• 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.

Why do Calvinists....

bradfordl

Veteran
Mar 20, 2006
1,510
181
✟25,108.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Though Job was not sinless, He had not done anything to earn the wrath of God
Do you even see the inanity of that statement? How can you be an engineer and not be able to see simple logical errors in your own statements?
Eze 18:4 Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.
Your theology and your paradigm are a constant and consistent attempt at ameliorating the fallen state of man. You keep wanting to tell yourself you just ain't all that bad. Not as bad as lots of others in the world. right? But, to quote Sproul, on a graph depicting the difference between the evil of Hitler and the righteouness of Christ, your place is in a bear hug with Hitler, as is the rest of humanity's. Until you are able to acknowledge that, you glorify yourself, and worse, you demean Christ.

Brad
 
  • Like
Reactions: xapis
Upvote 0

Oye11

Veteran
May 25, 2006
1,955
188
Florida
✟25,413.00
Faith
Methodist
Politics
US-Democrat
BTW...GT is the General Theology forum here at Christian Forums. It's a pretty rough-and-tumble place...not for the faint of heart!

Actually it is typically no more opinionated and accusatory, no more in the attack mode than some of the recent posts on this thread. They should be fine....:D
 
Upvote 0

Boxmaker

Senior Member
Dec 28, 2006
596
9
Arvada, CO
✟23,292.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Do you even see the inanity of that statement? How can you be an engineer and not be able to see simple logical errors in your own statements?
Actually I went back and read the beginning of Job (see post #400). My statement is not inane nor illogical - it reflects what God said about Job.
Your theology and your paradigm are a constant and consistent attempt at ameliorating the fallen state of man. You keep wanting to tell yourself you just ain't all that bad. Not as bad as lots of others in the world. right? But, to quote Sproul, on a graph depicting the difference between the evil of Hitler and the righteouness of Christ, your place is in a bear hug with Hitler, as is the rest of humanity's. Until you are able to acknowledge that, you glorify yourself, and worse, you demean Christ.
Brad
Of course its bad, Brad. I have never said it wasn't. I have maintained that man can do nothing to save himself. Man must accept God's offer of salvation to be saved. There is no work, no praise no thing I can do or offer that will save me.

I have maintained that we were created by God in God's own image. As such, even hough we are spiritualy dead, as long as we are alive in the flesh, we can respond to God.
 
Upvote 0

xapis

Soli Deo gloria!
Jul 1, 2004
2,022
254
Lambsburg, VA
Visit site
✟18,464.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
I picked up my copy of "Chosen by God" today. I will start it tonight

:) ...I've been lurking here but I wanted to say that I look forward to your response to this book. Perhaps you could post your thoughts as you progress through it—maybe after each chapter?
 
Upvote 0

Boxmaker

Senior Member
Dec 28, 2006
596
9
Arvada, CO
✟23,292.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I. God from all eternity did by the most and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin; nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.

I am sure some of you will recognize this. Sproul starts with part of the Westminster Confession and states that anybody who does not believe this is an atheist. (See chapter 2)

I have some real struggles with this paragraph. The wording of the paragraph makes it very difficult to get a handle on but this is what I come away with. It says God has decided everything that has/is will ever happen - except sin. It implies that God has control over everything except sin. In other words, God, in His sovereignty, can and does ordain all that is good but God is not sovereign over sin. Therefore, God is not sovereign over everything which means, according to Sproul, God is not God.

Sproul sees God as having four possibilities for dealing with a fallen creation: 1)Salvation for none, 2) Offer of salvation for all 3)Salivation for all and 4)Salvation for whom He chooses. The reformed position is of course #4, God saves whom He will. Now 4 is not that different from 3. If God can choose to save some, why doesn’t he choose to save all? Sproul says flat out that He does not know. Fair enough. I cannot escape the conclusion that #4 must mean that God only saves whom He likes. He intentionally created people He didn’t like. In light of John 3:16, I cannot accept that as being in character with God.

This is just my first impression after reading chapters 1 and 2. Sproul will address some of these issues in latter chapters so as I read through them we’ll see where things go.

Gods peace be with you.
 
Upvote 0

Oye11

Veteran
May 25, 2006
1,955
188
Florida
✟25,413.00
Faith
Methodist
Politics
US-Democrat
I have some real struggles with this paragraph. The wording of the paragraph makes it very difficult to get a handle on but this is what I come away with. It says God has decided everything that has/is will ever happen - except sin. It implies that God has control over everything except sin. In other words, God, in His sovereignty, can and does ordain all that is good but God is not sovereign over sin. Therefore, God is not sovereign over everything which means, according to Sproul, God is not God.

If you want God ordaining sin you got to go more hardcore than Sproul, with someone like Pink or Palmer...;) Sproul is amiable, a great man and theologian and his ministry is always eager to help through e-mails. But he can wander, frustrating as he sometimes is slow to get to the point.

This whole debate comes down to where you set up camp and proceed from, Romans 9 or John 3-16 and the parallel verses. Is a shame there is division in the body of Christ over this. Most of the world is laughing at Christians, the more unity we have the better. Enjoy your discussion. :)
 
Upvote 0

GrinningDwarf

Just a humble servant
Mar 30, 2005
2,732
276
60
✟26,811.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
It says God has decided everything that has/is will ever happen - except sin. It implies that God has control over everything except sin. In other words, God, in His sovereignty, can and does ordain all that is good but God is not sovereign over sin.

That's not quite what it says. It says that God is not the author of sin; He still has divine control. (What you meant for evil, God meant for good.)


In light of John 3:16, I cannot accept that as being in character with God.

Welcome to the club!! One of the stumbling points for me over the Reformed view was that a Reformed paraphrase of John 3:16 seemed to be "For God so loved the elect that the elect who believe upon Him shall not perish but have everlasting life." (Ed.: Of course, this is not an accurate Reformed paraphrase of John 3:16.)

Do one thing for me...go to page 122 and read the story of the Presbyterian seminary president who was not a Calvinist. Underline or highlight that story and Sproul's response, and keep it in mind during your researching of Reformed theology, and simply believe that Sproul really means what he says here. I did that, I dunno, about five years ago or so. For the next year and a half or so, I would run into my stumbling block of John 3:16 and be tempted to chuck the whole thing as being totally unreasonable and contrary to the character of God. Then I would remember what Sproul said, and have to admit, "OK...I guess I still don't really understand what they're saying." Then I would make another stab at it.


This is just my first impression after reading chapters 1 and 2. Sproul will address some of these issues in latter chapters so as I read through them we’ll see where things go.

I would really like to spend some time with you on chapter 3, "Predestination and Free Will"...especially on Jonathan Edwards.

Gods peace be with you.

And with you!!
 
  • Like
Reactions: xapis
Upvote 0

GrinningDwarf

Just a humble servant
Mar 30, 2005
2,732
276
60
✟26,811.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
This whole debate comes down to where you set up camp and proceed from, Romans 9 or John 3-16 and the parallel verses.

I think the problems start because we try to begin with Romans 9 or John 3:16. There are some underlying presuppositions that we all bring to the discussion, though, and we wind up talking past each other because those presuppositions aren't resolved...or even acknowledged. (And when I say 'we', I really do mean on both sides of the aisle.)


Is a shame there is division in the body of Christ over this. Most of the world is laughing at Christians, the more unity we have the better.

I think the laughter starts because the God Christians usually present to the world is a pretty anemic, grandfatherly type. We've made Jesus a 'choice' to make, just like any other choice we make in our lives. By elevating human free will, we (Christians proclaiming the popular gospel of today) have diminished a holy and just God who deserves and demands our worship.


Enjoy your discussion. :)

You mean you're not gonna stick around and watch? :D
 
Upvote 0

Oye11

Veteran
May 25, 2006
1,955
188
Florida
✟25,413.00
Faith
Methodist
Politics
US-Democrat
You mean you're not gonna stick around and watch? :D

I may check in and see what you all got later Dwarf...;) Will tell you this, go spend a bit of time in General Apologetics or on some of these atheist/skeptic sites and you`ll see, once that spirit gets unleashed on Christdendom the true believers will be bonded together and we won`t be concerned with these disagreements. It may come in my lifetime, may not but it`s coming...
 
Upvote 0

GrinningDwarf

Just a humble servant
Mar 30, 2005
2,732
276
60
✟26,811.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
It came in today!! I've read the first two chapters.

I'm not sure what Bob George's actual theology is yet (especially concerning soteriology), but he says quite a few things that actually seem to agree with the Reformed position. This may be a case of using the same words but meaning totally different things (which is part of the 'presupposition problem' we will address with Sproul and Jonathan Edwards), but we'll see. For now, I'll just make the following observations:

George's basic case seems to parallel that described by Jerry Bridges in his book Transforming Grace. George describes it like this:

I have heard the same sad admission from many other Christians, too. Someone experiences a genuine conversion to Jesus Christ that results in immediate changes. But there seems to be something lacking in knowing how to live from that point. He dutifully obeys the instructions that other believers give him, and jumps onto the treadmill of service. It isn't long before he discovers that no amunt of service--sincere though it may be--will make a person spiritual. In desperation he redoubles his efforts but, like a person sinking in quicksand, it seems that the harder he tries, the deeper he sinks.

Classic Christianity, p. 18-19

Bridges calls this phenomena the idea that popular Christianity inadvertantly sends the message that we are saved by grace, but then we must live by works. He uses a really good bankruptcy analogy to illustrate that we are not only saved by grace, but that we must also live by grace. BTW...Jerry Bridge's books aren't overtly Reformed, but I've realized that his books were the begining of my journey to refomed theology. Just an expansion of my concept of grace was a huge milestone. I heartily agree with George's quote by Mary, "But it wasn't until I started learning of God's grace and total forgiveness that I started to become free.."

Here's another idea that could be Reformed(on p. 24):

Christ didn't call me to change anything; He called me to proclaim the truth!

If George means that in evangelism, we are not called to change people's lives but to simply proclaim the Gospel, that is also a Reformed idea. If George means that we are not called to change anything in our lives, but to simply proclaim the Gospel...well...there would be a problem with that. I'm not sure which he means at this point.

I loved George's 'ear-gate' and 'eye-gate' on page 29!! It's an allusion to a book by John Bunyan called The Holy War. And..you guessed it...John Bunyan also wrote The Pilgrim's Progress and was Reformed!! (In addition to Ear- and Eye-gate, there were also Mouth-, Nose-, and Feel-gates.)

Here's an interesting statement, also from page 29:

Man is free to put whatever he wants to in his mind.

Reformed theology agrees with this basic statement. But then we need to look closer at what 'wants to' means...and we will do this in our discussion of chapter 3 of Chosen By God!!

George's discussion on pages 36-39 was also interesting. Scripture is, indeed, the plumb line by which we judge the truth of anything. This is very revealing:

There's a big difference between knowing what something says and knowing what it means. Millions of Christians know what the Bible says. But many do not know what it means because that can only be revealed by the Spirit. Man's pride rebels against the idea that he cannot understand spiritual truth on his own, but this is clearly what the Bible says...

Classic Christianity, p. 38

I whole-heartedly agree with this. I further submit that another thing that prevents us from seeing what Scripture means is that fact that we have all been steeped in Enlightenment philosophies that elevate human free will while diminishing God's sovereignty, and these views have even made their way into the church and have had a stronghold on the church since at least the time of Charles Finney.

One last point for tonight:

Jesus Christ said He came to give life. What kind of person needs life? The answer was obvious: only the dead. For example, Ephesians 2:21: "As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins." Before, if asked what the problem of mankind was, I would have always discussed man's sinfullness and need for God's forgiveness. Now this is certainly true, but I began to see, through the Scriptures, that man's problem is much deeper. From God's point of view, the problem of man is not just that he is a sinner in need of forgiveness; his problem is that he is dead and in need of life.


This is a major point in Reformed theology. Sproul addresses it in Chapter 5 of Chosen By God, especially pages 112-120.
 
Upvote 0

GrinningDwarf

Just a humble servant
Mar 30, 2005
2,732
276
60
✟26,811.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Will tell you this, go spend a bit of time in General Apologetics or on some of these atheist/skeptic sites and you`ll see...

Been there...done that. It's why I don't go there anymore. I get enough hassles like that in the real world; I come to CF to relax.
 
Upvote 0

Oye11

Veteran
May 25, 2006
1,955
188
Florida
✟25,413.00
Faith
Methodist
Politics
US-Democrat
Been there...done that. It's why I don't go there anymore. I get enough hassles like that in the real world; I come to CF to relax.

Makes sense. Point was that I`m not sure true Christians will always be able to avoid that sort of challenge and hostility and philosophizing about election will take the back burner. But that is another topic...:)
 
Upvote 0

GrinningDwarf

Just a humble servant
Mar 30, 2005
2,732
276
60
✟26,811.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
I have just discovered from my wife that I have been 'volunteered' to help out with a youth retreat this weekend. This involves, among other things, spending tonight locked down in the church. I probably won't be around much until Sunday afternoon. I'll stop in if I can before then, but if not...see y'all Sunday!
 
Upvote 0

GodsElect

Regular Member
Nov 26, 2006
261
17
✟22,992.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Upvote 0

GrinningDwarf

Just a humble servant
Mar 30, 2005
2,732
276
60
✟26,811.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
I have read through chapter 3. The kids are on spring break this week and I took the week off to play. I'll post as time permits. Have a great week!
I'm in the middle of chapter 4. You have a great week with the kids, yerself!!
 
Upvote 0

GrinningDwarf

Just a humble servant
Mar 30, 2005
2,732
276
60
✟26,811.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
In chapter 3 of Classic Christianity, Bob George says

God wanted His relationship with man to be a love relationship, received and expressed back to Him through the agency of faith. Therefore, unlike the animal kingdom which is governed by an internal behavior mechanism we call "instinct", man was given a free will, because love can only be possible where man is free to choose.

Well....that's the big issue, isn't it? Just what is 'free will'? George doesn't really defend his position here, either from Scripture or logic...he merely states it as a given and then moves on. I hope he comes back and addresses it later.

In chapter 4, George says something that, while technically true concerning his illustration, could be taken farther than George might intend...and it frequently is taken pretty far. On pages 60-61, George talks about Edward,the guy who had liven his entire Christian life feeling condemned over a particular sin from the far past. I think George states well that that sin was paid for on the cross and says "What He wants you to do is to rest in what He has done through the cross--to put it to bed once and for all--so that you can begin to expereince what He has done through the resurrection." Then Edward at the end of his prayer, Edward says "You have heard me ask You to forgive my sin for the last time. I won't insult You and Your grace again." Now...if Edward is talking about this particular sin that had been troubling him through most of his adult life, fine. If Edward...and Bob George...mean that we don't have to ask forgivness any longer for any sin...we have a problem there. One thing that leads me to beleive that this really is what George is talkikng about is the canning analogy that follows...which I think is a poor analogy. George seems to be talking about achieving sinless perfection in this life. If he is not, then he is leaving himself open to misinterpretation here. I know this for a fact, because I know Christians who believe that we can achieve sinless perfection in this life who would interpret this chapter in this way.
 
Upvote 0

heymikey80

Quidquid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur
Dec 18, 2005
14,496
921
✟41,809.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I am sure some of you will recognize this. Sproul starts with part of the Westminster Confession and states that anybody who does not believe this is an atheist. (See chapter 2)

I have some real struggles with this paragraph. The wording of the paragraph makes it very difficult to get a handle on but this is what I come away with. It says God has decided everything that has/is will ever happen - except sin. It implies that God has control over everything except sin. In other words, God, in His sovereignty, can and does ordain all that is good but God is not sovereign over sin. Therefore, God is not sovereign over everything which means, according to Sproul, God is not God.
Well, maybe I should ask a couple of questions at this point.

What is sin? Is it an attribute of a particular action in Creation? That is, say I shoot someone with a bow and arrow. Am I at fault? How about the arrow manufacturer? How about the bow manufacturer?

I don't think so. I see actions and events as less definitive of sin than the motives and will that underlies them.

I also see sin as a gap -- something missing, due to our limitations. It's real (just like the Grand Canyon is real, but a real gap!). But it's a lack.

So at this point you might see how Calvinists view sin from their respective positions. Sin isn't an attribute of physical things or phenomena or events. Sin is a state of a person's heart in attempting to defy the truth or what's right.

So with Westminster God ordains everything that comes to pass -- even those acts we see caused by a person's sin. But God does not thereby become sinful, for He has placed it in a right purpose and plan in which that sinfulness is absolved, corrected, and atoned-for.
Sproul sees God as having four possibilities for dealing with a fallen creation: 1)Salvation for none, 2) Offer of salvation for all 3)Salivation for all and 4)Salvation for whom He chooses. The reformed position is of course #4, God saves whom He will. Now 4 is not that different from 3. If God can choose to save some, why doesn’t he choose to save all? Sproul says flat out that He does not know. Fair enough. I cannot escape the conclusion that #4 must mean that God only saves whom He likes. He intentionally created people He didn’t like. In light of John 3:16, I cannot accept that as being in character with God.
Well, Rom 8 says those He loved He predestined to be adopted as sons, right?

So where does that go? That (1) His predestination doesn't stand and His plan may be foiled, or (2) His predestination does stand. I cannot accept (1) because Scripture says it won't happen (Heb 6:17, "So when God desired to show more convincingly to the heirs of the promise the unchangeable character of his purpose, he guaranteed it with an oath"). So the alternative is (2).

Combined with your view of John 3:16 that would conclude universalism. However, John 3:18 has clearly stated the contrary, "He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God." Of course, you could settle on universalism with John 3:16. But then you'd be ignoring John 3:18.

The fact is, John 3:18 tends against your view that God choosing as He likes (not who He likes, mind you) is out of character with God. No matter what, God created these people He decides to judge. And God ultimately judges many of them in any system you care to name outside universalism. So you're still left with the paradox no matter what. God ends up not liking all people enough to save them -- when He could. He could set the bar lower than "believe in Him". He could set it anywhere that He pleases. It's a gift. And He's God.

Of course this contains an implicit assumption that Calvinism generally doesn't accept. God doesn't choose who He likes -- that is, people that He likes -- else He would choose no one. He doesn't like any of us based on who we are. He loves some of us -- but not because of who we are, but because of Who He is. We don't explain why God loves some because God doesn't explain it. It just says He loves some; and He predestines them; and He saves them.
 
Upvote 0