contrary?

It is not a strawman. Go ask a Calvinist theologian if God's decree of reprobation precedes his foreknowledge of demerits. On Calvinism it does, both in Infralapsarianism and Supralapsarianism.



Like I said earlier, my position has no problem handling the claim that everyone sins. It's not even clear how this would be a problem for my position. Let's suppose everyone sins. How does this impede my argument in the least? You are ever-shy to give a reason.

Zippy,

I'm sure this has been stated to you before, but I will bring it up again just to be clear, that the Westminster Divines and the London Baptists as well as Martin Luther (and I believe Calvin) have all made the point that God's role in reprobation is a passive role. His role in saving the elect is active, but His role in hardening the lost is passive.

That the Bible says God hardened Pharaoh's heart is beyond dispute (Exodus 7:1-5). The question remains, how did God harden Pharaoh's heart? Luther argued for a passive rather than an active hardening. That is, God did not create fresh evil in Pharaoh's heart. There was already enough evil present in Pharaoh's heart to incline him to resist the will of God at every turn. All God ever has to do to harden anyone is to remove His restraining grace from them and give them over to their own evil impulses (Romans 1:28) This is what God does to everyone whom He passes over.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

No, one must respond to God.

Of course! Who has said otherwise?

The people who rail against Calvinism the most seem to understand its doctrines the least.

 

[zippy2006]

Zippy,

I'm sure this has been stated to you before, but I will bring it up again just to be clear, that the Westminster Divines and the London Baptists as well as Martin Luther (and I believe Calvin) have all made the point that God's role in reprobation is a passive role. His role in saving the elect is active, but His role in hardening the lost is passive.

That the Bible says God hardened Pharaoh's heart is beyond dispute (Exodus 7:1-5). The question remains, how did God harden Pharaoh's heart? Luther argued for a passive rather than an active hardening. That is, God did not create fresh evil in Pharaoh's heart. There was already enough evil present in Pharaoh's heart to incline him to resist the will of God at every turn. All God ever has to do to harden anyone is to remove His restraining grace from them and give them over to their own evil impulses (Romans 1:28) This is what God does to everyone whom He passes over.

I have made ample room in this thread for the view that reprobation is passive rather than active. It doesn't affect my point. On Calvinism, God's decree of reprobation precedes his foreknowledge of demerits (God decides to send certain people to Hell before they have done anything wrong). Passive reprobation is perfectly consistent with such a doctrine.

That said, I'm not convinced such a view properly captures Luther or Calvin.

 

[zippy2006]

My objection is that sin isn't caused by the hardeness of heart. Hardness of heart may lead to sin (see Pharoah), but it's not the only cause (see Pharoah).

Calvin says that God prepares certain individuals for destruction, and this comes from the secret counsel of God alone. He gives hardening as a specific example of this.

You think hardening doesn't always lead to sin. Therefore you think God's preparation for destruction does not always lead to destruction. That doesn't make any sense. When Calvin says that some are prepared for destruction by God, he is implying that they will be destroyed. God's will is never thwarted.

Hardness of heart may lead to sin (see Pharoah), but it's not the only cause (see Pharoah).

It is a sufficient cause. None that God prepares for destruction will be saved. Once God decides to damn them, there is nothing they can do to change that. And he does so prior to foreknowledge of demerits. (See also point 4 here)

Are you trying to deny the fact that Calvinists believe God's decree of reprobation precedes his foreknowledge of demerits? Are you saying that God's decree of reprobation lacks efficacy? That some will be saved who are not elect? Your logic is not at all clear.

 

[zippy2006]

Zippy,

I'm sure this has been stated to you before, but I will bring it up again just to be clear, that the Westminster Divines and the London Baptists as well as Martin Luther (and I believe Calvin) have all made the point that God's role in reprobation is a passive role. His role in saving the elect is active, but His role in hardening the lost is passive.

That the Bible says God hardened Pharaoh's heart is beyond dispute (Exodus 7:1-5). The question remains, how did God harden Pharaoh's heart? Luther argued for a passive rather than an active hardening. That is, God did not create fresh evil in Pharaoh's heart. There was already enough evil present in Pharaoh's heart to incline him to resist the will of God at every turn. All God ever has to do to harden anyone is to remove His restraining grace from them and give them over to their own evil impulses (Romans 1:28) This is what God does to everyone whom He passes over.

In an essay on double predestination, R. C. Sproul quotes Francois Turrettini:

The negative act includes two, both preterition, by which in the election of some as well to glory as to grace, he neglected and slighted others, which is evident from the event of election, and negative desertion, by which he left them in the corrupt mass and in their misery; which, however, is as to be understood, 1. That they are not excepted from the laws of common providence, but remain subject to them, nor are immediately deprived of all God’s favor, but only of the saving and vivifying which is the fruit of election, 2. That preterition and desertion; not indeed from the nature of preterition and desertion itself, and the force of the denied grace itself, but from the nature of the corrupt free will, and the force of corruption in it; as he who does not cure the disease of a sick man, is not the cause per se of the disease, nor of the results flowing from it; so sins are the consequents, rather than the effects of reprobation, necessarily bringing about the futurition of the event, but yet not infusing nor producing the wickedness…
(Francois Turrettini, Theological Institutes (Typescript manuscript of Institutio Theologlae Elencticae, 3 vo]s., 1679-1685), trans. George Musgrave Giger, D.D., p. 97.)
​

Let's look at this particular part:

2. That preterition and desertion; not indeed from the nature of preterition and desertion itself, and the force of the denied grace itself, but from the nature of the corrupt free will, and the force of corruption in it; as he who does not cure the disease of a sick man, is not the cause per se of the disease, nor of the results flowing from it; so sins are the consequents, rather than the effects of reprobation, necessarily bringing about the futurition of the event, but yet not infusing nor producing the wickedness…​

He says that (passive) reprobation necessarily brings about wickedness, but does not cause that wickedness. Similarly, consider a plant in dire need of water. The gardener who refuses to water the plant does not cause the death of the plant, even though he has the power to save it. Or take Turrettini's own analogy: a disease. The doctor who refuses to treat a disease causes neither the disease or the results of the disease, even though he has the power to cure it.

The problem is this: responsibility is destroyed. The plant is not at fault any more than the diseased person. He contracts a disease and dies from it. And is he to be punished for this? For the effects of the disease? We can only punish someone if it is possible for them to avoid the fault. On Calvinism, God punishes man for the effects of a disease that man cannot cure, and this is true even on Infralapsarianism.

The second problem is this: God decided to let the man with the disease die even prior to foreknowledge of demerits. That is, before the man had done anything wrong God decided that he should die from the disease. And this is somehow said to display God's justice--man dying from a terminal disease. Of course this is manifestly unjust.

 

[Hammster]

Calvin says that God prepares certain individuals for destruction, and this comes from the secret counsel of God alone. He gives hardening as a specific example of this.

You think hardening doesn't always lead to sin. Therefore you think God's preparation for destruction does not always lead to destruction. That doesn't make any sense. When Calvin says that some are prepared for destruction by God, he is implying that they will be destroyed. God's will is never thwarted.



It is a sufficient cause. None that God prepares for destruction will be saved. Once God decides to damn them, there is nothing they can do to change that. And he does so prior to foreknowledge of demerits. (See also point 4 here)

Are you trying to deny the fact that Calvinists believe God's decree of reprobation precedes his foreknowledge of demerits? Are you saying that God's decree of reprobation lacks efficacy? That some will be saved who are not elect? Your logic is not at all clear.

Since nearly every post you've misrepresented what I've said (including the above), and I don't feel like further correcting you on what I actually have said (which is there for anyone to see), I don't feel like wasting more time responding.

 

[RC1970]

The problem is this: responsibility is destroyed. The plant is not at fault any more than the diseased person. He contracts a disease and dies from it. And is he to be punished for this? For the effects of the disease? We can only punish someone if it is possible for them to avoid the fault. On Calvinism, God punishes man for the effects of a disease that man cannot cure, and this is true even on Infralapsarianism.

The second problem is this: God decided to let the man with the disease die even prior to foreknowledge of demerits. That is, before the man had done anything wrong God decided that he should die from the disease. And this is somehow said to display God's justice--man dying from a terminal disease. Of course this is manifestly unjust.

If you read the rest of Sproul's essay, you will see that he (or Turrettini) deal with your objection. Essentially, even though God does not consider future merits or demerits, He does consider that all humans are fallen and therefore will eventually have demerits.

Now, maybe your concern is actually with the doctrine of Original Sin. Is it just that God would condemn the whole human race based on the actions of our primordial parents? God seems to say that it is just. What does Zippy think?