The worst thing about Calvinism

MDC said:

No you don't believe God is Sovereign. Like all those who deny the doctrines of grace and the biblical gospel, you believe mans will reigns supreme. The autonomous libertarian will is what you are promoting. And that alone refuses to believe God is Sovereign over all His creation

Click to expand...

He is NOT sovereign over OUR FREE will! He is not One to go back on His word.

Jason0047 said:

Whenever a person is confused on a verse or chapter in the Bible, all they need to do is put Jesus in it and it becomes clear.

In other words, when you read Romans 9:1-13, you have to read it in terms of how Paul is talking to the Jews (Romans 9:3-6) and not all individuals and how he is trying to tell them that the purpose of Election of the Promises is through the line of the Messiah with Jacob's line and not Esau's line. Romans 9:13 is not saying God literally loved Jacob and literally hated Esau as individuals (cf. Luke 14:26). Paul is using them as examples of how God was all powerful enough to know which family line to use so as to bring the Promised Messiah (i.e. Jesus). That is what "Election" here is talking about in Romans 9. It is not talking about individual "Election" but it is talking about the "Election of the Promise" or the genealogical line that Jesus would come through. The Jews were claiming that they were saved based on being of the seed of Abraham and in keeping God's Laws. But they rejected their Messiah. God does not have to conform to old Jewish ways of thinking just because they rejected their Messiah. He will have mercy on whom He will's in the manner He will's with the Messiah that He has chosen (Which was Jesus Christ).

Now, when you read Romans 9:14-16: Well, you have to realize that it is talking about God's plan of salvation with Jesus Christ being their Messiah of whom the Jews rejected. God is saying He will have mercy in the WAY God wants to do things and not according to Jewish thoughts or beliefs (Which one of their ways they considered a person to be right with God was thru circumcision - See Romans 3:1).

And when you read Romans 9:17-18: Well, you have to realize it is making a parallel. For there is a parallel being made of how God is Sovereign and just in setting up the Promised Line of the Messiah (i.e. by having mercy on whom He wills) versus raising up Pharaoh into power to show God's power. How was God's power shown in the life of the Pharoah? By God making the Pharoah wealthy? Not exactly. God allowed Pharoah to be raised up so that God's power was shown in the life of God's miracles being displayed such as the Ten plagues and the parting of the Red Sea. This is why Paraoah was raised up. It was so that God's power (or miracles) could be displayed (and proclaimed to all the Earth). Just as God had chosen the line of the Messiah so as to display His power (and proclaim such a thing to all the Earth). So this was not some kind of point to prove individual election but to prove the Election of the Promised Line of the Messiah (Who is Jesus Christ). For Jesus is the greatest miracle (of the best form of Election) that there is.

Anyways, when you read on down to verse 24 (Romans 9:24), the point is clear what Paul is really talking about.

I hope this helps, and may God bless you.


...

Click to expand...

Recommended reading:

"The Potter's Freedom" by James R. White
"The God Who Justifies" by James R. White
"The Bondage of the Will" by Martin Luther
"Institutes of the Christian Religion" by John Calvin

dad said:

Most posts are in response to another post. Since you twice dodged the opportunity to clarify, which should have been a simple thing, I must chalk it up to attitude.

Click to expand...

You didn't ask for clarity. You assumed.

dad said:

He is NOT sovereign over OUR FREE will!

Click to expand...

And there you have it.

dad said:

He is NOT sovereign over OUR FREE will! He is not an Indian giver.

Click to expand...

You proved my point with your racist comment

Hammster said:

You didn't ask for clarity. You assumed.

Click to expand...

Strike three. I think that clarifies it enough.

Hammster said:

And there you have it.

Click to expand...

Correct. Our free will is given from God. He limits Himself in some ways, to honor His word. That is Who He is.

MDC said:

You proved my point with your racist comment

Click to expand...

"
For example, did you know that Hip hip hooray! used to be a Nazi war cry used to invade the Jewish ghettoes during the Holocaust?

Word meanings and connotations change all the time. Over time, word origins are forgotten, and words and phrases that were previously taboo or offensive no longer carry the same weight. Does that mean that they're no longer offensive? It depends on how you look at language. Certainly, not many people know hip hip hooray's horrifying usage.


However, I still thought you might like to know the history of these words and phrases.

Gyp:

The word "gyp" now means "to cheat or swindle." It is essentially a condensing of the word "gypsies," who throughout history have been stereotyped as a group that cheats and swindles people. Before the contemporary definition of "gypsy," which is essentially just a "nomadic person," "gypsy" was a slur used to refer to the Eastern European Romanies.


Ghetto:

Using "ghetto" as an adjective to mean "low class" has obvious racist origins. The noun "ghetto" originated as an area in Venice, Italy: it was the place where Jewish people lived (this also has racial implications, but of a different sort than the adjective "ghetto"). Technically, the current definition of "ghetto" (noun) is "a part of a city in which members of a particular group or race live usually in poor conditions." Whether intended or not, the user is essentially implying that minorities are low class.

Chinese whispers:

This phrase, meaning "inaccurately transmitted gossip" is more often used in the UK than the U.S. It actually originated as "Russian scandal" or "Russian gossip," but was later changed for unclear reasons. It is supposed that the origin of this phrase has something to do with the Chinese language being difficult to understand and/or translate. Regardless, it's probably better the refer to poorly transmitted gossip as "a game of Telephone."

Irish goodbye:

An Irish goodbye is another way of saying "a hasty exit without stopping to formally say 'goodbye' to anyone." It can also be known as a French exit. Or probably just "insert any country that your country has a problem with" exit. In France, it's called "filer à l'anglaise" (to leave the English way). At any rate, you might want to think before you use a phrase that stereotypes an entire nationality of people as being rude.

"Sold down the river:"

This phrase, meaning "betrayed" or "cheated" originated in the Mississippi River region during the American slave trade. "Troublesome" slaves would literally be sold down the river to southern Mississippi where the plantation conditions were much harsher.

Peanut galleries:

"Peanut galleries" (which now means "a source for hecklers," usually used in a joking manner) were the upper balconies that African-American people sat in in segregated theaters. They were also known by several even more derogatory names (which will not be shared here).

Uppity:

The word "uppity," a word beloved by conservative news pundits, originated as a word used by Southerners in reference to African-Americans that they deemed didn't know their place in society.

Hip hip hooray:

This comes from the German "hep hep," which was originally a shepherds' herding cry, so the origin itself was not racially charged. However, during the Holocaust, German citizens began using it as a rallying cry while hunting for Jewish people in the ghettoes. Its anti-Semitic usage even dates back to the 1819 riots (the "Hep-Hep Riots").

"Call a spade a spade:"

This is a particularly interesting example. The phrase, essentially meaning "to explicitly call something by its rightful name," entered the English language in 1542, and initially had absolutely no racial connotation whatsoever. It referred to the gardening tool. It wasn't until the late 1920s that "spade" changed from referring to the gardening tool to being a slur towards African-Americans (its first public appearance as such was in Claude McKay's 1928 book "Home to Harlem"). In the fourth edition of "The American Language," Wolfgang Mieder notes that the word "spade" (among others) "will give deep offense if used by nonblacks."

CLARIFICATION: Some language in this post has been changed to make clear that "Hip hip hooray" did not ORIGINATE as a racist phrase, but rather evolved into one. Language has also been added/ amended in several instances to emphasize that this article addresses the racist, but not the comprehensive, etymologies of these terms."
These Words You Use Every Day Have Racist/Prejudiced Pasts, And You Had No Idea

To me the worst phrase that signifies prejudice and racism is 'political correctness'

JoeP222w said:

No. Calvinism does not promote the autonomous libertarian free will of man. That is not a biblical principle.

Click to expand...

Free will is a choice that leads you down a path that determines which road you want to take. If you choose the red pill, it will lead you into seeking the truth. If you choose the blue pill, you can believe, whatever you want to believe.

Free Will in the Bible:

#1. Joshua 24:15 KJV -
"Choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve"

#2. Matthew 11:28 KJV -
"Come to Me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest."

#3. John 7:17 KJV -
"If anyone wills to do His will, he shall know concerning the doctrine, whether it is from God."

#4. John 7:37 KJV -
"If anyone thirsts, let him come to Me and drink."

#5. Acts of the Apostles 2:38 KJV -
"Repent, and let everyone of you be baptized"

#6. Acts of the Apostles 3:19 KJV -
"Repent therefore and be converted"

#7. Acts of the Apostles 16:31 KJV -
"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved"

#8. Acts of the Apostles 17:30 KJV -
"but now commands all men everywhere to repent"

#9. Revelation 22:17 KJV -
"Whoever wills, let him take the water of life freely."

#10. Genesis 4:7 KJV -
"If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him."

If a person did not choose or reject God at any point, then the wicked could not be blamed for their actions at a Judgment because they had no choice in the matter and God just made them to be evil. But this would be impossible because there is no darkness in the Lord; And God is good.

You said:

Ephesians 2:1-3 And you were dead in the trespasses and sins (2) in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience— (3) among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.

Click to expand...

It is a metaphor and sometimes metaphors are not to be taken too literally. For example: Just because Jesus compares Himself to a door or gate does not mean He is literally a door on hinges. Does Jesus have hinges like a door? Is there a door bell next to the door or gate knocking device on the gate? In fact, speaking of doors. Revelation says he knocks at the door so that we may hear Him.

"Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me." (Revelation 3:20).

This would be the door of your heart because Jesus lives inside the heart of a believer.

"That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and grounded in love." (Ephesians 3:17).

Seeing Jesus is knocking to come into the heart of a person, it is logical to assume he does not force regenerate people and or that He is using a battering ram to break down the door of a person's heart.

You said:

John 6:44 No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.

Click to expand...

These people were Jews and they were seeking to follow God their own way. They were coming to God the Father the wrong way. Jesus was saying no man can come unto the Father unless they draw Him was a way of saying that they have to follow God's drawing and not their own means of what they think salvation is. This is not teaching forced regeneration. We see in Matthew 13 it say,

"For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them." (Matthew 13:15).

If you were to carefully read this verse above here it says they are dull of hearing and they have closed their eyes and yet it says at any time they can see with their eyes and hear with their ears and understand with their heart. Nothing about regeneration here in order to see or hear. Jesus is saying they can choose of their own free will to see if they want to see.

You said:

If it has any basis in the will of man, that robs God of His glory. And salvation is not by the will of man, but by the grace of God alone.

Click to expand...

Not at all. That is just silly. God force saving people and and forcing others not to be saved would actually be immoral and it has nothing to do with robbing His glory.

Anyways, I got to run; I will try and reply to the rest of what you wrote later.
Oh, and no. I am not an Open Theist. That is the other end of the spectrum to the wrong extreme here.


...

JoeP222w said:

Recommended reading:

"The Potter's Freedom" by James R. White
"The God Who Justifies" by James R. White
"The Bondage of the Will" by Martin Luther
"Institutes of the Christian Religion" by John Calvin

Click to expand...

I am not going to read entire books on a false belief to figure out what you are trying to say. You should be able to sum up what the books are saying in a few paragraphs. Sort of like a summary.


...

JoeP222w said:

Ephesians 2:8-10 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, (9) not a result of works, so that no one may boast. (10) For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

Click to expand...

A person can buy me a car as a gift. The creation of the car is not of my own doing but of the car manufacturer. This does not mean I cannot be irresponsible with a car (that was a gift) and lose or damage that gift. Scripture talks about how believers can forfeit their salvation in many places.

In fact, here is a list of verses that makes it absolutely clear that believers can fall away from the faith.

1 Samuel 16:14
1 Samuel 31:4
Ezekiel 18:24
Hebrews 3:12-14
Hebrews 4:11
Hebrews 6:4-9
Hebrews 10:26-30
Hebrews 12:15
1 Timothy 1:18-20
1 Timothy 4:1-7
Galatians 3:1-5
2 Peter 2:20-22
2 Peter 3:17
Matthew 13:18-23
1 Corinthians 10:12
2 Thessalonians 2:3

Now, do not misunderstand me, believers cannot lose their salvation (in the sense of like how one would misplace one's car keys), but they can forfeit their salvation (i.e. they can willingly throw it away by rebelling against God). In fact,

Here is a list of believers who have forfeited their salvation:

• Saul (1 Samuel 16:14) (1 Samuel 31:4)

• Demas (2 Timothy 4:10)

• The Prodigal Son (Luke 15:11-32)

• Judas Iscariot (Psalm 41:9) (Luke 6:16) (Acts 1:25)

• Hymenaeus and Philetus (2 Timothy 2:17, 18)

• Unnamed Christians destroyed by false teaching (2 Timothy 2:17, 18)

• Many Unnamed Disciples (John 6:66)

• Some Younger Christian Widows (1 Timothy 5:14, 15)

• Some Christians Eager For Money (1 Timothy 6:8, 9, 10)

• Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5:1-11)

And here is a list of potential fallen believers:

• The Servant Who is Not Looking For Him (Luke 12:45, 46)

• Recent Convert Who is a Potential Spiritual Leader (1 Timothy 3:6)

• The Unforgiving in Heart (Matthew 6:14, 15)

• Luke Warm Unrepentant Believer (Revelation 3:14-22)

• Fruitless Christians (John 15:1-10) (Matthew 25:14-30)

• Widows That Live in Pleasure (1 Timothy 5:5, 6)

• Believers Whose Seed Fell Upon the Rocks (Luke 8:13)

• Believers Whose Seed Was Choked by Thorns (Matthew 13:22)

• Gentile Believer Who Did Not Have on a Wedding Garment (Matthew 22:1-14) (Revelation 19:7, 8)

• The Potential Fellow Believer Who Erred From the Truth & Was Converted Back
  (James 5:19, 20)

...

JoeP222w said:

Ephesians 2:1-3 And you were dead in the trespasses and sins (2) in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience— (3) among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.

Click to expand...

The analogy of being “dead” is seen throughout the scriptures, but can it be demonstrated to mean that mankind is born completely and totally unable to willingly respond to God Himself, as the Calvinists presume? Are we born dead like Lazarus, a corpse rotting in the tomb (a link scripture never draws), or are we dead like the Prodigal, a loved one living in rebellion? Scripture supports the latter rather than the former:

“For this son of mine was dead and has come to life again; he was lost and has been found.’ And they began to celebrate” (Luke 15:24).

Spiritual deadness seems to be equated with “lostness” or “in rebellion,” not as “total inability to respond.” Likewise, in Romans 6:11, Paul also teaches the believers to count themselves “dead to sin.” A consistent Calvinist would have to interpret this to mean that believers are completely unable to sin when tempted. Of course, that is not the case. Paul is teaching that we are to separate ourselves from sin, in much the same way we were once separated by our sin from God.


Article source:
Dead Wrong!

Jason0047 said:

Now, do not misunderstand me, believers cannot lose their salvation (in the sense of like how one would misplace one's car keys), but they can forfeit their salvation (i.e. they can willingly throw it away by rebelling against God).

Click to expand...

No. They sure can't. His gifts and calling are without repentance. On again off again salvation is a works trip, in that people try to sort of keep themselves saved.

In fact,

Here is a list of believers who have forfeited their salvation:

Click to expand...

False. Falling does not mean we lose salvation. Peter forsook Jesus. Yes, Demas forsook Paul, but who knows the full story? Paul parted ways with some believers for awhile also. That doesn't mean either were no longer saved.

In some cases, people were not saved to begin with. There is no one on your list you can show was saved that got 'unsaved'.

JoeP222w said:

Paul on the road to Damascus and Lydia are clear examples that it was not a "free will choice".

Click to expand...

I don't see Paul's encounter with Jesus as proof for a forced regeneration. Paul would not ask questions. He asked, "who are you Lord?" This sounds more like Paul has free will here and it does not sound like a scene from the "Invasion of the Body Snatchers." A forced regeneration in this scenario would be more like, "And a bright light came upon Saul and the Lord said to him, "I hereby change you." Saul replies, "Thank you Lord for opening my eyes."

But Scripture does not say this.

You said:

These statements are contradictory. How can God know "every soul's choice" in the future if "time only exists in the present only"?

Click to expand...

He is God; Nothing is impossible for the Lord. It is why He is God. How does God speak everything into existence? Again, He is God and nothing is impossible for Him. If God designed us, He certainly can predict with 100% pin point accuracy all of humanity's free will choices. How does it do it? I honestly do not know anymore than how He created everything out of nothing by just speaking. We will not have all the answers in this life. For Scripture says that we look through a glass darkly.

You said:

Are you an Open Theist? That God learns?

Click to expand...

Open Theism is unbiblical. There are many verses that show how God perfectly knows the future. God does not learn because His knowledge is infinite.

You said:

God is eternal, thus He exists outside of time. For this to be true, in the case of God only, time is not a finite point to Him. Yes, to us, time is finite. But not to God.

Click to expand...

I used to believe that God exists in all points in time. However this concept of time does not align with the Scriptures at all but it is purely an invention from science fiction (i.e. Time Travel movies, books, and comics). Scripture clearly says that God rested on the seventh day from all his work during the creation week. If God exists in all points in time than He really did not rest on the 7th day. If God existed outside of our time bubble (with the Earth speeding up much faster for Him to see, then are we living this life again for God?). God was always interacting with His creation, so if time sped up for Him outside our time bubble upon the Earth, then that means a part of Him had to share in this time bubble because He interacts with humanity. Is God reliving events with us?

Surely not.

Isaiah 47:10 says,
"Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:"

"Things that are not yet done ..."

So no Earth exists in some future time line somewhere. Earth is not in a time bubble whereby events are sped up faster for us but it is slower for God outside this time bubble.


...

Post pending.

Bluesh1ft said:

If someone's car breaks down in front of a church and that person goes in, hears the gospel, and gets saved, what determined salvation? The car manufacturer who made junky vehicles? The person for hearing the gospel and deciding to believe?.. Or The God who knew the exact way to unlock that person's mind to the message of salvation and created the exact circumstance for them to hear the message of salvation? In the long chain of causes and effects, there is One who is sovereign over all.

Click to expand...

God is doing everything possible to help willing individuals fulfill their earthly objective, but the initial part of that objective requires a free will choice with likely alternatives made by the individual who could choose otherwise. The everything God causes or allows includes: Christ coming to earth, satan roaming around, tragedies of all kinds, hell, death and even sinning.

dad said:

No. They sure can't. His gifts and calling are without repentance. On again off again salvation is a works trip, in that people try to sort of keep themselves saved.

False. Falling does not mean we lose salvation. Peter forsook Jesus. Yes, Demas forsook Paul, but who knows the full story? Paul parted ways with some believers for awhile also. That doesn't mean either were no longer saved.

Click to expand...

So you believe in a different form of Calvinism that basically says that after you choose Christ of your own free will than you are forever forced against your free will to be good? Or do you hold to the belief that you can sin (like lusting after women, hating, etc.) and still be saved?

If you believe you are changed to the point of doing good only, how do you account for occasional sins in your life? Does God want us to occasionally sin? Is our sin stronger than God's will to help us overcome it? Or are believers slaves to sin in this life? If so, how do account for verses like these?

Jesus says,

"Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven" (Matthew 5:16).

Jesus also says,

"You give glory to my Father when you produce a lot of fruit and therefore show that you are my disciples." (John 15:8 GW).

And Peter says,

"Be careful to live properly among your unbelieving neighbors. Then even if they accuse you of doing wrong, they will see your honorable behavior, and they will give honor to God when he judges the world." (1 Peter 2:12 NLT).

Paul says,

"That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world;" (Philippians 2:15).

As for your thinking that works are not necessary as a part of the salvation process:

The Bible says,

Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only." (James 2:24).
"Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone." (James 2:17).
"They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate." (Titus 1:16).
"If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; He is proud, knowing nothing, "
(1 Timothy 6:3-4).
"...God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble." (James 4:6).
"And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him." (Hebrews 5:9).
"Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord" (Hebrews 12:14).
"If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha." (1 Corinthians 16:22).
"If ye love me, keep my commandments." (John 14:15).
"Wherefore lay apart all filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness, and receive with meekness the engrafted word, which is able to save your souls." (James 1:21).
"But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile; But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile: For there is no respect of persons with God." (Romans 2:8-11).
"For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved." (John 3:20).
"What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? (Romans 6:1-2).
"...but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments." (Matthew 19:17).

And there are of course many more verses like these, as well.

You said:

In some cases, people were not saved to begin with. There is no one on your list you can show was saved that got 'unsaved'.

Click to expand...

You did not carefully look at these verses. You are just saying that because of what you were taught. Take for example the Parable of the Prodigal Son: When the son returned back home, the father said his son was dead and now he is alive again. This Parable is speaking in spiritual terms. Meaning, the son was spiritually dead when he went prodigal or in his life of sin and when he came home willing to repent, he was alive again.

Side Note:

Oh, and your going to do works regardless in this life. One's works are either good or evil. So one either believes they are saved doing evil or one believes they are saved doing good.


...

JoeP222w said:

Does God have no right to do with His creation as He chooses? Has the Potter no right over the clay?

Click to expand...

God cannot be truthful and lie at the same time. God cannot say one thing, express His character one way and turn and do just the opposite. God is not a liar, so He cannot mislead us with falsehoods.

Is Christ like God himself would be here on earth, so was Christ unloving to anyone?

God cannot do what He said He would not do with His creation and God has to do what he said He would do with His creation.

As far as the Potter and the clay you are miss using those analogies as used in the context:

In Jer. 18 Jerimiah is talking about the nation of Israel and it is while it is still one the spinning wheel. Look what Jerimiah goes on to say: 7 If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed, 8 and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned. 9 And if at another time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be built up and planted, 10 and if it does evil in my sight and does not obey me, then I will reconsider the good I had intended to do for it.

Here the plans of God are contingent on what Israel will do and not on what God made them do.

In Ro. 9 Paul is talking about completed vessels honorable and dishonorable, but the words honorable and dishonorable are poor translations since Paul uses a similar analogy in 2 Timothy 2:20 In a large house there are articles not only of gold and silver, but also of wood and clay; some are for special purposes and some for common use and will later say the common vessel can become a vessel of honor. The idea in Ro. 9 is talking about the individual Jew (made for a special purpose) and individual Gentile (made for a common purpose), which can after leaving the shop even with the Potter’s mark on them become worthless through damage suitable only for destruction. The idea is it does not matter if you are Jew or gentile when it comes to salvation.

MDC said:

No you don't believe God is Sovereign. Like all those who deny the doctrines of grace and the biblical gospel, you believe mans will reigns supreme. The autonomous libertarian will is what you are promoting. And that alone refuses to believe God is Sovereign over all His creation

Click to expand...

God is sovereign if He can turn a bad situation into a good one like in the story of Joseph. My lack of not believing your version of God's sovereignty does not mean I do not believe God is sovereign.


...

Jason0047 said:

I believe in God's Sovereignty as portrayed by the Bible. However, Calvinism's version of God's Soveregnty seeks to paint God in a bad light by saying that God makes some to be saved and others to not be saved (regardless of their free will choice on their own in deciding to choose Him). God is the One who chooses them and it is not based on any future free will choice that they would make after they are potentially regenerated or not. God just chooses some to be saved and others to not be saved by some unknown reason. This means God is just playing games with us and what we do in this life really does not matter. If you are saved, there is nothing you can do. You are His slave for good. If you are one of the damned for all time, there is nothing you can do to become saved. The Judgment then becomes a farce or a joke. Why have a Judgment of sinners if they had no choice otherwise in the crime? That would be like placing a robot on trial for committing murder when it had no other choice in it's program but to kill. It would make no sense to do that. Why put someone on trial if they had no choice otherwise in the matter?


...

Click to expand...

Probably the time for definitions and some scholarship to drive the conversation.

First we should note Calvin's background. The man was mostly educated as a lawyer. So you are not going to get the type of pastoral flowerily explanations as you would with someone like Charles Spurgeon. So we should keep that in mind. With Calvin we are not reading 'love letters' but 'litigation' of sorts in the development of theology.

With that in mind perhaps we should start with the below which actually addresses the positions of Calvin on election:

Calvin defines predestination as,

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 foreordained for some, eternal damnation for others(Inst. III, 21, 5).

This definition requires some qualification because many of Calvin's opponents, including Arminius, would not have a problem with this definition. Arminius did not deny predestination, in fact, he believed in it, "I do not present as a matter of doubt the fact that God has elected some to salvation, and not elected or passed by others"(Bangs 201). The difference is he did not base it on a "divine arbitrary decree", but upon God's foreknowledge of man's merit(Bettenson 268).

Calvin seemed to foresee that there would be people that would argue that God "distinguishes among men according as he foresees what the merits of each will be"(Inst. III, 22, 1). Calvin, accordingly, writes against this notion, "by thus covering election with a veil of foreknowledge, they not only obscure it but feign that it has its origin elsewhere"(Inst. III, 22, 1). Calvin contests that this view of foreknowledge makes man God's co-worker in salvation, and implies that election is ratified only by man's consent. This is to make the gravest of errors because it suggests that man's will is superior to God's plan, or at the very least, implies God's plan is partially dependent on man(Inst. III, 24, 3). In refutation of this view, Calvin asserts that "this plan was founded upon his freely given mercy, without regard to human worth"(Inst. III, 21, 7 emphasis added).

Calvin wisely proceeds to draw exhaustively from Scripture to buttress his argument citing that God chose us "before the foundations of the world were laid"(Eph.1:4a), "according to the good pleasure of his will"(Eph.1:5), in order "that we should be holy and spotless and irreproachable in his sight"(Eph.1:4b). Calvin observes that Paul sets "God's good pleasure" over against any merit of ours, declaring all virtue in man to be the result of his election(Inst. III, 22, 2). Calvin continues by arguing that if God chose us to be holy, it naturally follows that he would not have chosen us because he foresaw that we would be so(Inst. III, 22, 3). The fact that God chose the elect to be holy also refutes the accusation and misrepresentation that predestination overthrows all exhortations to godly living(Inst. III, 23, 13). Calvin reminds his opponents that election has as its goal, holiness of life, "therefore, it ought to arouse us to eagerly set our mind upon it than to serve as a pretext for doing nothing"(Inst. III, 23, 12). Calvin remarks that Paul afterward confirms what he had earlier said about the origin of our election when he states: "According to the purpose of his will"(Eph.1:5), "which he had purposed in himself"(Eph.1:9). This is to say that God considered nothing outside himself with which to be concerned in making his decree(Inst. III, 22, 2).

To more meticulously deal with the objection by some that God would be contrary to himself if he should universally invite all men to him but choose only a few as elect(Inst. III, 22, 10), Calvin draws heavily from the ninth chapter in Paul's letter to the Romans. Paul writes that before Jacob and Esau were born, or had done anything good or bad "in order that God's purpose of election might continue . . . the elder will serve the younger"(Rom.9:11,12). Calvin therefore argues that, "rejection does not occur on the basis of works"(Inst. III, 23, 11). He argues that Paul specifically emphasizes that point by showing that before Jacob and Esau had done anything good or evil, one was chosen, the other rejected(Rom.9:13). This is in order to prove that the foundation of divine predestination is not in works(Inst. III, 23, 11). Calvin also reminds us that the apostle Paul writes that God "has mercy upon whomever He wills, and He hardens the heart of whomever He wills"(Rom.9:18). "Has not the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for beauty and another for dishonour?"(Rom.9:21). God is free to determine a purpose for election, but that purpose has nothing to do with man's desire or effort. Nothing is more clear in Romans nine, "it does not therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy"(Rom.9:16).

To comprehend that God chooses us not because of what he finds in us, but according to his own good pleasure, gives rise to the charge that God is arbitrary(Sproul 156). Arminius, when citing the difference between his predestination and that of Calvin, declares that he did not base predestination on a "divine arbitrary decree"(Bettenson 268). This is an erroneous evaluation of Calvin's doctrine because it suggests that God makes his selection in a whimsical or capricious manner. Calvin's argument is only that there is no reason found in us, but that is not to say that God has no reason in Himself. This is precisely what Calvin is trying to communicate when he reasons that we are saved by "God's eternal decree, by which He compacted with himself what he willed to become of each man"(Inst. III, 21, 5).

We can continue with the piece if you and others are interested. More here:

http://www.reformedtheology.ca/calvin.html