Understanding Calvinism

[Pinkman]

Remember that I am a discontented hyper Calvinist -

What use is it for anyone to go ballistic and for the second night running flood several threads with a load of rhetoric ? Only causes a lot of harm.

Some non Calvinist friends watching are gobsmacked.

Not just the content.

But a silly boy sounding off then using the sun glasses Icon. Not just childish but an extremely bad advert for Calvinism - Already a minor pastime in the UK.

Also the Arminian poster responding to Skala is knocking him for a six with scripture. About 5000 viewers to these threads in the last few evenings. If they conclude similarly to my friends then Calvinism is a dead duck. They want to collect all the posts and publish them.

I find myself agreeing and I am not an Arminian.

 

[rturner76]

No man can come to me unless the Father draws him John 6:44

No man can come to me unless it is granted to him by the Father. John 6:65

According to Jesus, nobody has the innate ability, from natural birth (ie, from the womb) to come to Jesus. It requires divine assistance and help. When God does decide to draw, they come to Jesus, without fail. (All that the Father gives me will come to me) John 6:37

Notice the word "can" is not a word of permission, but ability. He doesn't say "nobody is allowed to come", he says "nobody is able to come unless..."

Why struggle with something the bible is so clear about?

Calvinism very often misconstrues short passages to fit the criteria of Calvinist theology. all the passages, studied in context do not help the Calvinist agenda.

I can do the same to prove the opposite from the same versus watch, we'll take John Chapter 6 right around the versus quoted:

whoever comes to me I will never cast out.
(John 6:37 ESV)

I will raise him up on the last day.
(John 6:44 ESV)

is granted him by the Father.”
(John 6:65 ESV)

Easy to cherry pick.....If you read the whole chapter it leads you believe anyone can answer the call, not just the elect. Pick it apart the way you need it to fit and you get many of the Calvinist's view on scripture

 

[Brother Chris]

Calvinism very often misconstrues short passages to fit the criteria of Calvinist theology. all the passages, studied in context do not help the Calvinist agenda.

I can do the same to prove the opposite from the same versus watch, we'll take John Chapter 6 right around the versus quoted:

whoever comes to me I will never cast out.
(John 6:37 ESV)

I will raise him up on the last day.
(John 6:44 ESV)

is granted him by the Father.”
(John 6:65 ESV)

Easy to cherry pick.....If you read the whole chapter it leads you believe anyone can answer the call, not just the elect. Pick it apart the way you need it to fit and you get many of the Calvinist's view on scripture

The offer of salvation is open to anyone. Whoever repents and believes shall be saved. Yes, there are a lot of verses that deal with human responsibility. God commands all people everywhere to repent. But behind the scenes, it is God's sovereignty and election that people are saved through. God didn't tell us about election and predestination to eliminate the sinner's responsibility to repent and believe, but to tell us believers that it was God doing the drawing, the convincing, the convicting and the converting. He told us about His sovereignty so that we could rejoice and praise Him and thank Him for choosing us. I believe the biblical teaching of election and predestination, but I continue to pray for my friends and family members. My responsibility to pray for them and God's sovereignty work in harmony. In the end, God gets all the glory for the salvation of sinful men.

 

[heymikey80]

I think that is where I am at the moment. To say God created man totally unable to respond, then condemning them. Is to bring God down to our level.
Verse quoting does not seem to help. I have quoted from the Bible, skala quoted another that said the opposite. Personally, I cannot just select a set of verses. The whole story has got to make sense.

The whole story indeed does make sense, and the inconsistency of certain verses with your position doesn't correspond on the Calvinist side: those verses are consistent with Calvin's compatibilist viewpoint. Even in 1 Timothy 2 it's quite clear that the universal "all" doesn't qualify in 4 out of 5 uses of the term "all", just in the four verses 1 Tim 2:1-4. So even on majority count of uses, the non-Calvinist view falls. Clearly "all" has no necessary meaning of universality.

The view of Calvin's compatibilism does make sense philosophically, as well as Scripturally. As has been mentioned a number of times, most philosophers don't advocate Libertarian Free Will -- because it's readily shown to be inconsistent not with the concept of God or some religion, but with the concept of reality as logical.

In the response above the problem again appears to drag on the term "totally unable". Once again, with feeling, Calvinists have emphasized that Total Inability does not at all refer to Comprehensive Inability -- that everything or initiative a person takes is completely unable to accomplish all good. The view is rather Total -- that when you sum up everything that a person does in aggregate, every assessment will indicate that the person's motives, thoughts, inclinations, actions, heart are corrupted in some way.

God's absolute. He won't tolerate evil in part -- that is, good in part. Total Inability points out that there is no attitude or work or will of man in any instance which has no evil. The corruption of human will taints every action; the corruption of human heart forms evil motives in every case.

 

[ConsumedByHisCall]

Then why does Jesus talk about some people receiving greater condemnation, if those in hell are not judged according to their works, but simply a flat, blanket-sweep, universal, equal judgement of "unbelief"

If you have a particular verse in mind I'd be glad to consider it, but my view doesn't deny that God holds people accountable to the level of the revelation they have received...(i.e. the more revelation an unbeliever receives the greater his condemnation.)

As for Owen's "refutation", I Literally laughed out loud about halfway through the article. Couldn't take the rest serious.

Thus revealing a lack of objectivity toward the article and unkind disrespect toward me. I'd say that reveals more about a person's character anything.

Just assertion after assertion, no homework done, and much pejorative language. Sorry my friend

There were numerous scholarly works sighted, he responded directly to quotes from Owen himself, countless scriptures were referenced and a well thought out and historically Arminian representation of this argument was presented in a clear concise manner. Your reply had nothing but ridicule...no sources, no rebuttal, no work, and ONLY pejorative language. I will allow the objective reader to judge whose testimony to heed.

As for continued unbelief being the unforgivable sin, where does the Bible say that? It never defines it that way - you did.

What other sin, but continued rebellion in unbelief, is unforgivable in your mind? To blaspheme the Holy Spirit is to believe His truth is a lie, is it not?

The unforgivable sin, according to Jesus, is blaspheming the holy spirit by attributing Christ's power (from the HS) to satan.

Exactly, and how does one do that? By believing the testimony and work of Christ (as recorded in the Gospel) is a lie (meaning it is of satan, the father of lies). Extreme muslims call the U.S. "the great Satan" because they see us as "Christian." They are in unbelief attribute the teaching of Christ to Satan.

As for the other verses you quote, yes, men are condemned for lack of belief, but the command to "believe in Christ" is one command of many. Sin is defined by the bible as "lawlessness", aka not obeying God. To obey the gospel and believe is a command.

So you equate the command of keeping God's moral code with His instruction to "humble yourselves?"

You can't see how one of those may not be possible while the other one could be? You take the teaching about the Law and apply it to the teachings about grace thus making both equally unattainable. That is not biblically supported. You've just equated the impossible demands of law of righteousness with that of faith. Paul doesn't do this:

What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; 31 but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it. 32 Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the "stumbling stone."

You've just equated the pursuit of righteousness by faith with the pursuit of a law of righteousness, as if both are in the same unattainable boat. That isn't supported in the text.

The verses you quoted don't suddenly undo the other scriptures which clearly say that men are judged according to their works. When sinners go to hell, their own works stand against them and make them guilty.

Why? Because they wasn't provision for them to be washed away? No. Because they "refused to accept the truth and so be saved."

When saints appear before the judgement throne of God, it is not their works that are judged, by Christ, as Christ stands in on our behalf. He is our mediator and our representative.

Incorrect. Like Adam, Christ represented the whole world.

"just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men." -Paul

The same "all" who were condemned when Adam represented the world, is the same "all" who were brought life when Jesus represented the world. That life is applied by grace to WHOSOEVER believes in HIM. That is INCLUSIVE not EXCLUSIVE. Arminianism is INCLUSIVE, while Calvinism is EXCLUSIVE.

 

[cygnusx1]

Calvinism very often misconstrues short passages to fit the criteria of Calvinist theology. all the passages, studied in context do not help the Calvinist agenda.

I can do the same to prove the opposite from the same versus watch, we'll take John Chapter 6 right around the versus quoted:

whoever comes to me I will never cast out.
(John 6:37 ESV)

I will raise him up on the last day.
(John 6:44 ESV)

is granted him by the Father.”
(John 6:65 ESV)

Easy to cherry pick.....If you read the whole chapter it leads you believe anyone can answer the call, not just the elect. Pick it apart the way you need it to fit and you get many of the Calvinist's view on scripture

so you deny "No man can come to me unless the Father draws him" John 6:44

so you deny
"No man can come to me unless it is granted to him by the Father." John 6:65

why would you need to deny what is clear ? Is it because it just doesn't seem fair to you ? Is it because it makes a problem for a free-will theory to work ?

Is it true that all men can come to me because I send out "prevenient grace" (chapter and verse _____) ?

Is it true that all men can come to me because I already granted them "enough grace" (chapter and verse_______) ?


Is it true that only through the Gospel are men saved ? then how do you imagine everyone has the same chance if the good news is moving through time and circumstance . ?

 

[Pinkman]

Question for Heymikey, Cygnus or any one who keeps cool

I maintain the hyper version is easy to understand. Not liked, may/may not be fair in the eyes of man.

Yep I am confused between the distinction of hyper and High Calvinism and this thread has not helped one bit.

Correct if wrong. I think most of the world has not believed in Calvinism.

Question is why ? Even if not most of the world, say 50:50

Why don't they believe.

Please - no heated answers, hence the request as above.

 

[cygnusx1]

Question for Heymikey, Cygnus or any one who keeps cool

I maintain the hyper version is easy to understand. Not liked, may/may not be fair in the eyes of man.

Yep I am confused between the distinction of hyper and High Calvinism and this thread has not helped one bit.

Correct if wrong. I think most of the world has not believed in Calvinism.

Question is why ? Even if not most of the world, say 50:50

Why don't they believe.

Please - no heated answers, hence the request as above.

you say you used to be a Hyper calvinist , which church did you belong to when you became a HC ?

 

[heymikey80]

Question for Heymikey, Cygnus or any one who keeps cool

I maintain the hyper version is easy to understand. Not liked, may/may not be fair in the eyes of man.

Yep I am confused between the distinction of hyper and High Calvinism and this thread has not helped one bit.

Correct if wrong. I think most of the world has not believed in Calvinism.

Question is why ? Even if not most of the world, say 50:50

Why don't they believe.

Please - no heated answers, hence the request as above.

Why? Because everybody's wrong. It's no surprise to any viewpoint that embraces the fact of human corruption.

The counterquestion: when has God's viewpoint been majority opinion?

 

[cygnusx1]

Why? Because everybody's wrong. It's no surprise to any viewpoint that embraces the fact of human corruption.

The counterquestion: when has God's viewpoint been majority opinion?

Hi Mikey


the recurring question seems to be How can God create men who are totally depraved and unable to act spiritually.

aside from the fact God made man upright , Adam's offspring are all God's creation even though they are less than what they ought to be .

I mean , denying that men are responsible if God creates them "that way" only begs the question to every CHRISTIAN : doesn't God create every sinner , even Tyrants like Hitler , thus if God cannot create men who are depraved (because of Adam) then by definition He cannot create anyone after Adam ..... they must have got here beyond His creative power , we know it isn't so.

So if God can and does create the likes of Hitler , why would there be a problem if He decides to reveal Himself to them through creation and hold them responsible for what they will do with that knowledge .

It's really akin to a question of why does God permit evil ? answer that and all is clear , deny the answer exists and everything else becomes a war of words .

What do you think Mikey

 

[heymikey80]

the recurring question seems to be How can God create men who are totally depraved and unable to act spiritually.

aside from the fact God made man upright , Adam's offspring are all God's creation even though they are less than what they ought to be .

Yes; that's simply a fact. Someone can't make people to be less evil by this statement. They're still all mark-missers, thus sinners.

Absolute good & evil are quite direct, even from the sinful position: mark: not hit. Fail.

I mean , denying that men are responsible

I've never seen this as more than narcissism.

Take the most sophisticated AI program we've ever built. If it doesn't satisfy its purpose, pull the plug. Period. Mark: not hit. Fail.

The simplicity of the moral calculus doesn't seem to be acceptable to those objecting. But it's reality.

if God creates them "that way" only begs the question to every CHRISTIAN : doesn't God create every sinner , even Tyrants like Hitler , thus if God cannot create men who are depraved (because of Adam) then by definition He cannot create anyone after Adam ..... they must have got here beyond His creative power , we know it isn't so.

Certainly beyond his creative comprehension (thus inconsistent with omniscience) if He didn't actually want the Fall to occur. He could've stopped it -- God could've prevented the Fall a number of ways.

So if God can and does create the likes of Hitler , why would there be a problem if He decides to reveal Himself to them through creation and hold them responsible for what they will do with that knowledge .

I think that's the issue. People want God and particularly the Gospel to remain an offer without teeth -- a positive direction with no downside. They want "good" to equal "convenient".

It's really akin to a question of why does God permit evil ? answer that and all is clear , deny the answer exists and everything else becomes a war of words .

Yes, most of the reasoning of objections to Calvinism can be equally applied against the existence of evil -- to which the answer from the opposition is sometimes, "free will". But that doesn't cover it. Because if the existence of free will brought about the existence of evil, then even in free-will views, God's responsible for ordaining free will -- and thus once again being the ultimate Cause of evil.

Calvinists see the only issue being argued is whether God ordained free will. And until that insight is recognized by the opposition it seems they're jabbing into thin air.

 

[OzSpen]

Yes all men, not just the "elect" isn't it amazing that all men have a chance at redemption? Hallejuah!!

Robert T,

And isn't that what is affirmed by 1 John 2:2?

He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world (ESV).

It is also confirmed by the "whoever" of John 3:16.

Oz

 

[ConsumedByHisCall]

I'm not sure how cygnus and mikey actually believe that God's permitting of evil is in anyway tantamount to God:

1. Decreeing that Adam sin (i.e. "God decrees whatsoever comes to pass")

2. Punishing the entire human race for that sin by making all born in a condition that even if God makes a genuine appeal for them to be reconciled they can't willingly accept it, thus determining their destiny to eternal torment from before their birth.

 

[cygnusx1]

Yes, most of the reasoning of objections to Calvinism can be equally applied against the existence of evil -- to which the answer from the opposition is sometimes, "free will". But that doesn't cover it. Because if the existence of free will brought about the existence of evil, then even in free-will views, God's responsible for ordaining free will -- and thus once again being the ultimate Cause of evil.

Calvinists see the only issue being argued is whether God ordained free will. And until that insight is recognized by the opposition it seems they're jabbing into thin air.

well put Mikey , I have often thought the FWD (Free will Defence) was flawed as it just moves the same "problem" back one step .

The Free -willers could be guilty of exalting the view of sinners by inventing the perfect excuse " it's not my fault , if you didn't want me to sin why give me free-will" ?

Keep shining Mikey !!!

 

[cygnusx1]

I'm not sure how cygnus and mikey actually believe that God's permitting of evil is in anyway tantamount to God:

1. Decreeing that Adam sin (i.e. "God decrees whatsoever comes to pass")

2. Punishing the entire human race for that sin by making all born in a condition that even if God makes a genuine appeal for them to be reconciled they can't willingly accept it, thus determining their destiny to eternal torment from before their birth.

Simple , because "permission" "permitting" is an act of the will by definition.

 

[heymikey80]

I'm not sure how cygnus and mikey actually believe that God's permitting of evil is in anyway tantamount to God:

1. Decreeing that Adam sin (i.e. "God decrees whatsoever comes to pass")

They're equivalent due to the following sequence of deduction:
God knows everything His creation will do.
God empowers everything His creation will do.
God's power and knowledge are perfectly organized by God's intent, or will.
=> God intends everything His creation will do.

2. Punishing the entire human race for that sin by making all born in a condition that even if God makes a genuine appeal for them to be reconciled they can't willingly accept it, thus determining their destiny to eternal torment from before their birth.

I've a hard time connecting this with your demand for equivalence, as they're not equivalent, but they're pretty obvious.

God condemns of all sin with eternal torment.
All are born with sin through Original Sin.
=> God punishes the entire human race for their sin with eternal torment.
God intends everything in creation.
=> God intended to punish the entire human race for their sin with eternal torment.

"making all born" doesn't imply immediacy of responsibility for their being born in this way. Adam is immediately responsible for this change in humanity (as is quite obvious), only to be demonstrated by our own sinfulness when each of us is born. Again, the doctrine of Original Sin explains this situation.

There is no such thing as the "Ultimate Cause" holding the same responsibility as the "immediate cause". This is so patently obvious that it should go without saying. One might attribute the ultimate cause of a plane crash to the failure of a tiny screw hole in a window; but the immediate cause would be the inspector's neglect of the crack that's growing out of that screw hole. The reponsibility is nowhere near the same. The causes are qualitatively different.

 

[heymikey80]

The Free -willers could be guilty of exalting the view of sinners by inventing the perfect excuse " it's not my fault , if you didn't want me to sin why give me free-will" ?

I never thought of it that way. Good point.

 

[Pinkman]

you say you used to be a Hyper calvinist , which church did you belong to when you became a HC ?

I did not 'become". I was born and brought up in a hate filled environment in NI.

If you are in the UK cygnus alive in the 70's you would know about it. Guilford 4, Birmingham 6. If not ask you parents.

OK

 

[Pinkman]

It's really akin to a question of why does God permit evil ?

So answer it.

 

[Pinkman]

Heymikey80:

1. Decreeing that Adam sin (i.e. "God decrees whatsoever comes to pass")


Which makes him a supralapsarian hyper calvinist. But then he denies this ?


Confused ?

Oh yes