Understanding Calvinism

[ConsumedByHisCall]

Let's cut right to the bottom line.

Who is called in Rom 8:29-30?

whom he called, he justified

It is just assuming the response of the call, much like one might do talking to those called to ministry. One might say, "Those called are equipped for the work." That is not meant to imply that more weren't called who ran from the calling, it is just referring to those who accepted the calling.

Even Calvinists affirm men must respond in faith to the call once regenerated, right? Even if an affirmative response is certain there is still a response. Does Paul address this faith? Does that mean its not necessary? No, it is ASSUMED. To presume it is effectual is not warranted in this text simply because a faith response is assumed.

How about 1 Cor 1:24?

but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24 but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength.

This is the same thing. Look at how Adam Clarke explains it:

Verse 24. "But unto them which are called" - toiv klhtoiv. Those, both of Jews and Greeks, who were by the preaching of the Gospel called or invited to the marriage feast, and have accordingly believed in Christ Jesus; they prove this doctrine to be divinely powerful, to enlighten and convert the soul, and to be a proof of God's infinite wisdom, which has found out such an effectual way to glorify both his justice and mercy, and save, to the uttermost, all that come to him through Christ Jesus. The called, or invited, klhtoi, is a title of genuine Christians, and is frequently used in the New Testament. Æagioi, saints, is used in the same sense.

To refer to one as "called" whether "called to serve in the military" or "serve in ministry" or "serve the Lord" doesn't in any way imply that others weren't also called to the same end, it just acknowledges their calling and acceptance of that call, whether effectual or not cannot be deduced accept by presumption.

"Many are called, few are chosen."

 

[ConsumedByHisCall]

In your view, God knew ahead of time who would go to hell, but went ahead and created them anyways. He knew from eternity past that if he created "Bob" bob would end up in hell. Why did your god do that bro? Tell me?

This is referred to as the "you too fallacy" in debate. It is an attempt to avoid dealing with the problem of ones own system by pointing to similar (but not equal) problems of the opponents system. Surely anyone can recognize the distinction between a God who determines the destruction of an individual ahead of time by condemning them to a unalterable condition from birth, and a God who foreknows of a individual's free choice to remain in rebellion. Right?

Does my knowing my future children will sin make me culpable for their sin if I choose to father them with that knowledge? Of course not. Does my choice to drug them from birth making them unable to repent for their wrongdoings make me culpable for their lack of repentance? Yes.

I think anyone looking at this with any measure of objectivity can see that distinction.

What a horrific view of God you have.

Careful now, one day you may realize your error and have to repent for calling God horrific. I know, I've been there.

 

[Pinkman]

......

So, you gonna answer my question? In your terrible theology, why did God create billions of people he knew in advance would end up in hell, and then claim to desperately love them and want to save them?

Ummmm. I think that is MY question Skala. In fact every non Calvinist in the world. Why God calls those he made totally unable to respond. THen holds them responsible for what he - God- himself did.

The question has been asked so many times.

 

[ConsumedByHisCall]

So, you gonna answer my question? In your terrible theology, why did God create billions of people he knew in advance would end up in hell, and then claim to desperately love them and want to save them?

Whoa, wait a second! Are you implying that Calvinists don't believe God loves mankind and wants all men to be saved? You sure about that? Sounds like you may be "out-calvining" John Calvin to me.

 

[Pinkman]

This is my favorite Calvinist sermon.



"God our Saviour; who will have ALL men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth."—1
Timothy 2:3, 4.

What then? Shall we try to put another meaning into the text than that which it fairly bears? I trow not. You must,
most of you, be acquainted with the general method in which our older Calvinistic friends deal with this text. "All
men," say they,—"that is, some men": as if the Holy Ghost could not have said "some men" if he had meant
some men. "All men," say they; "that is, some of all sorts of men": as if the Lord could not have said "all sorts of
men" if he had meant that. The Holy Ghost by the apostle has written "all men," and unquestionably he means
all men. I know how to get rid of the force of the "alls" according to that critical method which some time ago was
very current, but I do not see how it can be applied here with due regard to truth. I was reading just now the
exposition of a very able doctor who explains the text so as to explain it away; he applies grammatical
gunpowder to it, and explodes it by way of expounding it. I thought when I read his exposition that it would have
been a very capital comment upon the text if it had read, "Who will not have all men to be saved, nor come to a
knowledge of the truth." Had such been the inspired language every remark of the learned doctor would have
been exactly in keeping, but as it happens to say, "Who will have all men to be saved," his observations are
more than a little out of place. My love of consistency with my own doctrinal views is not great enough to allow
me knowingly to alter a single text of Scripture. I have great respect for orthodoxy, but my reverence for
inspiration is far greater. I would sooner a hundred times over appear to be inconsistent with myself than be
inconsistent with the word of God. I never thought it to be any very great crime to seem to be inconsistent with
myself; for who am I that I should everlastingly be consistent? But I do think it a great crime to be so inconsistent
with the word of God that I should want to lop away a bough or even a twig from so much as a single tree of the
forest of Scripture. God forbid that I should cut or shape, even in the least degree, any divine expression. So
runs the text, and so we must read it, "God our Savior; who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the
knowledge of the truth."

Salvation by Knowing the Truth

 

[Pinkman]

"All
men," say they,—"that is, some men": as if the Holy Ghost could not have said "some men" if he had meant
some men. "All men," say they; "that is, some of all sorts of men": as if the Lord could not have said "all sorts of
men" if he had meant that. The Holy Ghost by the apostle has written "all men," and unquestionably he means
all men. I know how to get rid of the force of the "alls" according to that critical method which some time ago was
very current, but I do not see how it can be applied here with due regard to truth. I was reading just now the
exposition of a very able doctor who explains the text so as to explain it away; he applies grammatical
gunpowder to it.....

This illustrates my biggest problem with Calvinist. The many inconsistencies as shown on this thread alone.

But most of all the 'grammatical' gunpowder rendering simple ideas into tortuous mental gymnastics. As if the Lord could not have said exactly what he meant.

 

[Pinkman]

Hi Skala

You are back here. Yeah I have been following you trying to get an answer to my (our) question about God condemning millions and holding those millions responsible for what God himself did (you say).

Calvin's terrible decree.

Then you go walk about !

I do not believe you have an answer. If you have why do you immediately post propaganda over several threads ?

If there is any serious non-hyper calvinist watching, please can you help out with this very big and serious question.

 

[Skala]

Pink why did your God create billions of humans he knew in advance would go to hell if in fact he did create them?

*crickets*

 

[Pinkman]

Stop flooding every post with the same stupid copy-paste.

(it's stupid because it's horrific theology)

Actually it from Charles H Spurgeon. Please read before you criticize.

 

[Skala]

This is referred to as the "you too fallacy" in debate. It is an attempt to avoid dealing with the problem of ones own system by pointing to similar (but not equal) problems of the opponents system

But there's no problem in my system brother. God is sovereign, creates the creation for his own purpose and glory. God is glorified through the destruction of sinners, hence the doctrine of reprobation, hence Romans 9, the vessels of wrath have a purpose. It isn't' an accident. It isn't because humans accidentally didn't fall in line with God's plan. It isn't God's "plan B".

In your view, God knew ahead of time that billions would go to hell if he created them, yet he went ahead and created them anyways, (to this, you have no answer) Then, he is frustrated for all eternity since they ended up in hell despite his attempts to save them. (it's curious why God would even "Try" to save them in the first place since he's omniscient and knew that they will ultimately be in hell) So God sets himself up for failure.


This is drastically different than "My purpose will stand, I will do all my pleasure" (Isaiah) and "the purpose of the Lord cannot be thwarted" (Job)

 

[Skala]

Pinkman does not represent historical biblical calvinism.

I have no idea what his theology or soteriology is brother. It's all over the place.

 

[Pinkman]

Hey guys,

There is a lot of hatred that some folks bring with them to this forum. Frankly, that is not the ways of Christ. Honest debate, vigorous debate, etc, is welcomed but simply attacking others is not and will not be tolerated. The Soteriology forum, and CF by extension, does not endorse or promote any one Soteriology view so consequently posters that digress to attacks will be reported, actioned, and in some instances banned from this forum and/or CF.

I am expecting that everyone here will post consistent with CF's posting rules.

If anyone wants vent (within the posting rules) you are welcomed to do so here. I also encourage positive ideas.

Blessings!!!!

Skala

Be grateful if you would get back to the debate. Understanding Calvinism.

I think maybe you should call it a night.

 

[Skala]

Pinkman, what exactly would you like me to respond to?

 

[cygnusx1]

This is my favorite Calvinist sermon.



"God our Saviour; who will have ALL men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth."—1
Timothy 2:3, 4.

What then? Shall we try to put another meaning into the text than that which it fairly bears? I trow not. You must,
most of you, be acquainted with the general method in which our older Calvinistic friends deal with this text. "All
men," say they,—"that is, some men": as if the Holy Ghost could not have said "some men" if he had meant
some men. "All men," say they; "that is, some of all sorts of men": as if the Lord could not have said "all sorts of
men" if he had meant that. The Holy Ghost by the apostle has written "all men," and unquestionably he means
all men. I know how to get rid of the force of the "alls" according to that critical method which some time ago was
very current, but I do not see how it can be applied here with due regard to truth. I was reading just now the
exposition of a very able doctor who explains the text so as to explain it away; he applies grammatical
gunpowder to it, and explodes it by way of expounding it. I thought when I read his exposition that it would have
been a very capital comment upon the text if it had read, "Who will not have all men to be saved, nor come to a
knowledge of the truth." Had such been the inspired language every remark of the learned doctor would have
been exactly in keeping, but as it happens to say, "Who will have all men to be saved," his observations are
more than a little out of place. My love of consistency with my own doctrinal views is not great enough to allow
me knowingly to alter a single text of Scripture. I have great respect for orthodoxy, but my reverence for
inspiration is far greater. I would sooner a hundred times over appear to be inconsistent with myself than be
inconsistent with the word of God. I never thought it to be any very great crime to seem to be inconsistent with
myself; for who am I that I should everlastingly be consistent? But I do think it a great crime to be so inconsistent
with the word of God that I should want to lop away a bough or even a twig from so much as a single tree of the
forest of Scripture. God forbid that I should cut or shape, even in the least degree, any divine expression. So
runs the text, and so we must read it, "God our Savior; who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the
knowledge of the truth."

Salvation by Knowing the Truth

a good quote !

I love Spurgeon but here was Spurgeon right ?

certainly there is more than one interpretation to this verse .

I think John Gill was helpful here , I will try and find a page for your consideration of this verse.

 

[Pinkman]

a good quote !

I love Spurgeon but here was Spurgeon right ?

certainly there is more than one interpretation to this verse .

I think John Gill was helpful here , I will try and find a page for your consideration of this verse.

Cheers cygnusx1.

Its been a busy night. I understand Calvinism a lot less. Maybe the hyper view is wrong. As I have said before I have my doubts.

BUT

As you said, there are a lot of inconsistent Calvinism and they sure confuse me.

Thanks for a 'quiet' post.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

This illustrates my biggest problem with Calvinist. The many inconsistencies as shown on this thread alone.

I used to think so too, but I (among other things) also had an overly simplified understanding of it, not to mention the wrong lens to interpret Scripture. The most inconsistant Arminians I know of, are Baptists holding firmly to "once saved always saved" in one hand, and LFW in the other. I believe Calvinism is the most biblical and consistent systematic we have and will ever have to help guide in interpreting Scripture, to help safeguard important truths in Scripture.

But most of all the 'grammatical' gunpowder rendering simple ideas into tortuous mental gymnastics. As if the Lord could not have said exactly what he meant.

Simple? The Scriptures can be read and understood on both a simple level and a deep deep level. Think about it, when we read Scripture, there is interaction between the mind of God the Holy Spirit and our mind, and where there are simple ways of understanding many things, simple ways of understanding can and often do lead to wrong understandings. I am as guilty as the next guy though, at times I lean on simple understanding, just "plain" reading, other times there is more going on and to be gained through further study. God has given me two ways to communicate His truth...one way is in simple language, the other in more complicated language and depth. Part of this depends on how much or little I have studied, depends on my audience and how I am led by the Spirit, and or where I am at "in my walk" so to speak.

The Lord often spoke in parables and often to hide the things of God from the religious and non-believers. Yes, He could have spoke plainly, but He chose not to.

 

[cygnusx1]

Cheers cygnusx1.

Its been a busy night. I understand Calvinism a lot less. Maybe the hyper view is wrong. As I have said before I have my doubts.

BUT

As you said, there are a lot of inconsistent Calvinism and they sure confuse me.

Thanks for a 'quiet' post.

at last I found what I was looking for , have a read of this maybe once or twice , mull it over then please let me know if you still think Spurgeon was right as he usually is , or was he allowing his aversion to Hyper Calvinism to influence his thinking !

Here's the page (I have a few copies of this great work) ...

 

[Skala]

The whole point was to show you that "pas anthropos" (all men) has not one possible meaning in the Greek language, but two.

It's the latter that some people either ignore or refuse to acknowledge it's viability.

 

[Pinkman]

at last I found what I was looking for , have a read of this maybe once or twice , mull it over then please let me know if you still think Spurgeon was right as he usually is , or was he allowing his aversion to Hyper Calvinism to influence his thinking !

Here's the page (I have a few copies of this great work) ...

I don't think the link is quite right. Its taking me to 'MGC Chatbox Evo ' !

Is it on the web anywhere ?

 

[cygnusx1]

I don't think the link is quite right. Its taking me to 'MGC Chatbox Evo ' !

Is it on the web anywhere ?

sorry ,

An Exegetical Study of 1Timothy 2:4 by Gary D. Long