Why do Calvinists....

[nill]

The heretic
I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. So I ran over and said, "Stop! Don't do it!" "Why shouldn't I?" he said. I said, "Well, there's so much to live for!" He said, "Like what?" I said, "Well, are you religious or atheist?" He said, "Religious." I said, "Me too! Are your Christian or Buddhist?" He said, "Christian." I said, "Me too! Are you Catholic or Protestant?" He said, "Protestant." I said, Me too! Are your Episcopalian or Baptist? He said, "Baptist!" I said, "Wow! Me too! Are your Baptist Church of God or Baptist Church of the Lord? He said, Baptist Church of God!" I said, "Me too! Are your Original Baptist Church of God or are you Reformed Baptist Church of God?" He said, "Reformed Baptist Church of God!" I said, "Me too! Are you Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1879, or Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1915?" He said, "Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1915!" I said, "Die, heretic scum!" and pushed him off.

Hahahaha.

 

[xapis]

[SIZE=+1]The heretic[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. So I ran over and said, "Stop! Don't do it!" "Why shouldn't I?" he said. I said, "Well, there's so much to live for!" He said, "Like what?" I said, "Well, are you religious or atheist?" He said, "Religious." I said, "Me too! Are your Christian or Buddhist?" He said, "Christian." I said, "Me too! Are you Catholic or Protestant?" He said, "Protestant." I said, Me too! Are your Episcopalian or Baptist? He said, "Baptist!" I said, "Wow! Me too! Are your Baptist Church of God or Baptist Church of the Lord? He said, Baptist Church of God!" I said, "Me too! Are your Original Baptist Church of God or are you Reformed Baptist Church of God?" He said, "Reformed Baptist Church of God!" I said, "Me too! Are you Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1879, or Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1915?" He said, "Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1915!" I said, "Die, heretic scum!" and pushed him off.[/SIZE]


[SIZE=+1]
[/SIZE]

 

[TigerBunny]

[SIZE=+1]The heretic[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. So I ran over and said, "Stop! Don't do it!" "Why shouldn't I?" he said. I said, "Well, there's so much to live for!" He said, "Like what?" I said, "Well, are you religious or atheist?" He said, "Religious." I said, "Me too! Are your Christian or Buddhist?" He said, "Christian." I said, "Me too! Are you Catholic or Protestant?" He said, "Protestant." I said, Me too! Are your Episcopalian or Baptist? He said, "Baptist!" I said, "Wow! Me too! Are your Baptist Church of God or Baptist Church of the Lord? He said, Baptist Church of God!" I said, "Me too! Are your Original Baptist Church of God or are you Reformed Baptist Church of God?" He said, "Reformed Baptist Church of God!" I said, "Me too! Are you Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1879, or Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1915?" He said, "Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1915!" I said, "Die, heretic scum!" and pushed him off.[/SIZE]


[SIZE=+1]
[/SIZE]

Emo Philips...Priceless.

 

[Boxmaker]

Chapter 7

This is an interesting chapter. My understanding of predestination is that it is "double predestination" by definition. If God is going to predestine people for heaven the He must also predestine others to hell. That is pretty straight forward. I don't disagree with Sproul at all that Calvinism must be based on predestination.

Now, on page 144 I run into a conundrum that I cannot resolve. Sproul is talking about how God hardens peoples hearts. He says God does not do it actively because that would mean God does it passively. Specifically, God withholds His favor and the persons natural sinfulness does the rest.

Now, the Westminster Confession states very clearly and very plainly that God has predestined everything that ever was, is or will be. Sproul says that this predestination includes the movement of molecules lest a stray molecule cause Jesus not to return.

But on page 144 Sproul says that God withholds His favor and lets peoples natural sinful nature do the rest. To me, this implies that God has not predestined these sinful actions. This contradicts the Westminster. If the Westminster is true, then God would have to actively harden a persons heart and dictate their actions to ensure that predestination takes place properly.

I am confused. Sproul says God plans everything and then spends a fair amount of the rest of the book trying to explain how that predestination of all things does not include sinful acts even though God predestined everything. It does not make sense. He contradicts either the Westminster or the Bible and I’m never sure which.

He goes on to Romans 9 claiming that it is the nail in the coffin for any belief other than Calvinism. Obviously, I disagree. He claims that Romans 9 is a clear description of predestination. It is not. God knew Jacob and Esau before they were born but there is no indication that that knowledge was laid down before the foundations of the earth. God, looking at the situation, could have just as easily produced the twins at the moment of conception to prove His point. In fact, God has always made it clear the least shall be first and the first shall be least. For God to give twins does not require that He do so before the foundations of the earth were laid. Yes, God knows the future but not because He predestined it. He knows the future because He is not constrained by time the way we are.

Now, I have a daughter who needs to get to bed and I am not finished with this chapter yet. See you tomorrow. Have a good night and God’s peace and blessings be with you and your families.

 

[bradfordl]

Now, on page 144 I run into a conundrum that I cannot resolve. Sproul is talking about how God hardens peoples hearts. He says God does not do it actively because that would mean God does it passively. Specifically, God withholds His favor and the persons natural sinfulness does the rest.

Now, the Westminster Confession states very clearly and very plainly that God has predestined everything that ever was, is or will be. Sproul says that this predestination includes the movement of molecules lest a stray molecule cause Jesus not to return.

Its a conundrum because that is one place that Sproul is wrong. And you're right, it makes no sense, and a lot of people are going to protest my agreement with you here. But the solution is equal ultimacy. Look it up if you want an explanation. The rest of your post makes it appear that you don't.

 

[Boxmaker]

Its a conundrum because that is one place that Sproul is wrong. And you're right, it makes no sense, and a lot of people are going to protest my agreement with you here. But the solution is equal ultimacy. Look it up if you want an explanation. The rest of your post makes it appear that you don't.

No, I would not agree with equal ultimacy. If I believed in predestination I would have to side with Sproul. God predestines people to heaven in hell according to His own reasons. There is nothing that requires it to be equal.

 

[GrinningDwarf]

Now, on page 144 I run into a conundrum that I cannot resolve. Sproul is talking about how God hardens peoples hearts. He says God does not do it actively because that would mean God does it passively. Specifically, God withholds His favor and the persons natural sinfulness does the rest.

Now, the Westminster Confession states very clearly and very plainly that God has predestined everything that ever was, is or will be. Sproul says that this predestination includes the movement of molecules lest a stray molecule cause Jesus not to return.

But on page 144 Sproul says that God withholds His favor and lets peoples natural sinful nature do the rest. To me, this implies that God has not predestined these sinful actions. This contradicts the Westminster. If the Westminster is true, then God would have to actively harden a persons heart and dictate their actions to ensure that predestination takes place properly.

I am confused. Sproul says God plans everything and then spends a fair amount of the rest of the book trying to explain how that predestination of all things does not include sinful acts even though God predestined everything. It does not make sense. He contradicts either the Westminster or the Bible and I’m never sure which.

No...he doesn't contradict it. You're forgetting the second half of Chapter 3, paragraph 1:

yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin[Psa. 5:4; James 1:13-14; I John 1:5; see Hab. 1:13] , nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established. [Acts 2:23; 4:27-28: Matt. 17:12; John 19:11; Prov. 16:33]

Sproul is explaining how this all works. Sproul's specialization is in systematic theology and he actively teaches the Westminster Confession.

I happened to have lived a small example of how this free will, predestination thing works. Mind you, it is an analogy. If you push any analogy farther than intended by the analogy-teller (in this case, me!!) it will fall apart and fall far short of the real thing, but hopefully it can help explain how this all works.

I was driving my family home from town when my ten-year-old boy asked if he could play on the computer when we got home. The weather has been nice lately and we've been trying to get him to play outside more. I told him "No. You can't play on the computer, but I will give you a choice. You can play outside, or help me wash the pile of dishes in the sink that really need to get done."

I had given him a real choice. I would have supported either decision he made, but we all know which one he was going to choose. His choice was a free choice, but it was also determined.

So far, this is compatable with the 'foreknowledge' view of predestination. Here is the difference....

My son made the choice he did becuase of his heart, as it is right now. Hopefully, when my son gets older and matures, his heart will change and he will choose to help me with a chore that needs doing. Since I am only a human, all I can do is sit back, train him up, and hope for the best.

God is not like that, though. God is not at the mercy of time and the hopeful maturing of a sinful heart. God actually changes the heart, taking our heart of stone and replacing it with a heart of flesh.

 

[nill]

I like that, GrinningDwarf.

 

[Boxmaker]

No...he doesn't contradict it. You're forgetting the second half of Chapter 3, paragraph 1:
yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin[Psa. 5:4; James 1:13-14; I John 1:5; see Hab. 1:13] , nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established. [Acts 2:23; 4:27-28: Matt. 17:12; John 19:11; Prov. 16:33]

The great contradiction.

Your analogy falls short in one major area - predestination. For your analogy to work,you would have had to predestine your son to play out side on that day before He was born. You did (could) not. You offered him a real choice and, as Sproul points out, his desires determined which choice he would make. If you had predestined him to play outside on that day before he was born, no real choice would exist. He would have played outside, period. Predestined.

Your analogy is closer to what I believe that what Calvinism teaches. God has given us choices. They are not infinite, but we are free to choose from what is available to us. Like your son, we are free to choose because our choice has not been predestined.

Thus we arrive at the great contradiction that Sproul has not resolved in the least. Did God predestine everything that ever has, is or will happen since before the foundations of the Earth? Yes or no? Remember, everything means everything down to the actions of a single atom.

If you say yes then God predestined EVERYTHING including every order Hitler gave, Virginia Tech, EVERYTHING. Asserting that God is responsible everything but evil, which is what the second sentence of the Westminster does, would mean God DID NOT predestine everything that happened. You cannot have it both ways. Either God is always in control of everything or He is not. The strawman of "second causes" is meaningless because it requires that God not predestine the actions of a second cause. Once that happens, God no longer predestined everything.

It sounds nice to say that God just removes his hand form a person and that persons natural evil instincts will do the rest. BUT! In order for God to have predestined everything, down to the last movement of an atom, then the actions taken by that person from whom God removed His hand, must have been determined (predestined) by God before the foundations of the Earth were laid.

Try as I might, I cannot get around that glaring contradiction posed by the Westminster. Merly saying it does not exist because it is inconvenient if it does, solves nothing. Say it is a mystery of God and cannot be understood by men is a cheap way out.

As convincing as some of the arguments for predestination are, this one point collapses the whole belief back upon itself, at least for me.

God bless you and thank you for your patience while discussing all of this.

 

[GrinningDwarf]

Your analogy falls short in one major area - predestination. For your analogy to work,you would have had to predestine your son to play out side on that day before He was born. You did (could) not. You offered him a real choice and, as Sproul points out, his desires determined which choice he would make. If you had predestined him to play outside on that day before he was born, no real choice would exist. He would have played outside, period. Predestined.

Your analogy is closer to what I believe that what Calvinism teaches. God has given us choices. They are not infinite, but we are free to choose from what is available to us. Like your son, we are free to choose because our choice has not been predestined.

At the risk of falling prey to the weakness inherent in analogies (arguing over finer points in the anology instead of what the analogy is supposed to represent), I don't think you considered all of the factors involved in 'the choice'.

Most of the time, we assume that when we have a 'real choice', with all things being equal we would choose one over the other only about 50% of the time.

But all things aren't equal. My son, being a ten-year-old boy, is going to choose to play outside over washing dishes 100% of the time. That's where his heart is at; that is how his desires are structured.

Given a choice between following God or not, the unrepentant person will choose against God 100% of the time. That's where his heart is at; that is how his desires are structured. I've posted the Scriptures that support this before; there are no Scriptures denying it when the Scriptures are taken in correct context, meaning following the rules of grammar and language.

Sure, we are free to choose what is available to us...but our hearts will choose only one way 100% of the time until our heart is first changed by God.

Here is where predestination comes in. God,

before the foundation of the world was laid, according to his eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of his will, hath chosen, in Christ, unto everlasting glory,[Eph. 1:4, 9, 11; Rom. 8:28-30; II Tim. 1:9; I Thess. 5:9] out of his mere free grace and love, without any foresight of faith, or good works, or perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as conditions, or causes moving him thereunto;[Rom. 9:11, 13, 15-16; see Eph. 1:5, 9, 11; 2:8-9] and all to the praise of his glorious grace.[Eph. 1:6, 12]

Like I said, any analogy falls short if you push it too hard. Obviously, I am not God, so there was no way I was going to predestine anything in my son's life.

 

[GrinningDwarf]

Do y'all think this thread will keep going long enough to generate a 'Why do Calvinists...(2)' thread?

 

[bradfordl]

Try as I might, I cannot get around that glaring contradiction posed by the Westminster. Merly saying it does not exist because it is inconvenient if it does, solves nothing. Say it is a mystery of God and cannot be understood by men is a cheap way out.

As convincing as some of the arguments for predestination are, this one point collapses the whole belief back upon itself, at least for me.

I agree with you on one point here, Box. Sproul, and even somewhat the WCF, must have something wrong here. By now we know that human thought and perception have physical, chemical and electrical manifestations in the brain. These components are material, composed of atoms, electrons, etc., whose course in creation, as with all things, are predetermined by the Creator. So if God predetermines the movement of every atom, it follows that He even predetermines every human thought. And I believe that must be true. Any body who does not must join you in believing there are some things He allows to operate independently of His will.

Which is why equal ultimacy makes the most sense to me. I don't find it difficult. God uses evil to accomplish His will, and the ultimate aim of His will is always to glorify Himself. His holiness and righteousness is glorified more in being contrasted to evil than it would be if there were no evil with which to compare it. Obviously evil is necessary for something, else He would never had permitted its existence.

So if you want an analogy, an imperfect one may be that God is like an ultimate computer animated movie producer. Every single event is programmed by Him, word thought and deed, drop of rain, etc., etc. But the biggest difference between a human animator and God is that He has the ability to script even the thoughts and intents of the hearts of His characters and ascribe real responsibility to them, because while He holds His finished script in His hands, His sentient characters, humans, do not. They traverse time in a linear fashion, having knowledge of only the past, experiencing the present, and uncertain of all future events except the ones God has determined to reveal to them in His Word.

The whole of creation, all of history, every minute event, every second of time, is designed to declare His glory, and it all will. His dealings with humans is a very important part, not because humans are important, but because it is important that His justice is displayed in His righteous condemnation of the wicked, and that His mercy, patience, and lovingkindness is displayed through His Son in the redemption of a people for Himself. And that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit be glorified is the most important thing there is.

Lots of people will likely disagree with me here, and I probably have some error wrapped up in my thoughts, but that's about the best I can do right now to wrap my mind around it. Remember what the scripture says:

Gen 50:20 But as for you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive.

"Meant it" indicates predetermined intent, and yet the brothers are still responsible because they "thought evil" in doing the act. And the result of it all was that God was glorified.

 

[Boxmaker]

...
Given a choice between following God or not, the unrepentant person will choose against God 100% of the time. That's where his heart is at; that is how his desires are structured. I've posted the Scriptures that support this before; there are no Scriptures denying it when the Scriptures are taken in correct context, meaning following the rules of grammar and language....

But thats the crux of the problem. If all has been predestined by God, there is no real choice. You asked your son a question. God had long ago determined that your son would go out to play that day. Your question, also predestined to be asked, was a formality that "triggered" a predestined response.

Choice, free will, do not exist where predestination of all things exists.

 

[AnthonyE1778]

But thats the crux of the problem. If all has been predestined by God, there is no real choice. You asked your son a question. God had long ago determined that your son would go out to play that day. Your question, also predestined to be asked, was a formality that "triggered" a predestined response.

Choice, free will, do not exist where predestination of all things exists.

There are several passages in Romans and a couple of the epistles that state that, first of all, none can seek after God. Free Will? That sounds like a limitation right there! We CANNOT seek Him before we are saved. Also, before we were saved we were "slaves to sin"...last time I checked slaves were not free. Also, we're still slaves when we become saved, only not to sin but "slaves to righteousness"...again, slaves are not free.

However, that does not nullify the human responsibility. The fact that we would have sinned (adam being the absolute perfect representative of humanity) perfectly explains why we are now unable to do good before we were saved. We would not have done good in the first place! See the connection?

I don't believe in the free will because the Scriptures (especially Romans) seem to go against it. We have a 'will', but it is not entirely free. Sorry if this was confusing

 

[GrinningDwarf]

But thats the crux of the problem. If all has been predestined by God, there is no real choice. You asked your son a question. God had long ago determined that your son would go out to play that day. Your question, also predestined to be asked, was a formality that "triggered" a predestined response.

Choice, free will, do not exist where predestination of all things exists.

That's why 'free' will is actually a misnomer.

EDIT: Our wills are 'free' in that they are not coerced, but our will is 'determined' by who we are in our humanity. There is no such thing as a truly neutral autonomous free will.

And in your example here, the question still needed to be asked. People try to make predestination say that witnessing, evangelizing,and sharing the Gospel are all meaningless, because those who are 'predestined' will come to faith whatever we do or don't do. Do you see the difference here? (And, IIRC, aren't you one of the people who have made that claim here? This has been a lo-o-ong thread and I can't be sure.)

 

[Boxmaker]

That's why 'free' will is actually a misnomer.

EDIT: Our wills are 'free' in that they are not coerced, but our will is 'determined' by who we are in our humanity. There is no such thing as a truly neutral autonomous free will.

And in your example here, the question still needed to be asked. People try to make predestination say that witnessing, evangelizing,and sharing the Gospel are all meaningless, because those who are 'predestined' will come to faith whatever we do or don't do. Do you see the difference here? (And, IIRC, aren't you one of the people who have made that claim here? This has been a lo-o-ong thread and I can't be sure.)

No, the question did not NEED to be asked, it was predestined the the question WOULD be asked. The response to the question was equally predetermined. Neither you nor your son had any choice in what would happen and how.

 

[GrinningDwarf]

No, the question did not NEED to be asked, it was predestined the the question WOULD be asked. The response to the question was equally predetermined. Neither you nor your son had any choice in what would happen and how.

Wow. Brick wall here.

 

[bradfordl]

No, the question did not NEED to be asked, it was predestined the the question WOULD be asked. The response to the question was equally predetermined. Neither you nor your son had any choice in what would happen and how.

From their temporal perspective they had all the choices before them that they could want. God had predetermined which choice they would make. You want an example of that in physics? Take a look at the double-slit experiment.

 

[Boxmaker]

From their temporal perspective they had all the choices before them that they could want. God had predetermined which choice they would make. You want an example of that in physics? Take a look at the double-slit experiment.

My point exactly. The whole incident was predestined!

 

[Boxmaker]

Wow. Brick wall here.

Then lets go step by step.

What does predestination mean to you?