The Witness of the Apostles Refutes Calvinism, Predestinationism

[JackSparrow]

Peter holds degrees from the University of the West of England in Bristol, Multnomah Biblical Seminary (MDiv/MABS), and the Doctor of Ministry degree in homiletics from Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, where Haddon Robinson was his mentor.


BTW, Haddon Robinson taught me preaching. Awesome guy. I don't know Peter

Wow - Small world.

Peter Mead works for Langham Partnership About Langham Partnership — 9-a-Day from Langham Partnership

Based at All Souls Church London. Defenders of Calvinistic type faith in the UK. I would call it soft Calvinism. By that I mean leaning away from the more liberal stuff going on in the UK.

Strict Baptists tend to be harder line Calvinists (maybe high Calvinist would be right). Thats about it, in The South at least.

 

[MuffinTheMan]

I am glad you don't worship Calvin, but his very thoughts are tightly interwoven within your beliefs. Since you don't worship Calvin, then I'm sure the words in my signature do not bother you in the least.

The spirit that appears to be behind your choice of signature is what bothers me most.

I have heard of NO ONE, in all my 50+ years of living and being around thousands of believers, come to understand John 3:16 as God loving only the elect and that Jesus died for them only. I am fairly sure no Calvinist alive today came to this conclusion either, except he first heard or read it explained from another source.

We don't use John 3:16 as a proof text for anything. We try to look at the whole of Scripture.

I have to respectfully disagree with you, in that you understand the doctrines of grace by studying the Bible. Who would understand the majority of Calvinists' doctrines except he heard or read it explained from another source?

.
.
.

How does one come to the conclusion that God chose only certain ones to obtain salvation, and not others, leaving them to go to hell without remedy? You will not get that studying only the Bible; you must hear or read it from man's words.

Who, from reading the Bible alone, would come to the same conclusions as TULIP? Who? I can guarantee no one on this board reached the conclusions of TULIP reading only the Bible.

Bible passages...check it out.

I'm not saying that none of us gained understanding from listening or reading teachings on Scripture, but we (at least not all of us) do not believe the way we do "because John Calvin said so." I trust that most of us have heard teaching and have done as the Bereans did and "[examined] the Scriptures...to see whether these things were so."

 

[MuffinTheMan]

It seems to me that it's talking about God ordaining David's conception and birth, and knowing his life before it happened. I don't see how this says God knows all because He has determined everything that will happen, rather than God just being all knowing.
I'm not a scholar, though, so I won't pretend I know for sure. I just believe God knows everything - determined and undetermined futures included.

Calvinism and the like are trying to explain the unexplainable. They are stepping in waters that are far beyond what any of us can understand. The best they can do is cram it into a system, made by man for man, so our little minds won't burst. But in doing so they will inevitably leave out some things, and thus, won't have the real truth of the matter. Partial truth isn't good, and the whole truth is only found looking through humble eyes that can accept the mystery of God.

"O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!"

The Bible contains the living Word of God. Reading it, we should let it speak to us in the way it should: spiritually - not philosophically or theologically. God wants us to be concerned about the teachings He has sent to us, not the vain studies of wise men, especially those that place our infinite Creator under their uninspired discernment.

The Word of God is for us to live for and through. It's a guide, a survival book if you will. It's meant for our lives today. The testimony of the Lord Jesus Christ is simple, and it's a shame that believers have been caught up in cyclical, empty, and unrewarding arguments that so many non-believers practice themselves. The arguments in this thread alone almost mirror the types of self-righteous debates non-believers have over philosophical issues, including the argument of God's non-existence.

I'm not saying that I'm better than any of you, however, or even that you should stop studying such things. I just think that man-made doctrines, philosophy and systematic theologies don't mix with God's Word.

If you study Scripture, you see God "ordaining," "predestining," etc. The interesting thing is that God is the One doing the "ordaining" or "predestining." How does it make sense for God to "ordain" or "predestine" something to occur if He is simply allowing us humans to do as we wish?

How would you explain the following passage:

"For truly in this city there were gathered together against Your holy servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose predestined to occur." - Acts 4:27-28

 

[MuffinTheMan]

"God has decreed that which will come to pass"

I am not so sure. This would mean he decreed each and everyones sin.

.
.
.

The bottom line is in the end - which God has decided - the end result will be exactly as he determined. That is the end result. Not every action of man.

How would you respond to these passages from Proverbs:

“The Lord has made everything for its own purpose, even the wicked for the day of evil.” – Proverbs 16:4

“Man’s steps are ordained by the Lord, how then can man understand his way?” – Proverbs 20:24

“The king’s heart is like channels of water in the hand of the Lord; He turns it wherever He wishes.” – Proverbs 21:1

 

[crimsonleaf]

What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath--prepared for destruction?

The text say WHAT IF doesn't it ? Yes it does. Is there a reason ? Think about it.

What if God made crimson leaf an atheist and then ping, two years ago made him a Calvinist who gets stuck with the idea that God made most men for destruction. Also not able to absorb ALL of scripture in order to get the big picture.

If I look at all three relevant verses in Romans and not just the first, I get:

(Rom 9:22) What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction,

(Rom 9:23) in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory—

(Rom 9:24) even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?

I'm not really sure of the point you want to make. The whole passage is about God doing as He wills, and I have no argument with that.

Gmm4 has already shown you the difference between God making all these reprobates and an alternative so go back 2 or 3 posts and read it.

YOU go back and read it - then read my answer. It's not as if I ignored him - I just disagree.

You Crimson are limiting God.
1. God makes most people unable to repent. or
2. The free willers with the problem of God not being omniscient and so forth.
Ever occurred to you that God is bigger than all Calvinists put together ?

This is old old stuff going on since around 385 AD when Augustine first invented it. No I do not have an answer as Like you I have not been given access the the secret will of God. No one knows. The dispute is really do we bend and ignore a load of scripture to suit our finite minds.

If you didn't have an answer then fine. Don't criticise us for ours.

Unfortunately those who rail against Calvinists would be more efficient if they offered credible alternatives instead of saying "I don't know what's right, but you must be wrong".

Or do we acknowledge say an experienced Calvinist who preached. "The Bible teaches both so must I preach both"

Extra brownie point if you know who the preacher is. Being a Calvinist you ought to. Especially as he lived near Crouch End.

I left Crouch End when I was four.

Correction It is NOT my terminology. I am not an Arminian as you should know if you have ever read my posts. Get your facts straight.

I apologise - it's not a label I would give my worst enemy.

Yes he COULD. Did he ? Opinions vary as the Bible does not say. Some extrapolate a few verses for this idea. Even the various branches within Calvinism itself are split over this. So I doubt if you being new in the faith can help out much.

Ah yes, new boy. I've studied the faith for 32 years but I'm still new so my opinion is worthless. Not only that but you labour the point three times in this post alone. I'm either right or I'm not. The amount of time I've been right or wrong is irrelevant.

Here is a REPEAT of a couple of answers OK. Answers to your actual question. Not a different question as you wrongly allege.

"One answer would be he did not want robots but genuine love. "

"Another would be that it was the only way God could reveal more of himself"

OK, so the first answer suggests that God made everyone the same, some chose to love Him and the rest can go to hell. The second answer has Him creating the reprobate to, what, serve as an example for His justice?

My question relates to the condemnation people here heap upon Calvinists while offering solutions to problems which are equally "unloving" or brutal to our sensibilities, or indeed claim (as you do) not to have an answer at all.

BTW Arcoe and GM are way ahead of me. I am only a newbie like yourself.

The irony is I am fighting the position that men are puppets and robots. You being a Calvinist should be doing that, not me.

GM may be, but Arcoe shows the same level of knowledge as elman, which doesn't place him at or near the top of my list of "Feared Calvinist Debaters".

Man's will is free as far as the limitations of his nature allow. That doesn't makes us robots, but it doesn't allow us to pick God up and put Him down at a whim. In fact,

(1Co 2:14) The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.

God gives the gift of faith to some, and others he leaves to follow their own will.

 

[JackSparrow]

How would you respond to these passages from Proverbs:

“The Lord has made everything for its own purpose, even the wicked for the day of evil.” – Proverbs 16:4

By itself - I would handle this with great difficulty. Granted it certainly sounds like God authored all sin. But what then of man's responsibility ? It is non existent.

Also

Mathew 12 :24 Now when the Pharisees heard it they said, “This fellow does not cast out demons except by Beelzebub, the ruler of the demons.”
25 But Jesus knew their thoughts, and said, “Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation, and every city or house divided against itself will not stand. 26 If Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then will his kingdom stand? 27 And if I cast out demons by Beelzebub, by whom do your sons cast them out? Therefore they shall be your judges. 28 But if I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, surely the kingdom of God has come upon you.

Is this proverb claiming the Lord made the Pharisees say exactly what they did ? Surly this would be the puppet theology so many of us are against.
If God created the evil of the world and orchestrated it as such then he would be against himself and Jesus would be speaking self contradictions.

Therefore this verse IMO must be reconciled with the bigger picture.


[QUOTE
“Man’s steps are ordained by the Lord, how then can man understand his way?” – Proverbs 20:24
ALL Men are ordered/commanded/ordained to repent an believe. Most Don't as we know. Does this mean God is not all powerful then ? What else can it mean as the command is not obeyed.

My point again is that it is wrong to isolates small text from the wider context. Poor answer I know but then why did God convict me to defend the charge that he is the author of sin and be against Calvinism ?


[QUOTE
“The king’s heart is like channels of water in the hand of the Lord; He turns it wherever He wishes.” – Proverbs 21:1[/QUOTE]
I have no doubt he does what ever he wishes. Working all thing to the council of his will. Not worked them and set a puppet show in motion.
When Joseph's brothers did what they did to Joseph na d sent him to Egypt, were they sinning or were they string puppet automatons ?


I cannot figure out what is the Holy mind of God. Nor could Augustine as he went around in circles on this.

I am against (made that way by God ) that we are puppets. Pulling these verses out in isolation suggest we are just that. What would be the point of the whole of human history if we were. Why are we given the Bible if we are predestined to not read it, unable to repent.


However. If I am totally wrong why should I or anyone worry. Eat drink and be merry. Ignore the the poor meek lonely and needy humanity despite the Bible saying the opposite. God made them that way. Tough for them.

You don't believe that though do you.

 

[crimsonleaf]

I am against (made that way by God ) that we are puppets. Pulling these verses out in isolation suggest we are just that. What would be the point of the whole of human history if we were. Why are we given the Bible if we are predestined to not read it, unable to repent.


However. If I am totally wrong why should I or anyone worry. Eat drink and be merry. Ignore the the poor meek lonely and needy humanity despite the Bible saying the opposite. God made them that way. Tough for them.

You don't believe that though do you.

No we don't. The thing is you have to harmonise the bible with the verses which some throw out (not you). And nor is predestination a licence to sin.

I believe that the Reformed doctrines do a better job of harmonisation than other systems. Man's will, limited by his nature, coupled with God's Grace, Mercy, Love, Justice and Wrath equals Reformed theology AND answers the tough questions. Some people may not like the answers, but those same people are often guilty of painting God the way they'd like to see Him, not as He really may be.

 

[Arcoe]

The spirit that appears to be behind your choice of signature is what bothers me most.

And what spirit is that? Who told you what spirit it is? Do you have some kind of divine powers to be able to look into my heart?

And it is the truth of that statement which should bother you the most. That is what bothers me, a regenerated preacher of the Gospel saying something of this sort with evil intentions.

We don't use John 3:16 as a proof text for anything. We try to look at the whole of Scripture.

I believe it makes a very good proof text for eternal life. Would you agree?

Bible passages...check it out.

I'm not saying that none of us gained understanding from listening or reading teachings on Scripture, but we (at least not all of us) do not believe the way we do "because John Calvin said so." I trust that most of us have heard teaching and have done as the Bereans did and "[examined] the Scriptures...to see whether these things were so."

But his teachings have influenced your believing. Would you agree?

Would you also agree, that in your 'Berean-search', you found some, if not most of your beliefs in what Calvin wrote, and the Westminster Confessions?

 

[JackSparrow]

No we don't. The thing is you have to harmonise the bible with the verses which some throw out (not you). And nor is predestination a licence to sin.

I believe that the Reformed doctrines do a better job of harmonisation than other systems. Man's will, limited by his nature, coupled with God's Grace, Mercy, Love, Justice and Wrath equals Reformed theology AND answers the tough questions. Some people may not like the answers, but those same people are often guilty of painting God the way they'd like to see Him, not as He really may be.

What I am after is harmonization of verses each side throws out in support of their positions. They must harmonize in the end. God cannot be against himself, ordaining sin then not willing any should perish, and so on.

Maybe the Reformed doctrine does the best job overall. It is still a muddle though.

Some say man has limited free will ( same as Arminianism), others say none at all.

Some say man is responsible for his sins, others differ, it is Satan. Yet others only a few posts back say no. God made it happen.

Some agrree with Calvin. Others do not even though most Calvinistic texts e,g Dort quote or paraphrase him


However I am not saying non Calvinists have it all sorted.

 

[MuffinTheMan]

And what spirit is that? Who told you what spirit it is? Do you have some kind of divine powers to be able to look into my heart?

I said what your intentions "appear" to be--I'm not claiming to know your motivations. If you genuinely believe using that quote for your signature block is edifying to your brothers and sisters in Christ here, then use it.

And it is the truth of that statement which should bother you the most. That is what bothers me, a regenerated preacher of the Gospel saying something of this sort with evil intentions.

I am bothered by it. Since being on this forum, I haven't once quoted John Calvin; and I've only read part of the introduction to his Institutes. Like I said, I don't worship the guy, but I gather that he knew his soteriology pretty well.

I believe it makes a very good proof text for eternal life. Would you agree?

I would. I shouldn't have said we don't use it as a proof text for "anything."

But his teachings have influenced your believing. Would you agree?

Inasmuch as they have influenced others whom I have been influenced by (since I've read next to nothing of his works), yes.

Would you also agree, that in your 'Berean-search', you found some, if not most of your beliefs in what Calvin wrote, and the Westminster Confessions?

If I understand the question properly, yes. But I'm not sure why that should matter...

What bothers me is that we can list off a number of verses that support our theology and still be told that our viewpoints are nowhere taught in Scripture. The least you guys could do is admit that there are difficult passages that seem to teach what we believe (JackSparrow was able to do this)--otherwise you come across as being disingenuous. I freely admit that there are a number of passages that are difficult (not impossible) for me to reconcile with what I believe is taught in Scripture, but I would have the exact same problem if I were in your camp (which I was when I first believed). I find that the vast weight of Scripture leads me to believe in the doctrines of grace.

For all: I know there are those of us on both sides that fall into the trap of launching ad hominem attacks and raising straw men, but we should all strive to keep our discussions centered around understanding passages of Scripture--otherwise we're probably wasting our time.

 

[MuffinTheMan]

Some say man is responsible for his sins, others differ, it is Satan. Yet others only a few posts back say no. God made it happen.

I'm not sure to whom your referring, but I haven't seen anyone here advocating that man is not responsible for his sins. No one is forced to sin against his will. I believe that God has decreed all that comes to pass, but I do not claim to know how He effects His decree without forcing people to do that which is against their will. I could say "secondary means," but that probably wouldn't be a good enough explanation for a number of us. Some things we aren't meant to understand about God--those of us on both sides recognize that.

 

[MuffinTheMan]

...as you wish.

I think it would be better if it said, "Aaaaaas......youuuuuu......wiiiiiiish!"

(If you haven't seen The Princess Bride, I'm sorry).

 

[Arcoe]

I think it would be better if it said, "Aaaaaas......youuuuuu......wiiiiiiish!"

(If you haven't seen The Princess Bride, I'm sorry).

No, I haven't seen that particular movie.

But, "Go ahead, make my day".

 

[Arcoe]

I said what your intentions "appear" to be--I'm not claiming to know your motivations. If you genuinely believe using that quote for your signature block is edifying to your brothers and sisters in Christ here, then use it.

I used it to show why I don't put much faith in what Calvin wrote. A person who believes wrong, lives wrong.

I am bothered by it. Since being on this forum, I haven't once quoted John Calvin; and I've only read part of the introduction to his Institutes. Like I said, I don't worship the guy, but I gather that he knew his soteriology pretty well.

I am bothered by it also. If someone on this board said the same thing about you, they would not only be banned, but would also be called an unbeliever, a devil, a heretic, a reprobate, and a damned soul.

I would. I shouldn't have said we don't use it as a proof text for "anything."

I think it is the most loved and used passage in scripture by believers.

Inasmuch as they have influenced others whom I have been influenced by (since I've read next to nothing of his works), yes.

I don't know of a Calvinists who hasn't been influenced by his writings.

If I understand the question properly, yes. But I'm not sure why that should matter...

I was just saying some, if not most of your beliefs come from those sources, probably as much as from the Bible.

What bothers me is that we can list off a number of verses that support our theology and still be told that our viewpoints are nowhere taught in Scripture. The least you guys could do is admit that there are difficult passages that seem to teach what we believe (JackSparrow was able to do this)--otherwise you come across as being disingenuous. I freely admit that there are a number of passages that are difficult (not impossible) for me to reconcile with what I believe is taught in Scripture, but I would have the exact same problem if I were in your camp (which I was when I first believed). I find that the vast weight of Scripture leads me to believe in the doctrines of grace.

Difficult passages? They are everywhere. And yes, I agree, they seem to support your beliefs. But I don't question those as much as God doing nothing to save those 'reprobates', whom He, for some odd reason, did not choose to be saved.

I can't find that teaching plainly written anywhere in the Bible. One has to take parts, here and there, to make that a definite truth. I do find He loves everyone, and Paul gave us a very good definition of love in 1 Corinthians 13, from which I find it hard to believe He would 'ordain' anyone to hell without remedy.

For all

: I know there are those of us on both sides that fall into the trap of launching ad hominem attacks and raising straw men, but we should all strive to keep our discussions centered around understanding passages of Scripture--otherwise we're probably wasting our time.

Thank you Muffin for your admirable attitude in all this. It is very refreshing.

 

[student ad x]

I don't know of a Calvinists who hasn't been influenced by his writings.

You say this like it's a bad thing?

 

[Keachian]

You say this like it's a bad thing?

It sounds like "Waaaa he killed Servetus!" to me.

 

[Arcoe]

You say this like it's a bad thing?

As Joe Friday would say, 'Just the facts maam."

 

[Arcoe]

It sounds like "Waaaa he killed Servetus!" to me.

And is this something of which to be proud?

 

[student ad x]

As Joe Friday would say, 'Just the facts maam."

Gotcha........

 

[Keachian]

And is this something of which to be proud?

Servetus was executed by the secular libertarian government of Geneva, Calvin was a character witness and tried to get Servetus to repent and was trying to get him beheaded rather than burnt alive.