Why do Calvinists....

[GodsElect]

In point of fact, I'm proud of him. Faith requires that we hold to and defend the truth of scripture. He did a good job of doing just that.

Do not be proud of me! Give ALL the glory to GOD! Because He works ALL THINGS in ALL OF HIS CREATION for HIS GLORY, not mine!

Daniel 2:21 And He changes the times and the seasons;
He removes kings and raises up kings;
He gives wisdom to the wise
And knowledge to those who have understanding.

And in Him ALL THINGS WORK, and His people heed the CALL of their Master, not because of free will, but GOD'S WILL working in us.

Proverbs 16:1 The preparations of the heart belong to man,
But the answer of the tongue is from the LORD.

 

[Boxmaker]

Why are commandments and laws handed down to people who's lives have already been predestined?

Are the psalms the predestined praises God wrote upon the psalmists heart or are they the heart felt praise of a human heart?

In 1 peter 4, Peter tells us that pegans choose to live the life they live.

 

[bradfordl]

Why are commandments and laws handed down to people who's lives have already been predestined?

Here's why:

Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
Rom 1:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Rom 1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Rom 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
Rom 1:23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
Rom 1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
Rom 1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

Rom 4:15 Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.

Rom 9:21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
Rom 9:22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
Rom 9:23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,
Rom 9:24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

 

[UMP]

Are the psalms the predestined praises God wrote upon the psalmists heart or are they the heart felt praise of a human heart?

They are both, with God getting all the glory.

1 Corinthians 15:
[10] But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me.

In 1 peter 4, Peter tells us that pegans choose to live the life they live

They do, but for God's arresting grace, such would be the lot of us all.

Ephesians 2:
[4] But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,
[5] Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved)
[6] And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:
[7] That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.
[8] For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
[9] Not of works, lest any man should boast.
[10] For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

 

[Boxmaker]

Here is an interesting debate. It is between a settled view pastor Gene Cook and a open view pastor Bob Enyart. Thought you might enjoy listening to it.

http://tnma.blogspot.com/2007/02/open-theism-debate-is-future-open-or.html

Warning! This server is VERY S L O W so be patient while down loading.

 

[heymikey80]

This interesting discussion as made me take a long hard look at some things. I have been have some spirited discussions about universalism at the same time this thread has been going on, both on Christian Forums and other forums that are less concerned about being politically correct and more concerned about getting to the truth even if a few feathers get ruffled along the way.

There is a spectrum of beliefs that are based on the Bible. They seem to range from the extreme Calvinist point of view to the Universal salvation point of view. In broad terms, the extreme Calvinist view is that God is control of every second of our lives. Everything we say, do, think and feel has been predestined. Every thing that happens to us, good or bad (from our point of view) was ordained by God. God handpicks each of us for heaven or hell since the beginning of time.

* * *

These discussion all sharpen our beliefs. If we approach them with open hearts, God can even us teach us through these spirited discussions. But it still seems we are guilty of making God in our own image and then swearing that it was the guidance of the Holy Spirit that revealed to us that our concept of God is right.

OK, but let's get a few things clear. The dramatic extremes you describe, universalism at one end and "extreme Calvinist" at the other, are both philosophically represented by one view, and one view only: determinism. In other words, both work in the "extreme" philosophical view that sustains either.

Both are arrayed against philosophical dualism: the idea that somehow humans are in ultimate control of their destinies in some way or another. There is quite a range of thought here, but to think of these as "along a continuum" is because people don't think them through. They are qualitatively different philosophies.

The idea that I would make God in Calvin's image is fairly absurd. I became a determinist because I couldn't conceive of a god of my non-Calvinist Baptist and Wesleyan Methodist background and mentors, a god who could both "see" people's wills and yet change them, who could both see free choice as the highest good, and yet somehow we find free choice as the greatest of evils among men. I changed because of inconsistencies I saw in my own views. How about you?

Meanwhile in Scripture God is constantly calling me -- and everyone -- to submission, to obedience, to "every knee shall bow", to rejection of myself, what I would even deserve were the court of justice convened this day. This is everything my own free will resists. I want it to be different; yet God controls it, not me.

In those things which we can't control our cries finally reach this spiritual level -- often in the deaths of those we love. Yet we can trace every thing that brought those deaths about, to God's origination. Even were it the free will of a sinner, God created that sinner, with that will, and freed it from the commands of His Law. I couldn't say He's not responsible in this sense. And I don't. In one day this will all be set right. He has appointed a Person to judge everything with righteous justice, and attested to this fact by raising Him from the dead.

The idea that you can always clamp this into some mold of "God in my image"is no more true than it is self-fulfilling. Y'hafta redefine "my image" every time the person changes his view of God. And that view changes due to outside influences, controls, and realities as well as internal inconsistencies. The Calvinist certainly doesn't institute "a God with my flaws". Only Open Theism can lay claim to that "God in my image". The strongest statements coming from Calvinist theology reject this "God in my image" view. What are those statements? Clowney's "God is God: I am not"; Calvinism's first point, "Total Inability"; the New Testament's "We ought not think of God as a man or created thing"; and the Old Testament's "You must make no image of Me" (which is strongly reiterated in Calvinistic thought).

In short, while we humans are limited creatures and tend to emphasize what attributes impress us a great deal, that doesn't mean we worship "God in our image". It simply means we worship what we know of God. Often what impresses us so greatly about God are attributes that are nothing like our preconceived notions of God. And so the argument that all theology is "God in my image" fails to hold consistent meaning -- because its meaning is a quisling, meaning different things when confronted by different circumstances. Is it what I want God to be? No, not always. Is it what God seems to be? No, not always. Is it a constant? No, not always. The term doesn't apply a specific meaning.

 

[Boxmaker]

OK, but let's get a few things clear. The dramatic extremes you describe, universalism at one end and "extreme Calvinist" at the other, are both philosophically represented by one view, and one view only: determinism. In other words, both work in the "extreme" philosophical view that sustains either.

Both are arrayed against philosophical dualism: the idea that somehow humans are in ultimate control of their destinies in some way or another. There is quite a range of thought here, but to think of these as "along a continuum" is because people don't think them through. They are qualitatively different philosophies.

The idea that I would make God in Calvin's image is fairly absurd. I became a determinist because I couldn't conceive of a god of my non-Calvinist Baptist and Wesleyan Methodist background and mentors, a god who could both "see" people's wills and yet change them, who could both see free choice as the highest good, and yet somehow we find free choice as the greatest of evils among men. I changed because of inconsistencies I saw in my own views. How about you?

Meanwhile in Scripture God is constantly calling me -- and everyone -- to submission, to obedience, to "every knee shall bow", to rejection of myself, what I would even deserve were the court of justice convened this day. This is everything my own free will resists. I want it to be different; yet God controls it, not me.

In those things which we can't control our cries finally reach this spiritual level -- often in the deaths of those we love. Yet we can trace every thing that brought those deaths about, to God's origination. Even were it the free will of a sinner, God created that sinner, with that will, and freed it from the commands of His Law. I couldn't say He's not responsible in this sense. And I don't. In one day this will all be set right. He has appointed a Person to judge everything with righteous justice, and attested to this fact by raising Him from the dead.

The idea that you can always clamp this into some mold of "God in my image"is no more true than it is self-fulfilling. Y'hafta redefine "my image" every time the person changes his view of God. And that view changes due to outside influences, controls, and realities as well as internal inconsistencies. The Calvinist certainly doesn't institute "a God with my flaws". Only Open Theism can lay claim to that "God in my image". The strongest statements coming from Calvinist theology reject this "God in my image" view. What are those statements? Clowney's "God is God: I am not"; Calvinism's first point, "Total Inability"; the New Testament's "We ought not think of God as a man or created thing"; and the Old Testament's "You must make no image of Me" (which is strongly reiterated in Calvinistic thought).

In short, while we humans are limited creatures and tend to emphasize what attributes impress us a great deal, that doesn't mean we worship "God in our image". It simply means we worship what we know of God. Often what impresses us so greatly about God are attributes that are nothing like our preconceived notions of God. And so the argument that all theology is "God in my image" fails to hold consistent meaning -- because its meaning is a quisling, meaning different things when confronted by different circumstances. Is it what I want God to be? No, not always. Is it what God seems to be? No, not always. Is it a constant? No, not always. The term doesn't apply a specific meaning.

I bolded a part of your statement that lines up with what I said in my post. Whatever else you believe about God, YOU just cannot conceive of a God who is not deterministic. I agree with much of your post here, I cannot conceive of a God who does not allow us to choose. Interestingly, there is very little difference between what you believe and I believe once a person is saved. The only point we differ about is that moment of salvation.

 

[bradfordl]

I became a determinist because I couldn't conceive of a god

I cannot conceive of a God who does not allow us to choose.

Well immaterial human conceptions aside, a God who is not deterministic, and who allows men to choose from a nature at emnity with Him, is not the God of scripture. It would behoove us all to derive doctrine from scripture exegetically rather than eisegetically.

<sigh>

Brad

 

[Boxmaker]

Well immaterial human conceptions aside, a God who is not deterministic, and who allows men to choose from a nature at emnity with Him, is not the God of scripture. It would behoove us all to derive doctrine from scripture exegetically rather than eisegetically.

<sigh>

Brad

Says you. I study the same scripture as you and have found that God determines somethings (Like Pharo) and not others (like salvation.)

 

[heymikey80]

I bolded a part of your statement that lines up with what I said in my post. Whatever else you believe about God, YOU just cannot conceive of a God who is not deterministic. I agree with much of your post here, I cannot conceive of a God who does not allow us to choose. Interestingly, there is very little difference between what you believe and I believe once a person is saved. The only point we differ about is that moment of salvation.

You say I can't conceive of a God who is not deterministic. Yet you quoted me saying I couldn't conceive of a God I was taught to conceive of -- yet who was inconsistent with the assertions that were made about Him. "I became a determinist because I couldn't conceive of a god of my non-Calvinist Baptist and Wesleyan Methodist background and mentors, a god who could both "see" people's wills and yet change them, who could both see free choice as the highest good, and yet somehow we find free choice as the greatest of evils among men. I changed because of inconsistencies I saw in my own views. How about you?"

Words are interesting -- they communicate understanding plainly when they're consistent. They communicate an absence of understanding when they're inconsistent. My departure from this open-ended god occurred when I realized no understanding could be communicated by such assertions.

I think you know the difference between inconsistency and inconception, Boxmaker. Must I conclude that you simply can't conceive of a difference that others clearly understand and affirm?

 

[Boxmaker]

You say I can't conceive of a God who is not deterministic. Yet you quoted me saying I couldn't conceive of a God I was taught to conceive of -- yet who was inconsistent with the assertions that were made about Him. "I became a determinist because I couldn't conceive of a god of my non-Calvinist Baptist and Wesleyan Methodist background and mentors, a god who could both "see" people's wills and yet change them, who could both see free choice as the highest good, and yet somehow we find free choice as the greatest of evils among men. I changed because of inconsistencies I saw in my own views. How about you?"

Words are interesting -- they communicate understanding plainly when they're consistent. They communicate an absence of understanding when they're inconsistent. My departure from this open-ended god occurred when I realized no understanding could be communicated by such assertions.

I think you know the difference between inconsistency and inconception, Boxmaker. Must I conclude that you simply can't conceive of a difference that others clearly understand and affirm?

I can conceive it, I can understand it. I cannot fully reconcile it with scripture. I study the Bible and it describes a God who has given us a decision to make.

 

[FreeInChrist2]

I study the Bible and it describes a God who has given us a decision to make.

I'm sure at this point without re-reading all 74 million posts my comment here is probably just plowing old ground...so,

What you are saying then... is because of your decision you made to accept Christ into your heart, believe, surrneder...your choice... etc, etc...this is when and why you are saved? Is that correct?

Or are you saying...Because God let you into His heart, (chosen from the foundation of the world) accepted you in the beloved (undeservingly), Freely giving His gift of faith in His Son by His Spirit by His grace, Surrendered His Son on the cross... by His choice... etc, etc,...this is the reason for your choice?

In not so many words...Is your salvation the reason for your choice, or is your choice the reason for your salvation?

... Is your choice the fruit of your salvation, or is salvation the fruit of your choice?

Also could you list a few of the verses you are using for your understanding of scripture that would support your "decision / choice" doctrine.

BY BOXMAKER; there is very little difference between what you believe and I believe once a person is saved. The only point we differ about is that moment of salvation.

Once a person is saved...that moment of salvation...IS WHEN?

 

[GodsElect]

I can conceive it, I can understand it. I cannot fully reconcile it with scripture. I study the Bible and it describes a God who has given us a decision to make.

This is what the bible describes about the character of God...

Philippians 2:13 for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure.

Proverbs 16:33 The lot is cast into the lap, But its every decision is from the LORD.

Matt 10:29 Are not two sparrows sold for a copper coin? And not one of them falls to the ground apart from your Father’s will.



Ephesians 1:11 In Him also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will,





So how was it that you were able to willingly choose and who gets the glory for your choice???

 

[Boxmaker]

I'm sure at this point without re-reading all 74 million posts my comment here is probably just plowing old ground...so,

What you are saying then... is because of your decision you made to accept Christ into your heart, believe, surrneder...your choice... etc, etc...this is when and why you are saved? Is that correct?

Or are you saying...Because God let you into His heart, (chosen from the foundation of the world) accepted you in the beloved (undeservingly), Freely giving His gift of faith in His Son by His Spirit by His grace, Surrendered His Son on the cross... by His choice... etc, etc,...this is the reason for your choice?

In not so many words...Is your salvation the reason for your choice, or is your choice the reason for your salvation?

... Is your choice the fruit of your salvation, or is salvation the fruit of your choice?

I am saying that God revealed to me how utterly hopeless life is without Him and what awaited me at the end of life if I continued to reject Him. He showed me how heavy my burden was and He offered me a better way. It is His love, His grace, His salvation that He offered me even though I don't deserve it. He also created me to respond to Him and I did, I surrendered my will to Him so that Jesus might live in me and through me. My will is no more (although it does assert it self from time to time with predictable bad results) and the Fathers will is no in me. I have become a new creation in God.

God ofered to me the gift of salvation and I accepted. My salvation is an undeserved gift from God.

Also could you list a few of the verses you are using for your understanding of scripture that would support your "decision / choice" doctrine.

It is not a belief based on a verse here and a verse there. It is based on reading the New Testament in its entierity. What the Gospels say and what the apostles are saying in their letters to the various churchs. What the apostles were doing during acts, all of it. It is a belief that never denys the soverenty of God. God is in control. I cannot save myself, only God can offer that gift. I accepted it and now I am learning to depend on Jesus for everything.

Once a person is saved...that moment of salvation...IS WHEN?

When you relize that apart from God you can do nothing and you open your heart to Jesus and are filled with the Holy Spirit.

 

[Boxmaker]

This is what the bible describes about the character of God...

Philippians 2:13 for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure.

Proverbs 16:33 The lot is cast into the lap, But its every decision is from the LORD.

Matt 10:29 Are not two sparrows sold for a copper coin? And not one of them falls to the ground apart from your Father’s will.



Ephesians 1:11 In Him also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all thingsaccording to the counsel of His will,





So how was it that you were able to willingly choose and who gets the glory for your choice???

I didn't get to choose who gets the glory, God gets the glory. I always find it interesting when people say, "I have led {number} to God!" God may use me to share the truth with somebody, to share the hope that lies within me. But only the Holy Spirit can open their hearts to that truth at which point a person can choose to accept that truth and become a born again child of God or reject that truth.

God saved me. The fact that God, in His sovergine will, made me to be able to respond to Him in no way changes the fact that God gets all the glory for may salvation. Why? Becase without Jesus there is no salvation. There is nothing I can do to save myself.

In my analogy of the man lost in the ocean, I said God throw me a life preserver and all I have to do is reach out a grab it. Note that grabbing that life preserver does not save me. If I grabbed taht life preserver and the boat then left, I would soon starve to death. To be saved, I after I grab the life preserver, God then pulls me up onto the boat. By grabbing the life preserver I have told God I want to be saved and be with Him. My salvation is still in Gods hands.

 

[bradfordl]

I am saying that God revealed to me how utterly hopeless life is without Him and what awaited me at the end of life if I continued to reject Him.

Why did He show you and not your unsaved neighbor?

God ofered to me the gift of salvation and I accepted.

1. Why did He offer it to you, and not your unsaved neighbor?
2. If He did offer it to both, what makes you so much wiser that you accepted what your unsaved neighbor did not?

I cannot save myself, only God can offer that gift. I accepted it and now I am learning to depend on Jesus for everything.

Again, Why did you accept and not your unsaved neighbor?

When you relize that apart from God you can do nothing and you open your heart to Jesus and are filled with the Holy Spirit.

1. Why are you able to realize what your unsaved neighbor cannot?
2. What is different about you that you decided to open your heart and your neighbor did not?

"I have led {number} to God!"

Who said that here?

There is nothing I can do to save myself.

Except see what's shown, come to a realization, be wise enough to accept an offer, make a choice, and open your heart, all in contradiction to the actions of your unsaved neighbor, right? So you have better vision, are more astute, more wise, more willing to accept, make better choices, and have a more open heart than your unsaved neighbor, right? Why?

Brad

 

[bradfordl]

In my analogy of the man lost in the ocean, I said God throw me a life preserver and all I have to do is reach out a grab it. Note that grabbing that life preserver does not save me.

So what would happen if you did not grab that life preserver?

If your answer is that you would not be saved, then that action becomes the determinate factor in your salvation. The weakest link, for sure, but still the determinate link in the chain, which as we all know determines the strength of the entire chain, and is thus reigns sovereign over the effectiveness of that chain.

So your "grabbing" is sovereign and determinate over the efficaciousness of the blood of our Redeemer. Pretty powerful place to be standing in before the Almighty Ancient of Days. Maybe He'll thank you for completing His blessed Son's work for Him.

Brad

 

[Boxmaker]

Why did He show you and not your unsaved neighbor?

He did and does show it to my unsaved neighbor.

1. Why did He offer it to you, and not your unsaved neighbor?

He does offer it to my unsaved neighbor.

2. If He did offer it to both, what makes you so much wiser that you accepted what your unsaved neighbor did not?

I don't know that I am any wiser than my neighbor. I was more willing to listen to what God was saying and set my pride aside to clearly hear.

Again, Why did you accept and not your unsaved neighbor?

You will have to ask my unsaved neighbor. I do not know their heart.

1. Why are you able to realize what your unsaved neighbor cannot?

Pride maybe?

2. What is different about you that you decided to open your heart and your neighbor did not?

I don't like peas. Thats as good as answer as any as I do not know the heart of my neighbor and cannot say why I listened and they did not.

Who said that here?

I never said anybody said it here. It was a general comment that I hear frequently in "christian" circles.

Except see what's shown, come to a realization, be wise enough to accept an offer, make a choice, and open your heart, all in contradiction to the actions of your unsaved neighbor, right? So you have better vision, are more astute, more wise, more willing to accept, make better choices, and have a more open heart than your unsaved neighbor, right? Why?

Less pride. I see the life saver thrown to me an I know that by grabbing it I will be saved. Some people insist on saying its not that far to land, i can swim. I don't know why. I can share with them why the life presever is better but some ppeople only hear that a Christian lives a life in subjegation to Christ and they refuse to accept that. They never understand that the burden He asks us to bear is light..

Brad[/quote]

 

[Boxmaker]

So what would happen if you did not grab that life preserver?

Then I would be lost (not saved).

If your answer is that you would not be saved, then that action becomes the determinate factor in your salvation. The weakest link, for sure, but still the determinate link in the chain, which as we all know determines the strength of the entire chain, and is thus reigns sovereign over the effectiveness of that chain.

It is the weakest link in my chain fo salvation. God made us to respond to His calling. He goes out of His way to call us. In fact, He leaves that life preserver next to us our whole lives so that we can grab it at any time. He calls to us to grab it. Stiff necked human pride (will) will sometimes refuse to listen.

So your "grabbing" is sovereign and determinate over the efficaciousness of the blood of our Redeemer. Pretty powerful place to be standing in before the Almighty Ancient of Days. Maybe He'll thank you for completing His blessed Son's work for Him.

My grabbing has nothing to do with sovereignty. God is, as always, sovereign. As to what God will say, read the parable of the Prodigal Son. Note that it was the sons realization of his destitute state that reminded him of how good life was with his Father. Note that it was the son decision to return to his Father knowing that his Father would be there. Note the great Joy with which the Father welcomed home His lost child.

 

[bradfordl]

Less pride.

Would 'less pride' be a righteousness? I think so. But what does the Word say?:

Titus 3:4 But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared,
3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
3:6 Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour;
3:7 That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

If an humble man were to boast, wouldn't 'less pride' be a thing to boast about?:

Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

and:

Rom 3:27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.
3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

You keep holding onto that chain in which your "grabbing" or "less pride" are the weakest link, and I assure you that because they are yours, that chain will break. I can only be grateful that Jesus tied the chain of His Own completed work around my dead carcass, breathed His life into me, lifted me out of the water by that chain alone, along with my brethren, (Eph 2:6) And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus: (7)That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.

SDG,

Brad