Why do Calvinists....

[Boxmaker]

I don't think Paul would agree with you:




And, anyway...if you don't think it's fair that we are held responsible and accountable for Adam's sin, then how could it be possible for Jesus to have died (or paid the price; been held accountable) for our sin?

I never said anything about it being fair or not. I said my own sins were more than enough to convict me.

Jesus is God. Jesus came and took ALL our sins to the cross. I don't think its possible for Him to do anything less.

 

[Boxmaker]

You're still letting your ingrained twentieth-century philosophies get the better of you when they clearly contradict what the Scripture says. You should see my copy of Chosen By God. All kinds of highlights and margin notes where I knew Sproul was wrong...only to be crossed out and corrected two years later when I finally realized that..doggone it!...he was right!!

I know this is hard to figure out. So is the Trinity.

Our church had a Sunday school class that was taught by a CU-Boulder biology professor. It was a wonderful class and covered all sorts of topics and showed how scince more often supports the Bible than not.

I one class we were speculating about the nature of God. In short, God exists in 1 more dimension than the universe exists in. Mathmaticly, we can prove the existance of 13 dimensions, possible 21. That means God exists in n+1 dimensions or 14 to 22 dimensions.

I thought about this a little more and it really helped explain the trinitarian nature of God to me. God the father exists in all dimensions. God the Son is the projection of God into at least the dimensions we exist in so that He could teach us directly. The Holy Spirit is the projection of God into the dimensions within which He operates. But they are all part of the multi-dimensional God the Father. Just my speculation and it is ultimatly meaningless but it helps me understand the trinity. (Its the engineer mentality)

 

[Boxmaker]

Box, still sounds like you still want to have a god that sets things in motion then lets the "Clay" choose how the rest of things may go, then alters and changes the way things go to make them work "for the good" as you say.

That sounds like a very busy and frustrated god don't you think?

No. There were over 400 years between the last profit of the OT and Christ. The Jews refer to this as the silent time as God had no more communication with Israel during this time. Sounds a little like God may have been relaxing and waiting while He waited to start the next part of His plan to close the Old Covenent and start the New Covenent.

God does not have to respond to evry little thing that happens to make sure His plan, His will for His creatin is carried out.

I am not saying that God couldn't have created things that way if He wanted to, but it's not taught that way in the light of scripture.

And further, we're talking about a God, who before time began, was OUTSIDE OF TIME, heck, even created time itself!
Do you think that, being outside of time, in ALL ETERNITY PAST didn't plan for the way that HIS CREATION, sun, moon, stars, orbits of planets, earth, animals, humans, and everything eles I didn't mention, couldn't plan and predestine and ordain and create everything that is and shall come to pass?
Is not God the alpha and omega, the begining and the end of all things, the great archectect?

I am not saying that God couldn't have created things that way if He wanted to, but it's not taught that way in the light of scripture. (Two way street)

It is my God who had from all eternity past plenty of time to pre-plan, plan, ordain, predestine, create, and finish His work before the FIRST SECOND OF TIME CLICKED to begin a measly 6000 or whatever years on earth compaired to an ETERNITY to create creation! That's the God ALMIGHTY we proclaim! Do you think that God would do such a thing as let His creation take any path than that which He had already planned from begining to END?

If you do then that is surely a VERY FRUSTRATED god indeed! That the course of man's actions cannot go according to his original plan.

I do and I don't think God is frustrated in the least. He knows what He will do when to complete is will for His creation. Revelations is a proficy about what will happen. In a way it is predestined. God has said what He will do. God will do what He has said when He determines the time is right completely independant of what men are doing at the time.

His ORIGINAL PLAN is perfect! and will BE COMPLETED however He has planned it from the beginning! We do not have a God who lets His "Clay" dictate His actions! His Sovereign WILL dictates OUR actions.

For His own Glory and sovereign purposes and perfect will from the BEGINNING TO THE END!!! PERIOD!!! GET OVER IT!!!And I think this is a God that you dont want!!! It is very clear now!

Yes, His plan will be completed. His plan and the steps He will take He has already determined. Those steps do not include micro managing our every though/deed and action. God wants us to respond to Him. He does not want the love of puppets.

My God is much more greater than a finite human mind that cannot phathom a God that is smarter than to create something and be therefore at the whims of His creation. At the whims of "whosoever will"

You and I are loved by the same God. You see God as having to have to predestine everything to make it work. I see God as being smart enough to make His plans workout regardless of what else happens. But we love and serve the same God.

 

[heymikey80]

I never said anything about it being fair or not. I said my own sins were more than enough to convict me.

Yet there're plenty of people who Scripture says are "deceiving themselves". If Scripture's right and they really are deceived by their own arguments, are they really culpable for their neglect?

I realize this takes the argument in a new direction. But it seems to me the libertarian presuppositions about responsibility really leave large gaps of "nobody's responsible." God wouldn't be in control and people wouldn't be intentional. There's no responsibility for some sins. Yet God says He'll fix it. Why would He fix something that He's not offended by? And what claim would He have for the offense of some of these sins? Why would He have the authority to sit in judgment over things He has zero responsibility over?

To me that was a critical point in the argument. God isn't responsible like the accused. God is responsible like the judge. There's no reason to assume that because God created me that He's responsible the same way I am. He can make things lesser than Himself. So can I. I am not responsible for a brick wall in the same way a brick is responsible.

So God is still completely aware of everything that He designed. And unlike human judges, who simply represent a legal system they're avowed to, God is a Spiritual Judge, who Is the righteous Standard.

Jesus is God. Jesus came and took ALL our sins to the cross. I don't think its possible for Him to do anything less.

I'm not sure what you mean here, but I'd say Christ Jesus certainly had the free will to do anything He wished. The only "impossibility" involved in the Cross was the impossible love that Jesus had for a people who clearly didn't deserve His love. So the impossibility came from Jesus' freedom to love the undeserved.

And if that freedom compels the term "impossible", I think you must realize, that same freedom compels predestination. It was eminently possible that Jesus' freedom to choose could lead Him to choose another direction. Yet He was predestined to take this path because of His free will. That was all that "compelled" Him to love us in actual fact. He had the choices available to love us or not. His will made it impossible.

And no one denies it. His will was free.

That same model is applied to each one of us in predestination.

 

[bradfordl]

I thought about this a little more and it really helped explain the trinitarian nature of God to me. God the father exists in all dimensions. God the Son is the projection of God into at least the dimensions we exist in so that He could teach us directly. The Holy Spirit is the projection of God into the dimensions within which He operates. But they are all part of the multi-dimensional God the Father. Just my speculation and it is ultimatly meaningless but it helps me understand the trinity. (Its the engineer mentality)

Box, that sounds dangerously close to modalism. If you're not aware of that anti-trinitarian theology, you might want to study it some.

Brad

 

[Boxmaker]

Yet there're plenty of people who Scripture says are "deceiving themselves". If Scripture's right and they really are deceived by their own arguments, are they really culpable for their neglect?

I realize this takes the argument in a new direction. But it seems to me the libertarian presuppositions about responsibility really leave large gaps of "nobody's responsible." God wouldn't be in control and people wouldn't be intentional. There's no responsibility for some sins. Yet God says He'll fix it. Why would He fix something that He's not offended by? And what claim would He have for the offense of some of these sins? Why would He have the authority to sit in judgment over things He has zero responsibility over?

To me that was a critical point in the argument. God isn't responsible like the accused. God is responsible like the judge. There's no reason to assume that because God created me that He's responsible the same way I am. He can make things lesser than Himself. So can I. I am not responsible for a brick wall in the same way a brick is responsible.

So God is still completely aware of everything that He designed. And unlike human judges, who simply represent a legal system they're avowed to, God is a Spiritual Judge, who Is the righteous Standard.

I'm not sure what you mean here, but I'd say Christ Jesus certainly had the free will to do anything He wished. The only "impossibility" involved in the Cross was the impossible love that Jesus had for a people who clearly didn't deserve His love. So the impossibility came from Jesus' freedom to love the undeserved.

And if that freedom compels the term "impossible", I think you must realize, that same freedom compels predestination. It was eminently possible that Jesus' freedom to choose could lead Him to choose another direction. Yet He was predestined to take this path because of His free will. That was all that "compelled" Him to love us in actual fact. He had the choices available to love us or not. His will made it impossible.

And no one denies it. His will was free.

That same model is applied to each one of us in predestination.

Jesus is God incarnate. Jesus has a free will that is freer than ours since He is God. In the garden Jesus asked His Father to take this cup from His lips but ended by saying not my will but your will be done. Jesus surendered His will to the will of His Father.

God created us with free will. It is moch more limited but is totally free within those limits. Part of accepting Christ as our savior is to surender our will to the Father. "Your will be done on Earth, just as it is in Heaven."

 

[Boxmaker]

Box, that sounds dangerously close to modalism. If you're not aware of that anti-trinitarian theology, you might want to study it some.

Brad

I've heard of modalism but never looked at it and I don't plan to. My personal thought on the Trinitarian nature of God are just, my personal thoughts that help to get my small human mind around an infinite God.

Believing in God does not preclude being a scientist nor does being a scientist does not preclude believing in God. Science is a way to understand the universe God created. Honest science done honestly will point to God, not away from Him.

See God through the lens of science in no way diminishes God's glory and majesty. To me, it screams His glory.

I have been having a debate on another site regarding evolution. I have been trying to get evolutionists to see that God created the elements and the rules by which those elements will interact. He used those elements and those rules to create molecules with their own set of rules for interaction. The molecules built nucleic acids with their rules and those nucleic acids built DNA. That DNA has a set of rules that God gave it that allows the creatures of God’s creation to adapt to the environment they live in as it goes through minor changes. Left to its own devices, DNA will not evolve into another species. God created the species. To me, that incredible attention to detail and the patience God has reveal to me how almighty God is! But that is me. I look at the world through the lens of science and I see God everywhere I look. Others look at the world through different lenses and see God differently. And God loves us all.

 

[bradfordl]

The molecules built nucleic acids with their rules and those nucleic acids built DNA.

Do you mean to imply these bits of matter acted of their own volition to build these more complex bits of matter? I'm sure you don't, and I agree wholeheartedly that creation, even under scientific examination, shows forth the amazing "attention to detail" God exhibits in creating and maintaining the universe. On another thread I discussed the idea that all matter and energy is made up of unimaginally complex and numerous waves, all hanging in perfect balance, and another pointed out that everything is just "twists" propagated by huge forces. Even Hawking said that everything is predestined, just that humans are incapable of the math it would take to extrapolate where all those waves will go. But God is able. And doesn't just "see" where they will go, but has determined their every move. That would be a pretty strong indication to me that He doesn't let some things float free outside of His control, or bother to ordain everything that happens. If keeping a single grain of salt intact is as difficult as it appears, for Him to ordain all things is a breeze for Him.

Modalism, having nothing to do with an ability to appreciate God's creation through science, is a dangerous redefinition of the Trinity that is heretical. Your illustration is pretty close to it; that the three manifestations of the Godhead are just 3 "modes" of His existence. You should look into it to see if your idea is errant. No offense intended, Box, just wanted to caution you.

SDG,

Brad

 

[Boxmaker]

Do you mean to imply these bits of matter acted of their own volition to build these more complex bits of matter? I'm sure you don't, and I agree wholeheartedly that creation, even under scientific examination, shows forth the amazing "attention to detail" God exhibits in creating and maintaining the universe. On another thread I discussed the idea that all matter and energy is made up of unimaginally complex and numerous waves, all hanging in perfect balance, and another pointed out that everything is just "twists" propagated by huge forces. Even Hawking said that everything is predestined, just that humans are incapable of the math it would take to extrapolate where all those waves will go. But God is able. And doesn't just "see" where they will go, but has determined their every move. That would be a pretty strong indication to me that He doesn't let some things float free outside of His control, or bother to ordain everything that happens. If keeping a single grain of salt intact is as difficult as it appears, for Him to ordain all things is a breeze for Him.

Modalism, having nothing to do with an ability to appreciate God's creation through science, is a dangerous redefinition of the Trinity that is heretical. Your illustration is pretty close to it; that the three manifestations of the Godhead are just 3 "modes" of His existence. You should look into it to see if your idea is errant. No offense intended, Box, just wanted to caution you.

SDG,

Brad

I looked up modalism. That is not what I believe. Modalism says God exists as three different people in three different times.

A multi dimensional God would be present in all dimension in all times. He would be the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, three persons, each distinct - but one God.

 

[bradfordl]

I don't know if that's what I've understood modalism to be. Here's a wiki def.:

In Christianity, Sabellianism (also known as modalism or modal monarchism) is the belief that the Heavenly Father, Resurrected Son and Holy Spirit are different modes or aspects of one God (for us only), rather than three distinct persons (in Himself). God was said to have three "faces" or "masks" (Grk. prosopa

The full page is here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modalism

 

[xapis]

....that's right bradford. It's one person, three "modes" for the modalist.

 

[heymikey80]

I don't know if that's what I've understood modalism to be. Here's a wiki def.:



The full page is here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modalism

Keep in mind, this could be alleged of just about anyone who has described his view in less than 5000 words. It really takes some digging to determine whether a view is modalism, monophysitism, nestorianism, or Trinitarianism. In the 200's a number of councils rejected monophysitism, denying the terminology of monophysites. In the 300's they attacked nestorianism adopting some of the same terminology they rejected in monophysitism.

So it's really what you mean by it that's critical.

If you get into physics and dimensional work you'll find it addresses substance and essence fairly well, but not so much persons. I would say, Boxmaker, that your view makes a great point on the substance side of Trinitarian doctine.

The way God has created for us to exist as persons and spirits as well as physical beings, tend to trace back to three separate Persons in the Godhead. I think that's what bradfordl is getting at? Again, somewhat speculative philosophically, but I think that's where the question is focused.

This is way into the details, too. I think unconsidered thoughts as to God's nature don't deprive us of a right relationship with God. I think it's when I reject God as He is that the troubles come; not when I don't know and accept Him, despite my own shallow understandings.

 

[bradfordl]

Keep in mind, this could be alleged of just about anyone who has described his view in less than 5000 words. It really takes some digging to determine whether a view is modalism, monophysitism, nestorianism, or Trinitarianism. In the 200's a number of councils rejected monophysitism, denying the terminology of monophysites. In the 300's they attacked nestorianism adopting some of the same terminology they rejected in monophysitism.

So it's really what you mean by it that's critical.

If you get into physics and dimensional work you'll find it addresses substance and essence fairly well, but not so much persons. I would say, Boxmaker, that your view makes a great point on the substance side of Trinitarian doctine.

The way God has created for us to exist as persons and spirits as well as physical beings, tend to trace back to three separate Persons in the Godhead. I think that's what bradfordl is getting at? Again, somewhat speculative philosophically, but I think that's where the question is focused.

This is way into the details, too. I think unconsidered thoughts as to God's nature don't deprive us of a right relationship with God. I think it's when I reject God as He is that the troubles come; not when I don't know and accept Him, despite my own shallow understandings.

Iagree that it's a complicated matter, my concern was due to the fact that I myself long ago had a modalistic view of the Trinity that I had developed on my own in my ignorance. There is some importance attached to discerning that there are three separate Persons in the godhead, and I missed that for a while. Wouldn't want Boxmaker to be caught in the same error. Mine was probably closer to the "oneness pentecostalism" variety.

I can't fully wrap my mind around the Trinity, either, but to the extent that I can, I want it to be accurate.

Blessings,

Brad

 

[Boxmaker]

Iagree that it's a complicated matter, my concern was due to the fact that I myself long ago had a modalistic view of the Trinity that I had developed on my own in my ignorance. There is some importance attached to discerning that there are three separate Persons in the godhead, and I missed that for a while. Wouldn't want Boxmaker to be caught in the same error. Mine was probably closer to the "oneness pentecostalism" variety.

I can't fully wrap my mind around the Trinity, either, but to the extent that I can, I want it to be accurate.

Blessings,

Brad

We preceive God as three persons as humnas preceive persons. Each is distinct from the other and they all exist at all times. But thet are one God in that they are linked in dimensions we cannot understand.

 

[bradfordl]

We preceive God as three persons as humnas preceive persons. Each is distinct from the other and they all exist at all times. But thet are one God in that they are linked in dimensions we cannot understand.

Please define "we". Are you a member of the United Pentecostal denomination?

 

[heymikey80]

Iagree that it's a complicated matter, my concern was due to the fact that I myself long ago had a modalistic view of the Trinity that I had developed on my own in my ignorance. There is some importance attached to discerning that there are three separate Persons in the godhead, and I missed that for a while. Wouldn't want Boxmaker to be caught in the same error. Mine was probably closer to the "oneness pentecostalism" variety.

I can't fully wrap my mind around the Trinity, either, but to the extent that I can, I want it to be accurate.

And through you I can also see the Spirit urging me to be more careful in what I'm permitting and qualifying, too. I need to find redemptive ways of expressing the truth that don't come across as cross-examinations or judgments when it comes to this, but as opportunities and invitations to look closely at what God's saying.

I've done the apologetic debates with advocates of tripartite gods in the godhead; but that tends to put a spike in the opportunity to redeem them to the truth.

 

[Boxmaker]

Please define "we". Are you a member of the United Pentecostal denomination?

We as in we humans.

 

[Boxmaker]

Chapter 5 – Spiritual Death and Spiritual Life: Rebirth and Faith

T – Total Depravity
U – Unconditional Election
L – Limited Atonement
I – Irresistible Grace
P – Perseverance of the Saints

T – I though Sproul changing this from total depravity to radical corruption makes sense. Men are not as sinful as they could possible be. Men are corrupt.

U – unconditional election is available to all men. Jesus’s sacrifice was for all men. (See below)

L – Limited atonement is not Biblical.

Romans 5: 18-19
18Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men. 19For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

Does “the many” that were made sinners mean that not all men were made sinners? It would have to be so that only “the many” could be elected and saved by Jesus. Sproul has already addressed this and the Bible confirms that through Adam, all were made sinners. So “the many” referred to in this verse must be all men. Therefore, “the many” that Christ died for must be the same all men that became sinners in Adam.

I – Irresistable grace is redefined by Sproul to be effectual grace. He defines God’s effectual grace as saving grace as bringing about God’s desired effect. I would agree though I disagree with Sprouls assumption of what God’s desired effect is. Sproul is quite clear that God’s effectual grace is reserved strictly for the elect. I think Romans 5 shows that God’s grace is available to all though not all accept it. Again, the story of the rich man comes to mind.

Matthew 19
18"Which ones?" the man inquired.
Jesus replied, " 'Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, 19honor your father and mother,'[d] and 'love your neighbor as yourself.'[e]"
20"All these I have kept," the young man said. "What do I still lack?"
21Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."
22When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth.

He resisted the grace of God and went away sad. This is a matter if interpretation. The Calvinist will say that God did not exercise irresistible or effectual grace for the rich man. Indeed, the next several verses make the case that God might not care for rich men very much at all. Open theists will see it as God exercising his grace but allowing mans free will to resist.
P- Perseverance of the saints. Jesus promised us that we would face persecution in His name. We must persevere and spread the Gospel. We must live the great commission and a life of service to each other.
All things considered, I might consider myself a about a 1.5 to 2 point Calvinist. I agree with some (sometimes most) of what Sproul says but I still do not see a convincing case for God playing favorites. I fully and freely admit that I may well be wrong and that is exactly what God does. As of yet, I don’t see it.

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.

I did as you asked. I never saw Calvinism the way the Presbyterian did. I see Calvinism as saying you go to heaven based on whether God likes you are not. Calvinism denies the Biblical truth the Jesus died for all men and states quite clearly that Jesus died for the elect. Calvinism takes the imperative out of the Great Commission since it changes the nature of the Gospel. Paul said that we should always be ready to give an answer for the hope that lies within. The only hope that a Calvinist has within is that God liked them enough to elect them. Calvinism takes the message of salvation, of good news, of the Gospel away from all men and gives it only to the elect. I am still unable to reconcile that with the nature of God as revealed in the Bible as a whole.
No, I did not save myself. God is the author and source of my salvation. It is His gift of grace that gave me my salvation. It is a gift I gratefully accepted.

 

[Boxmaker]

Originally Posted by GodsElect
Box, Do you think God is going to be MAD at the calvinist to say that "God is FULLY and sovereignly in control of His creation? Do you think I will be sent to hell for this?


No. Do you think I will go to hell because I don't share your belief?

GodsElect, still waitng for you response to this question.

 

[GodsElect]

Box, Well before I can answer that question I must ask you some more questions.

Do you think that you had anything to do with "co-operating" with the grace of God? Making you a Co-Redeemer?

Do you think that you "HAD TO" choose Christ in order to be saved?

Do you believe that once the Lord starts a work in someone, He INTENDS to and WILL finish it until the day they die from this world?

Do you think that the Lord changes someones heart and then lets them blow the work that He has done in them?

Do you believe that your life and all things, from start to finish, have been masterfully crafted and woven into the fabric time by our sovereign God? For His own purposes, His own perfect plan, for His glory alone?

Do you think that God sent His Son to die for sinners....only if they so choose on their own to believe that this is true?

We'll see...