• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

What is wrong with Calvinism ?

misput

JimD
Sep 5, 2018
1,026
384
86
Pacific, Mo.
✟173,825.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Was Adam a sinner before he disobeyed God?
Every other man is a sinner before he disobeys God.

Man is not a sinner because he disobeys God.
Man disobeys God because he is a (born) sinner.

Paul is addressing the church, not Adam, and is talking about the descendants of Adam, not the man God created as an adult, without a fallen nature, and who did not inherit his fallen nature as everyone else in the human race does, from him.

Obviously Adam was not a sinner before he disobeyed God and neither is any other man. A fleshly nature is not a fallen nature. Obviously Adam had a fleshly nature but was not fallen until he was drawn away by his own lust. As James says, every man becomes a sinner/fallen when he is drawn away by his own lust. Did James not get the memo that all men are lost before they are drawn away by their own lust?
 
Upvote 0

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Site Supporter
May 28, 2018
14,280
6,360
69
Pennsylvania
✟943,205.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
It's gnostic because of the "T" in Tulip that teaches of a fallen nature, and it leads to docetism for the same reason. It leads to a claim that the nature that common men are born with is not the nature that Jesus was born with, but that Jesus was born with a pre-fall humanity that is decidedly different. Calvinistic doctrine requires either inconsistency in how it is applied, or it leads to heretical statements surrounding Christology and God's authorship of sin. Which of those two options the individual Calvinist goes with varies, but it cannot be consistently held and remain within the scope of orthodox Christianity.


How is the doctrine of Total Depravity gnostic? I don't get that. That claim, and the docetism that accompanies it, are (to me) only in the mind of the one misusing what Reformed theology teaches.

Reformed theology does not teach that God is the author of sin. In fact, many proponents would even disagree with me, that God caused that sin be. To me, "God caused that sin be", is even itself merely a bow to the small and misconceiving human mind, stuck on its terminology as if that alone was of full merit. Sin is not properly a thing, like righteousness is, but an absence of righteousness. But, regardless, scripture and reason demand that God caused all things, and scripture, experience and reason demonstrate that God usually, post creation, uses means to accomplish what he set in play. He used Satan and his demons, and Adam, and fallen humans, who did the sin. He did not sin, nor did he even tempt us.

(And, by the way, it is not only Reformed theology that claims Christ was born without the sin nature the rest of us are born with. While I was younger, and believed a decidedly different gospel from what Reformed teaching holds to, in that it was grace that saved, but only after I choose, instead of God changing my will, I still believed that Christ was born without that sin nature, just as the Bible demonstrates.) I think one would be well-advised to see that when Christ was tempted in every way as we are, it may well show us that what we consider such an important difference between us and him is after all no excuse at all for our failing to do as he did.
 
Upvote 0

Fervent

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2020
6,627
2,847
45
San jacinto
✟203,320.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
How is the doctrine of Total Depravity gnostic? I don't get that. That claim, and the docetism that accompanies it, are (to me) only in the mind of the one misusing what Reformed theology teaches.

Reformed theology does not teach that God is the author of sin. In fact, many proponents would even disagree with me, that God caused that sin be. To me, "God caused that sin be", is even itself merely a bow to the small and misconceiving human mind, stuck on its terminology as if that alone was of full merit. Sin is not properly a thing, like righteousness is, but an absence of righteousness. But, regardless, scripture and reason demand that God caused all things, and scripture, experience and reason demonstrate that God usually, post creation, uses means to accomplish what he set in play. He used Satan and his demons, and Adam, and fallen humans, who did the sin. He did not sin, nor did he even tempt us.

(And, by the way, it is not only Reformed theology that claims Christ was born without the sin nature the rest of us are born with. While I was younger, and believed a decidedly different gospel from what Reformed teaching holds to, in that it was grace that saved, but only after I choose, instead of God changing my will, I still believed that Christ was born without that sin nature, just as the Bible demonstrates.) I think one would be well-advised to see that when Christ was tempted in every way as we are, it may well show us that what we consider such an important difference between us and him is after all no excuse at all for our failing to do as he did.
The cognitive dissonance in declaring that God is not the author of sin under Calvinism while accusing God of being the author of sin is quite amusing. Just because you declare an accusation false doesn't make it false, and your post demonstrates my point that Calvinism calls for either inconsistency in excusing God's intentional action in a single instance, or just embracing God as the author of sin and engaging in doublespeak about how He's not. Calvinism is built on Manichean gnosticism that comes from its Augustinian roots in the distortion of the effects of the fall.
 
Upvote 0

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Site Supporter
May 28, 2018
14,280
6,360
69
Pennsylvania
✟943,205.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
Obviously Adam was not a sinner before he disobeyed God and neither is any other man. A fleshly nature is not a fallen nature. Obviously Adam had a fleshly nature but was not fallen until he was drawn away by his own lust. As James says, every man becomes a sinner/fallen when he is drawn away by his own lust. Did James not get the memo that all men are lost before they are drawn away by their own lust?

You seem to have misput this: "As James says, every man becomes a sinner/fallen when he is drawn away by his own lust." Where does James say, "...becomes a sinner/fallen when he is drawn away by his own lust."? I read something else, there, along the lines of: James 1: "14 But each one is tempted when by his own evil desires he is lured away and enticed. 15 Then after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death."
 
Upvote 0

iwbswiaihl

Active Member
May 17, 2022
398
118
82
BON AQUA
✟34,412.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
It's gnostic because of the "T" in Tulip that teaches of a fallen nature, and it leads to docetism for the same reason. It leads to a claim that the nature that common men are born with is not the nature that Jesus was born with, but that Jesus was born with a pre-fall humanity that is decidedly different. Calvinistic doctrine requires either inconsistency in how it is applied, or it leads to heretical statements surrounding Christology and God's authorship of sin. Which of those two options the individual Calvinist goes with varies, but it cannot be consistently held and remain within the scope of orthodox Christianity.

What you say here is absolutely not scriptural at all: because of your statement here and I am not a Calvinist, but attend a Baptist church: "It leads to a claim that the nature that common men are born with is not the nature that Jesus was born with, but that Jesus was born with a pre-fall humanity that is decidedly different". It surely is true that all born of Adam DO NOT have the nature that Jesus was born with and you can not show a hint of a verse in the scriptures which would support this opinion. Opinion because of showing no proof of your statement. Man if born of a fallen nature because all came from Adam. Jesus did not come from Adam but the Holy Spirit over shadowed Mary who was a virgin and she had the Son of God, no sexual relations put Jesus in her womb. Explain how a virgin has God's Son. Matthew 1:23 “Behold, the virgin shall be with child and shall bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,” which translated means, “God with us.”
Luke 1:27 to a virgin engaged to a man whose name was Joseph, of the descendants of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary. Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel. Matthew 1:18-25 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: when His mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit. And Joseph her husband, being a righteous man and not wanting to disgrace her, planned to send her away secretly. But when he had considered this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife; for the Child who has been conceived in her ,is of the Holy Ghost.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Site Supporter
May 28, 2018
14,280
6,360
69
Pennsylvania
✟943,205.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
The cognitive dissonance in declaring that God is not the author of sin under Calvinism while accusing God of being the author of sin is quite amusing. Just because you declare an accusation false doesn't make it false, and your post demonstrates my point that Calvinism calls for either inconsistency in excusing God's intentional action in a single instance, or just embracing God as the author of sin and engaging in doublespeak about how He's not. Calvinism is built on Manichean gnosticism that comes from its Augustinian roots in the distortion of the effects of the fall.
So, not that I am like God, but since you insist on bringing God down to our human level, and subject him to our human judgement and understandings: If I tell my child not to go into the pantry, knowing very well that he will do so, and, in fact, planning that he will, so that I can teach him an important lesson about disobedience, *I* am the one who disobeyed me, and stole the sweet tarts from myself? Your amusement is amusing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Clare73
Upvote 0

Presbyterian Continuist

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Mar 28, 2005
21,968
10,837
77
Christchurch New Zealand
Visit site
✟867,272.00
Country
New Zealand
Gender
Male
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
After seeing the beginning of this post it told me there was no use reading the whole post because if this is the mindset of anyone that agrees with Olson they must first repent and believe the gospel because the bible would call his comments heresy, and I must agree with the word of God. I also did read the rest, and I would include those who believe in the Open Theist teaching, which I have never heard of before reading this post, and see why after reading this clip from an internet search if it is true and it seems to state what Olson taught, of whom I also never heard of and see why: Open theism: is the thesis that, because God loves us and desires that we freely choose to reciprocate His love, He has made His knowledge of, and plans for, the future conditional upon our actions. Though omniscient, God does not know what we will freely do in the future. Though omnipotent, He has chosen to invite us to freely collaborate with Him in governing and developing His creation, thereby also allowing us the freedom to thwart His hopes for us. God desires that each of us freely enter into a loving and dynamic personal relationship with Him, and He has therefore left it open to us to choose for or against His will.

While Open Theists affirm that God knows all the truths that can be known, they claim that there simply are not yet truths about what will occur in the “open,” undetermined future. Alternatively, there are such contingent truths, but these truths cannot be known by anyone, including God. Not that it means anything to anyone other than myself, I would also call this heresy and would not include it in the arena of being called a Christian assembly. But, every tub sets on its own bottom.
Although God knows the past, present, and future, I am sure that He does not exist in a simultaneous past/present/future state. No one can exist in that state. And a God who exists in that state is not the God of the Bible. After I tended for a while in the 1970s to go along with Olson's theology, I decided just to accept what the Bible clearly said, that God has foreknowledge, some of which is the result of His future planning, and others that He just knows, because He can look into the future and knows what is going to happen. This is how He can know who is going to receive Christ and who will reject Him. The extreme Calvinist will try and tell us that God knows who is going to be saved because He predetermined them. But there is a problem with that, because predetermination would take the power of choice away from the person, and therefore would contradict many of His promises in Scripture. Predetermination and personal choice are contradictions in fact. No one can predetermine an action for a person and give him the power to choose at the same time. It is the same as locking someone in a room and telling them they are free to go, or telling Siamese twins to go in opposite directions. There was a funny view of that in the movie "Airplane".

So I threw Gordon Olson's theology manual in the rubbish and adopted orthodox Christianity in the form of English Calvinist Puritan theology, which is not the extreme form that some have adopted.

I don't believe that God has predetermined anyone to hell. The invitation to be saved is open to all. Although myriads of souls will reject Christ, myriads will receive Him. Those who reject Him will know at the Judgment that it was because of their choice that they will be facing the eternal wrath of God.

So, just in case you think I am an Open Theist, I assure you that I am not.
 
Upvote 0

Presbyterian Continuist

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Mar 28, 2005
21,968
10,837
77
Christchurch New Zealand
Visit site
✟867,272.00
Country
New Zealand
Gender
Male
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
It's gnostic because of the "T" in Tulip that teaches of a fallen nature, and it leads to docetism for the same reason. It leads to a claim that the nature that common men are born with is not the nature that Jesus was born with, but that Jesus was born with a pre-fall humanity that is decidedly different. Calvinistic doctrine requires either inconsistency in how it is applied, or it leads to heretical statements surrounding Christology and God's authorship of sin. Which of those two options the individual Calvinist goes with varies, but it cannot be consistently held and remain within the scope of orthodox Christianity.
Why do you think that Jesus wasn't born of a virgin? Do you think that being conceived by the Holy Spirit made Jesus humanity different from everyone else who was born the normal way? What do you think made Jesus the perfect sacrifice for sin? I'm just a bit puzzled as to where you are coming from in this.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Presbyterian Continuist

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Mar 28, 2005
21,968
10,837
77
Christchurch New Zealand
Visit site
✟867,272.00
Country
New Zealand
Gender
Male
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
The cognitive dissonance in declaring that God is not the author of sin under Calvinism while accusing God of being the author of sin is quite amusing. Just because you declare an accusation false doesn't make it false, and your post demonstrates my point that Calvinism calls for either inconsistency in excusing God's intentional action in a single instance, or just embracing God as the author of sin and engaging in doublespeak about how He's not. Calvinism is built on Manichean gnosticism that comes from its Augustinian roots in the distortion of the effects of the fall.
I wonder what the Bible says about it?
 
Upvote 0

Presbyterian Continuist

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Mar 28, 2005
21,968
10,837
77
Christchurch New Zealand
Visit site
✟867,272.00
Country
New Zealand
Gender
Male
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
What you say here is absolutely not scriptural at all: because of your statement here and I am not a Calvinist, but attend a Baptist church: "It leads to a claim that the nature that common men are born with is not the nature that Jesus was born with, but that Jesus was born with a pre-fall humanity that is decidedly different". It surely is true that all born of Adam DO NOT have the nature that Jesus was born with and you can not show a hint of a verse in the scriptures which would support this opinion. Opinion because of showing no proof of your statement. Man if born of a fallen nature because all came from Adam. Jesus did not come from Adam but the Holy Spirit over shadowed Mary who was a virgin and she had the Son of God, no sexual relations put Jesus in her womb. Explain how a virgin has God's Son. Matthew 1:23 “Behold, the virgin shall be with child and shall bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,” which translated means, “God with us.”
Luke 1:27 to a virgin engaged to a man whose name was Joseph, of the descendants of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary. Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel. Matthew 1:18-25 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: when His mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit. And Joseph her husband, being a righteous man and not wanting to disgrace her, planned to send her away secretly. But when he had considered this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife; for the Child who has been conceived in her is of the
The difference between Adam and Jesus is that Adam was directly created by God as an adult, while Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of a virgin. Adam was an innocent human being without sin before he disobeyed God. Jesus was born with two natures - a Divine nature and a human nature.

Where did I get that from? The Bible of course!
 
Upvote 0

TedT

Member since Job 38:7
Jan 11, 2021
1,850
334
Vancouver Island
✟93,346.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
But that admits to the heresy, that God is not omniscient, and not omnipotent, and to the philosophical claim that he is not First Cause.

Sorry, but if he is not all those things, he is not God.
Are these words in the Bible or are they interpretations of HIS Divine attributes? Does it matter that the current expression of the Divine Attribute we use to encompass what HE knows was first coined by the pagan Greeks, ie, people who cannot know HIM, 1 Cor 2:14 The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit., that is, does that give us pause or do we still idolize their intellect over scripture?

I suggest we got some interpretations wrong and they need to be redefined...
 
Upvote 0

Presbyterian Continuist

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Mar 28, 2005
21,968
10,837
77
Christchurch New Zealand
Visit site
✟867,272.00
Country
New Zealand
Gender
Male
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
So, not that I am like God, but since you insist on bringing God down to our human level, and subject him to our human judgement and understandings: If I tell my child not to go into the pantry, knowing very well that he will do so, and, in fact, planning that he will, so that I can teach him an important lesson about disobedience, *I* am the one who disobeyed me, and stole the sweet tarts from myself? Your amusement is amusing.
I suspect he subscribes to the Arian Heresy, in which Jesus was seen as just an ordinary man and not God. He accuses us Calvinists as being Gnostics without really understand what the Gnostic heresy actually is. It is saying that Jesus didn't have an actual human body at all - that He was more of a spirit than actually human. It comes from a Platonic influence where the physical is unimportant, while the spiritual is pre-eminent. From memory, the healing ministry in the church died out after the First Century because of the influence of Plato's philosophy that the spirit was more important than the physical, so spiritual healing was more important than physical healing. This is probably why these days the reference in Isaiah 53 where it says that "He carried out griefs and sorrows", interpreted by Jesus in Matthew as, "He carried our sicknesses and infirmities" in support of His healing of the sick, has departed from Jesus' interpretation, to a more Platonic view that what Isaiah really meant was spiritual not physical healing. Those who reject Plato, interpret the Matthew reference as we can know that Jesus heals the sick today as part of the Atonement, while those influenced by Plato put total healing of diseases and infirmities off until after the Church Age is over and we are transformed to our perfect bodies in glory. So those who are influenced by Plato, the pagan philosopher, where they emphasise the spirit and devalue the physical, and apply it to Jesus, are closer to the Gnostic heresy than those who read the Bible and see that Plato was wrong.
 
Upvote 0

Presbyterian Continuist

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Mar 28, 2005
21,968
10,837
77
Christchurch New Zealand
Visit site
✟867,272.00
Country
New Zealand
Gender
Male
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
Are these words in the Bible or are they interpretations of HIS Divine attributes? Does it matter that the current expression of the Divine Attribute we use to encompass what HE knows was first coined by the pagan Greeks, ie, people who cannot know HIM, 1 Cor 2:14 The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit., that is, does that give us pause or do we still idolize their intellect over scripture?

I suggest we got some interpretations wrong and they need to be redefined...

I think it is important to view the whole context surrounding a verse to get the true sense of the verse. Lets look at 1 Corinthians 2:6 to the end.

"6 Yet among the mature we do impart wisdom, although it is not a wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are doomed to pass away.[/quote]
The wisdom that we have received from the Holy Spirit is not the wisdom of the world. Some of our theologies are very much influenced by Aristotle, who demanded empirical proof and if such proof is not forthcoming, it is not real. This influence discounts miracles and divine healing if there is no empirical proof that it actually happened.
7 But we impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God, which God decreed before the ages for our glory. 8 None of the rulers of this age understood this, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. 9 But, as it is written,

“What no eye has seen, nor ear heard,
nor the heart of man imagined,
what God has prepared for those who love him”—
The wisdom that comes from God, through the inspiration of the written Scriptures and the Holy Spirit speaking to us through them, cannot be understood by those in the world. What this means is that unconverted people cannot understand the wisdom of God, because it has not be revealed to them. They can read the Bible and understand it from a literary point of view, but they cannot know what it really means.

10 these things God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God. 11 For who knows a person's thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God.
Only those who are converted to Christ and therefore filled with the indwelling Spirit can know the mystery of the Gospel that was hidden through the ages.
The inner wisdom of God has been fully revealed to those who have the indwelling Spirit.
12 Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God.

So there is a marked difference between the spirit of the world and the Spirit of God. We have received the Spirit of God so that we can understand what God has given us.
13 And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual.
Every converted believer who has the indwelling Holy Spirit has been taught by the Spirit and is able to divide the Word of truth. He is able to fully understand what the Bible is actually saying, and that the Bible is all about Jesus. John said that the Anointing which we have received teaches us all things.

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. 15 The spiritual person judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one. 16 “For who has understood the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?” But we have the mind of Christ."
So, here is the verse. What the verse is actually telling us is that the natural man is not a converted Christian believer indwelled by the Holy Spirit. The natural man is unconverted and still a person of the world. Without the indwelling Spirit teaching the things of God he cannot know them. We cannot say that a converted believer is not spiritual and cannot understand spiritual things. There is no mixture of natural and spiritual in the converted believer. Every Spirit-filled believer has the mind of Christ. Some say that only Pentecostals and Charismatics are truly Spirit-filled. I don't believe that at all. Every single person who has received Christ and are converted to Him is Spirit-filled and has the mind of Christ, so that they can judge all things pertaining to things spiritual and does not have to be judged by any person.

If anyone uses 1 Corinthians 2:14-16 to distinguish between "carnal" and "spiritual" Christians, is quoting the verse out of context. Some people who think they are more "spiritual" than others think they can use the verse to try and convince those whom they think don't have as much of the Spirit as they do, to be instructed by them in spiritual matters. Often those who think they have the "full Gospel" and are "baptised with the Spirit" will look down on those in mainline non-Charismatic denominations and treat them as if they are not Spirit-filled. This looks like spiritual pride and arrogance to me.

So it is not that we "idolise intellect over Scripture" at all. The verse shows the significant difference between an unconverted person who is worldly thinking, and a converted, Spirit-filled Christian who has the mind of Christ.
 
Upvote 0

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Site Supporter
May 28, 2018
14,280
6,360
69
Pennsylvania
✟943,205.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
The cognitive dissonance in declaring that God is not the author of sin under Calvinism while accusing God of being the author of sin is quite amusing. Just because you declare an accusation false doesn't make it false, and your post demonstrates my point that Calvinism calls for either inconsistency in excusing God's intentional action in a single instance, or just embracing God as the author of sin and engaging in doublespeak about how He's not. Calvinism is built on Manichean gnosticism that comes from its Augustinian roots in the distortion of the effects of the fall.

One would be hard pressed to find something that looks less like Reformed Theology:

"Manichaeism is an extreme form of dualistic gnosticism. It is gnostic because it promises salvation through the attainment of special knowledge of spiritual truths. It is dualistic because it argues that the foundation of the universe is the opposition of two principles, good and evil, each equal in relative power." An Introduction to Manichaeism.
 
Upvote 0

Presbyterian Continuist

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Mar 28, 2005
21,968
10,837
77
Christchurch New Zealand
Visit site
✟867,272.00
Country
New Zealand
Gender
Male
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
One would be hard pressed to find something that looks less like Reformed Theology:

"Manichaeism is an extreme form of dualistic gnosticism. It is gnostic because it promises salvation through the attainment of special knowledge of spiritual truths. It is dualistic because it argues that the foundation of the universe is the opposition of two principles, good and evil, each equal in relative power." An Introduction to Manichaeism.
Some people must so dislike Reformed theology to go to such koo koo bananatown lengths to try and discredit it.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Mark Quayle
Upvote 0

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Site Supporter
May 28, 2018
14,280
6,360
69
Pennsylvania
✟943,205.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
Although God knows the past, present, and future, I am sure that He does not exist in a simultaneous past/present/future state. No one can exist in that state. And a God who exists in that state is not the God of the Bible. After I tended for a while in the 1970s to go along with Olson's theology, I decided just to accept what the Bible clearly said, that God has foreknowledge, some of which is the result of His future planning, and others that He just knows, because He can look into the future and knows what is going to happen. This is how He can know who is going to receive Christ and who will reject Him. The extreme Calvinist will try and tell us that God knows who is going to be saved because He predetermined them. But there is a problem with that, because predetermination would take the power of choice away from the person, and therefore would contradict many of His promises in Scripture. Predetermination and personal choice are contradictions in fact. No one can predetermine an action for a person and give him the power to choose at the same time. It is the same as locking someone in a room and telling them they are free to go, or telling Siamese twins to go in opposite directions. There was a funny view of that in the movie "Airplane".

So I threw Gordon Olson's theology manual in the rubbish and adopted orthodox Christianity in the form of English Calvinist Puritan theology, which is not the extreme form that some have adopted.

I don't believe that God has predetermined anyone to hell. The invitation to be saved is open to all. Although myriads of souls will reject Christ, myriads will receive Him. Those who reject Him will know at the Judgment that it was because of their choice that they will be facing the eternal wrath of God.

So, just in case you think I am an Open Theist, I assure you that I am not.

Here you make an unsupported assertion. You think it common sense, I suppose, but it is not a true statement: "predetermination would take the power of choice away from the person, and therefore would contradict many of His promises in Scripture. Predetermination and personal choice are contradictions in fact. No one can predetermine an action for a person and give him the power to choose at the same time."

You make a similar mistake in what you say about God's ability (or, actually, God's person): "He does not exist in a simultaneous past/present/future state."

You are looking at it backwards. If he is God, he is not subject to any temporal principles from outside himself. I expect you consider it self-contradictory to say "simultaneously past/present/future", and I agree, it is. But these are human conceptions; God's ways are not our ways. God is not a temporal creature like us, but he can visit any time he likes.

So it is with predetermination. Ignoring for now the implications people draw from the concepts they imagine from "predetermine", such as where they draw the 'equals' sign in "double-predestination" —to predetermine only means "to decide ahead". We say he is (at least) omniscient, yet, if he merely knew all things, but created anyway, knowing what was going to happen, he thus caused all things to happen, via the process we refer to as the chain of causation. Now, I'm not saying that is all there is to it, but I am putting the thoughts in this order to demonstrate the ludicrousness of the notion that he does not predetermine.

Other things you do not mention here, you no doubt consider logical, for example, that the Command implies the ability to obey. It does not. Neither does God deciding mean that either option could actually happen. Nor does God deciding mean that man has no choice. It only means that man chooses what his inclinations lead him to —to what he actually prefers, even if only for that instant of choice. He sees what to him are two possibilities, but in fact, only the one he is going to choose is going to happen. One is indeed possible, the other one only looks possible. So he chooses between the two.
 
Upvote 0

FutureAndAHope

Just me
Site Supporter
Aug 30, 2008
6,758
3,099
Australia
Visit site
✟885,073.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The word of God presents the following idea, “whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him”.


Act 10:34-35 Then Peter opened his mouth and said: "In truth I perceive that God shows no partiality. But in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him.​


Cornelius was chosen by God to be the first to receive the Holy Spirit, due to his, prayers and good works.

Act 10:4 And when he observed him, he was afraid, and said, "What is it, lord?" So he said to him, "Your prayers and your alms have come up for a memorial before God.​


We see this idea in the dialog, between Jesus and his disciples. When talking about who will receive the Holy Spirit, there is a distinction between those who “choose rightly”, and those who “choose to sin”. The first work being:


Joh_6:29 Jesus answered and said to them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent."


Joh 14:15-24 "If you love Me, keep My commandments. And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever— the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you. I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you. "A little while longer and the world will see Me no more, but you will see Me. Because I live, you will live also. At that day you will know that I am in My Father, and you in Me, and I in you. He who has My commandments and keeps them, it is he who loves Me. And he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and manifest Myself to him." Judas (not Iscariot) said to Him, "Lord, how is it that You will manifest Yourself to us, and not to the world?" Jesus answered and said to him, "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him. He who does not love Me does not keep My words; and the word which you hear is not Mine but the Father's who sent Me.

Romans also states there is no partiality with God, those who do evil will perish, and those who do good receive life.

Rom 2:2-11 But we know that the judgment of God is according to truth against those who practice such things. And do you think this, O man, you who judge those practicing such things, and doing the same, that you will escape the judgment of God? Or do you despise the riches of His goodness, forbearance, and longsuffering, not knowing that the goodness of God leads you to repentance? But in accordance with your hardness and your impenitent heart you are treasuring up for yourself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, who "WILL RENDER TO EACH ONE ACCORDING TO HIS DEEDS": eternal life to those who by patient continuance in doing good seek for glory, honor, and immortality; but to those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness—indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish, on every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek; but glory, honor, and peace to everyone who works what is good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For there is no partiality with God.​


1Pe 1:17 And if you call on the Father, who without partiality judges according to each one's work, conduct yourselves throughout the time of your stay here in fear;​


2Co 4:6 For it is the God who commanded light to shine out of darkness, who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.​


We see that God gives the light of his words to all people.


Joh_1:9 That was the true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world.


Joh_12:36 While you have the light, believe in the light, that you may become sons of light." These things Jesus spoke, and departed, and was hidden from them.​

We see there is a time when people have that light, as stated “While you have the light”.
 
Upvote 0

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Site Supporter
May 28, 2018
14,280
6,360
69
Pennsylvania
✟943,205.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
Are these words in the Bible or are they interpretations of HIS Divine attributes? Does it matter that the current expression of the Divine Attribute we use to encompass what HE knows was first coined by the pagan Greeks, ie, people who cannot know HIM, 1 Cor 2:14 The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit., that is, does that give us pause or do we still idolize their intellect over scripture?

I suggest we got some interpretations wrong and they need to be redefined...
What words are you referring to? Are you saying that the Bible does not teach Omnipotence, Omniscience, etc?
 
Upvote 0

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Site Supporter
May 28, 2018
14,280
6,360
69
Pennsylvania
✟943,205.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
I suspect he subscribes to the Arian Heresy, in which Jesus was seen as just an ordinary man and not God. He accuses us Calvinists as being Gnostics without really understand what the Gnostic heresy actually is. It is saying that Jesus didn't have an actual human body at all - that He was more of a spirit than actually human. It comes from a Platonic influence where the physical is unimportant, while the spiritual is pre-eminent. From memory, the healing ministry in the church died out after the First Century because of the influence of Plato's philosophy that the spirit was more important than the physical, so spiritual healing was more important than physical healing. This is probably why these days the reference in Isaiah 53 where it says that "He carried out griefs and sorrows", interpreted by Jesus in Matthew as, "He carried our sicknesses and infirmities" in support of His healing of the sick, has departed from Jesus' interpretation, to a more Platonic view that what Isaiah really meant was spiritual not physical healing. Those who reject Plato, interpret the Matthew reference as we can know that Jesus heals the sick today as part of the Atonement, while those influenced by Plato put total healing of diseases and infirmities off until after the Church Age is over and we are transformed to our perfect bodies in glory. So those who are influenced by Plato, the pagan philosopher, where they emphasise the spirit and devalue the physical, and apply it to Jesus, are closer to the Gnostic heresy than those who read the Bible and see that Plato was wrong.
You may be right. I was guessing he called it gnosticism because he thinks Calvinists claim one cannot be saved without understanding that the Gospel is according to Calvinism (i.e. "special knowledge".
 
Upvote 0

FutureAndAHope

Just me
Site Supporter
Aug 30, 2008
6,758
3,099
Australia
Visit site
✟885,073.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Other things you do not mention here, you no doubt consider logical, for example, that the Command implies the ability to obey. It does not.

That is not what the early church thought. Irenaeus (80 years after the apostle Paul) in his Against Heresies - Book 4 Ch 35-38 shows clearly that it is man's free will choice to choose or reject God. He also specifically states "If then it were not in our power to do or not to do these things, what reason had the apostle, and much more the Lord Himself, to give us counsel to do some things, and to abstain from others?", see the full passage below.

Chap. XXXVII. — Men Are Possessed of Free Will, and Endowed with the Faculty of Making a Choice. It Is Not True, Therefore, That Some Are by Nature Good, and Others Bad.
1. This expression [of our Lord], “How often would I have gathered thy children together, and thou wouldest not,” (Mat 23:37) set forth the ancient law of human liberty, because God made man a free [agent] from the beginning, possessing his own power, even as he does his own soul, to obey the behests (ad utendum sententia) of God voluntarily, and not by compulsion of God. For there is no coercion with God, but a good will [towards us] is present with Him continually. And therefore does He give good counsel to all. And in man, as well as in angels, He has placed the power of choice (for angels are rational beings), so that those who had yielded obedience might justly possess what is good, given indeed by God, but preserved by themselves. On the other hand, they who have not obeyed shall, with justice, be not found in possession of the good, and shall receive condign punishment: for God did kindly bestow on them what was good; but they themselves did not diligently keep it, nor deem it something precious, but poured contempt upon His super-eminent goodness. Rejecting therefore the good, and as it were spuing it out, they shall all deservedly incur the just judgment of God, which also the Apostle Paul testifies in his Epistle to the Romans, where he says, “But dost thou despise the riches of His goodness, and patience, and long-suffering, being ignorant that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance? But according to thy hardness and impenitent heart, thou treasurest to thyself wrath against the day of wrath, and the revelation of the righteous judgment of God.” “But glory and honour,” he says, “to every one that doeth good.” (Rom 2:4, Rom 2:5, Rom 2:7) God therefore has given that which is good, as the apostle tells us in this Epistle, and they who work it shall receive glory and honour, because they have done that which is good when they had it in their power not to do it; but those who do it not shall receive the just judgment of God, because they did not work good when they had it in their power so to do.

2. But if some had been made by nature bad, and others good, these latter would not be deserving of praise for being good, for such were they created; nor would the former be reprehensible, for thus they were made [originally]. But since all men are of the same nature, able both to hold fast and to do what is good; and, on the other hand, having also the power to cast it from them and not to do it, — some do justly receive praise even among men who are under the control of good laws (and much more from God), and obtain deserved testimony of their choice of good in general, and of persevering therein; but the others are blamed, and receive a just condemnation, because of their rejection of what is fair and good. And therefore the prophets used to exhort men to what was good, to act justly and to work righteousness, as I have so largely demonstrated, because it is in our power so to do, and because by excessive negligence we might become forgetful, and thus stand in need of that good counsel which the good God has given us to know by means of the prophets.

3. For this reason the Lord also said, “Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good deeds, and glorify your Father who is in heaven.” (Mat 5:16) And, “Take heed to yourselves, lest perchance your hearts be overcharged with surfeiting, and drunkenness, and worldly cares.” (Luk 21:34) And, “Let your loins be girded about, and your lamps burning, and ye like unto men that wait for their Lord, when He returns from the wedding, that when He cometh and knocketh, they may open to Him. Blessed is that servant whom his Lord, when He cometh, shall find so doing.” (Luk_12:35, Luk_12:36) And again, “The servant who knows his Lord’s will, and does it not, shall be beaten with many stripes.” (Luk_12:47) And, “Why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?” (Luk 6:46) And again, “But if the servant say in his heart, The Lord delayeth, and begin to beat his fellow-servants, and to eat, and drink, and to be drunken, his Lord will come in a day on which he does not expect Him, and shall cut him in sunder, and appoint his portion with the hypocrites.” (Luk 12:45, Luk 12:46; Mat 24:48, Mat 24:51) All such passages demonstrate the independent will151 of man, and at the same time the counsel which God conveys to him, by which He exhorts us to submit ourselves to Him, and seeks to turn us away from [the sin of] unbelief against Him, without, however, in any way coercing us.

4. No doubt, if any one is unwilling to follow the Gospel itself, it is in his power [to reject it], but it is not expedient. For it is in man’s power to disobey God, and to forfeit what is good; but [such conduct] brings no small amount of injury and mischief. And on this account Paul says, “All things are lawful to me, but all things are not expedient;” (1Co 6:12) referring both to the liberty of man, in which respect “all things are lawful,” God exercising no compulsion in regard to him; and [by the expression] “not expedient” pointing out that we “should not use our liberty as a cloak of maliciousness,” (1Pe 2:16) for this is not expedient. And again he says, “Speak ye every man truth with his neighbour.” (Eph 4:25) And, “Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor scurrility, which are not convenient, but rather giving of thanks.” (Eph 4:29) And, “For ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord; walk honestly as children of the light, not in rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering and wantonness, not in anger and jealousy. And such were some of you; but ye have been washed, but ye have been sanctified in the name of our Lord.” (1Co 6:11) If then it were not in our power to do or not to do these things, what reason had the apostle, and much more the Lord Himself, to give us counsel to do some things, and to abstain from others? But because man is possessed of free will from the beginning, and God is possessed of free will, in whose likeness man was created, advice is always given to him to keep fast the good, which thing is done by means of obedience to God.

5. And not merely in works, but also in faith, has God preserved the will of man free and under his own control, saying, “According to thy faith be it unto thee;” (Mat 9:29) thus showing that there is a faith specially belonging to man, since he has an opinion specially his own. And again, “All things are possible to him that believeth;” (Mat 9:23) and, “Go thy way; and as thou hast believed, so be it done unto thee.” (Mat 8:13) Now all such expressions demonstrate that man is in his own power with respect to faith. And for this reason, “he that believeth in Him has eternal life while he who believeth not the Son hath not eternal life, but the wrath of God shall remain upon him.” (Joh 3:36) In the same manner therefore the Lord, both showing His own goodness, and indicating that man is in his own free will and his own power, said to Jerusalem, “How often have I wished to gather thy children together, as a hen [gathereth] her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! Wherefore your house shall be left unto you desolate.” (Mat 23:37, Mat 23:38)
 
Upvote 0