GOD IS A SINNER

[GodsGrace]

I would call you an Arminian because there only only two categories of people in the world - saved and unsaved.

As far as God predestining selected people to be saved, I have my doubts. Peter talks of God's foreknowledge. My view is that He foreknew before the foundation of the world who was going to believe and put their trust in Him, and so He predestined those ones to be conformed to the image of Christ.

This is in keeping with the open invitation to anyone to believe the gospel and turn to Christ as their Saviour. That is why I believe that Christ died on the cross only for those who were, are, and will be saved - from Adam onwards - because God already knew who were going to believe the gospel, either through the O.T. prophecies about Jesus, or the gospel preached in the N.T.

Therefore, God knew that you and I would believe the gospel and turn to Christ, before we were born, even before the universe was created, and so our names were written in the Lamb's book of life.

If we were to have a look into the book of life, we will see millions of names of unborn people still to receive Christ. I had a thought, we would be able to see the very last person to be saved just before Jesus comes again!

Maybe I'm not a hard and fast Calvinist. Reading John Calvin himself, I'm not sure that he actually taught predestination in the same way that ultra Calvinist authors teach - that God makes arbitrary choices about who is going to be saved and who is going to remain lost.

It is quite true that because of Adam's disobedience, all of us were subject to the same condemnation. Outside of Christ, every single person is condemned. God would have been quite just and righteous to leave mankind in that state. He didn't have to save anyone. He was in no obligation to us at all.

I'm not sure about people being eternally tormented, but then, being separated from everything good that God has created, including light itself, and having to spend eternity in total darkness is torture itself. God created everything that we see out of nothing, and the day will come when He, with a word, will dissolve everything back to nothing. So, those who are send to a Christless eternity will exist in an environment where there is absolutely nothing. I recently had an MRI scan where I had to spend an hour and a half shut in a tube. I am not claustaphobic but I was glad to get back out of it. I went caving once, and they turned off the torches in the middle of it, and we were in total darkness. It was oppressive and couldn't see our hands in front of our faces. I think that is what hell is going to be like.

So, all God has to do with those who refuse Christ is to remove all the "goodies" He has created, leaving them with absolutely nothing. It's like sending a disobedient child to his room, except that the "room" God will send those disobedient to the gospel will have absolutely nothing in it, not even a light source.

How and why the Holy Spirit enlightens some and not others with the gospel is a mystery that many theologians have argued about over the centuries, but then, once we are saved, it became a non issue for us because the fact that we understand the gospel and believe it, is strong evidence that we have been enlightened and are saved.

I agree with you about the two categories of people: saved and unsaved.
It's how I tend to see someone....much more than by race or nationality or culture.

I've read Calvin and I can assure you that you are not following his teachings...
which I believe to be a good thing. Calvin changed God's nature...which is total love...
to something else which God is not.

Must log off now, but will continue tomorrow.

 

[PeterJens]

I surely hope you understand that I don't believe God is a sinner!
I think you know the O.P. just brought God's determinism, as some believe, to its natural conclusion...
and that is that God HIMSELF is a sinner...
which, of course, is impossible.

I've said many times that the reformed faith makes no sense in many ways.
This is one way.
I was kind of hoping Fastfredy0 would join in the conversation,,,
but I suppose he has nothing to add
or he doesn't care to explain his belief system
or he just dislikes conversing with me....



I believe I just had a thread on soteriology for children.
Children are not held responsible for sinning since they have no conception of sin.
Jesus loved children.

Some believe we become annihilated in the Lake of Fire.
Jesus did say the torment would be forever.
Matthew 25:46
46"And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”


Let's say right here that people cannot overcome without the help of God.
The Holy Spirit has a job to do and I believe He does it....

And, I believe we all understand that God is sovereign...not only the reformed.

Eternal punishment is eternally sealed destination. We easily think of punishment as pain or torture, but many punishments are exclusions, taking something and not giving it back.

If one suggests eternal life is life without end, eternal punishment will not be life without end but just painful.
Torture is reserved for satan and his followers. This is an interesting emphasis, because it can only be made because the lost will just be burnt up. When you look around at the world and its insanity and crazy attitudes, do you think torture is a just punishment for just being chaff and not caring. It strikes me very clearly, justice is served with people who waste the very gift they are given, it is taken away.

In the numbers game, most will not be with the Lord. Is the lake of fire going to be overflowing with the lost, while the new earth filled with a few who follow the Lord. The lost will be forgotten as if they never existed.

The enemy loves the idea God is interested in torture and has promoted satan as head torturer to get the most pain out of those who deserve it most. Do you think this works with the idea of forgivenss, justice and love?

Some argue that to let sinners get away without punishment, is unjust, except hades is the place of punishment for a time. Punishment also needs to have a purpose, not just to create pain for another, but to give ultimate justice. For those who deny God and cause suffering for others, what more just end, to suffer as they made others suffer, and at then end to lose life in the face of knowing God and what eternal life really means.

God bless you
God bless you

 

[Who Me]

I'm very happy that you agree with me.
God is certainly not a sinner....
which makes calvinism a faulty belief system.

Know it is your understanding of Calvinism that is faulty.

 

[PaulChristensen]

I agree with you about the two categories of people: saved and unsaved.
It's how I tend to see someone....much more than by race or nationality or culture.

I've read Calvin and I can assure you that you are not following his teachings...
which I believe to be a good thing. Calvin changed God's nature...which is total love...
to something else which God is not.

Must log off now, but will continue tomorrow.

Whoops! I should have said I wouldn't call you an Arminian. My brain must have been disconnected from my fingers for a moment!

Election is a mystery, and I think that Calvin tried to make some sense of it. He does say that an elect person is one who is happily obedient to the gospel. But then he implies that that person can only be obedient to the gospel if he has been enlightened by the Holy Spirit first. It seems like a chicken and egg situation to me - which came first, the egg or the chicken? The knotty question is, is a person obedient to the gospel because he has been enlightened by the Holy Spirit, or is he enlightened by the Holy Spirit because he is obedient to the gospel? One school of thought decides on the former, the other the latter, and neither the twain shall meet.

I don't know how it was with me. The guy who shared the gospel with me showed me some verses of Scripture that made sense to me for the first time, and I just knew I had to have Jesus as my Saviour. So, was it my decision to allow the guy to share the gospel with me, that enabled me to be enlightened, and was it my decision when I went to his church to get out of my seat and go forward to receive Christ?

I don't know. It's like the blind man who Jesus healed, and the Pharisees gave the guy the third degree about who healed him and how it happened. All the guy could say was that one minute he was blind and the next he could see. He had no idea who healed him or how the miracle happened.

I think that election of the those who are to be saved is a mystery. We have only part of the story, and any attempt to explain it will always come short of being satisfied that we have the full answer.

However, when I get away from the election part of what Calvin says, he says a lot of really good faith-building stuff and I'm enjoying reading his commentaries. No one is perfect - the treasure is in earthen vessels, and we see through the wrong end of the telescope most of the time (through a glass darkly).

 

[GodsGrace]

Whoops! I should have said I wouldn't call you an Arminian. My brain must have been disconnected from my fingers for a moment!

I knew that was what you meant.

Election is a mystery, and I think that Calvin tried to make some sense of it. He does say that an elect person is one who is happily obedient to the gospel. But then he implies that that person can only be obedient to the gospel if he has been enlightened by the Holy Spirit first. It seems like a chicken and egg situation to me - which came first, the egg or the chicken? The knotty question is, is a person obedient to the gospel because he has been enlightened by the Holy Spirit, or is he enlightened by the Holy Spirit because he is obedient to the gospel? One school of thought decides on the former, the other the latter, and neither the twain shall meet.

Can we go by personal experience? All the testimony I've heard seems to be the same...as it was with me.
Like this: All my life I knew about God...I was raised Catholic. So God did reveal Himself to me in this way.
(by going to church and hearing about Him).
But I didn't really reach out to Him till I was about 28.
At that time I felt as though He spoke to me and what He told me worked for years and years.
So God became real to me....and I thought of God as being Jesus....

The steps to me were:
God revealed Himself
I sought Him
He embraced me

I think God would be the chicken and we're His children.
And as to the knotty question....I think a person is obedient to the gospel because he has been enlightened by the Holy Spirit.
I don't imagine that a person could be obedient to God without the help of the Holy Spirit.
Jesus said He would send the Holy Spirit to be our comforter, our conscience, and to convict the world of sin (including us).
IOW....persons could be obeying the gospel without even knowing it....but the bible teaches that it is faith that saves us...works without faith are dead...and faith without works is a dead faith.

I don't know how it was with me. The guy who shared the gospel with me showed me some verses of Scripture that made sense to me for the first time, and I just knew I had to have Jesus as my Saviour. So, was it my decision to allow the guy to share the gospel with me, that enabled me to be enlightened, and was it my decision when I went to his church to get out of my seat and go forward to receive Christ?

I believe it was your free will decision...
but Calvin woudn't agree of course.
He thought God predestined everything,,,including sinful acts by mankind.

I don't know. It's like the blind man who Jesus healed, and the Pharisees gave the guy the third degree about who healed him and how it happened. All the guy could say was that one minute he was blind and the next he could see. He had no idea who healed him or how the miracle happened.

Good insight.
But Jesus did go around and He did heal some.
This would be God revealing Himself to man.
And men did search for Jesus in the N.T.
The Roman Centurion comes to mind....
The woman that had lost blood for years reached for his tunic....
Zacharias waiting in the tree so he could see Jesus.
It's both.

I think that election of the those who are to be saved is a mystery. We have only part of the story, and any attempt to explain it will always come short of being satisfied that we have the full answer.

However, when I get away from the election part of what Calvin says, he says a lot of really good faith-building stuff and I'm enjoying reading his commentaries. No one is perfect - the treasure is in earthen vessels, and we see through the wrong end of the telescope most of the time (through a glass darkly).

I think God's nature would make it so that He would want us to know how to become saved.
As to Calvin...I agree. A great thinker is recognizable...even if we don't agree with some basic beliefs of his.
And yes, I agree that the spirit world is beyond what we could comprehend right now.
We only know what God wants us to know...even Jesus told Nicodemus we're not ready to hear it all....

 

[GodsGrace]

Eternal punishment is eternally sealed destination. We easily think of punishment as pain or torture, but many punishments are exclusions, taking something and not giving it back.

If one suggests eternal life is life without end, eternal punishment will not be life without end but just painful.
Torture is reserved for satan and his followers. This is an interesting emphasis, because it can only be made because the lost will just be burnt up. When you look around at the world and its insanity and crazy attitudes, do you think torture is a just punishment for just being chaff and not caring. It strikes me very clearly, justice is served with people who waste the very gift they are given, it is taken away.

In the numbers game, most will not be with the Lord. Is the lake of fire going to be overflowing with the lost, while the new earth filled with a few who follow the Lord. The lost will be forgotten as if they never existed.

The enemy loves the idea God is interested in torture and has promoted satan as head torturer to get the most pain out of those who deserve it most. Do you think this works with the idea of forgivenss, justice and love?

Some argue that to let sinners get away without punishment, is unjust, except hades is the place of punishment for a time. Punishment also needs to have a purpose, not just to create pain for another, but to give ultimate justice. For those who deny God and cause suffering for others, what more just end, to suffer as they made others suffer, and at then end to lose life in the face of knowing God and what eternal life really means.

God bless you
God bless you

Been thinking about this lately because so many Christians bring this up.
God isn't torturing persons.
There's a place without God and it's the person that decides to go there.
How is that God's fault? It's not.
I don't have my thought together....
Being a just God means He has to remain faithful to Himself....
If He cannot bear sin...then a sinner cannot be with God.
The absence of God is hell....and it's not God that sends people there.
This is all I'm sure of.

 

[GodsGrace]

Know it is your understanding of Calvinism that is faulty.

I just saw this.
What did I say about Calvinism that you believe is faulty?
There's always a slight possibility that it's not presented to you properly....

 

[Papa Zoom]

I've been thinking about the reformed faith since we have a few members here of that belief system.

The more I ponder on the teachings of that world view...the more it seems totally unbelievable and the less
sense it makes.

This morning this came to mind:

God is a sinner.

Why?

God gave us the 10 commandments to follow.
God is a holy God and in Him there is no darkness. 1 John 1:5
He expects us to follow the 10 commandments if we want to be with Him for eternity.

So then why does God sin?

If God decreed, preordained, predestined, predetermined, everything that is to happen to each man, as Calvin taught and the Westminister Confession of Faith teaches....

Then God is CREATING and CAUSING sin and He is thus a sinner.
They that COMMIT, cause, the sin...are the ones sinning.

So, the end result is that God is a sinner and does the very things He tells us not to do.

this idea has been addressed by some of the smartest apologists and theologians we have and they don't always agree. My attitude: believe what system you want but more important is to do as Christ commanded. Love God and others. The place to start. And remember, no one has a perfect theology and that includes Calvinists.

Too many cooks do in fact spoil the soup and too many theologians with differing views have brought confusion into the Faith. It's not helpful for example to have 4 views of hell by 4 different well-trained theologians. If they can't agree, why listen to me on that topic?

Same with any theological system.

Read your Bible, do your best to do what it says. Pray for understanding. Love God, love others. If that's done, you will do well.

I do like Piper and Sproul though. But I am not interested in systems. Better to study the early Church Fathers but beware, they had their problems too!

 

[Mikeyg]

I too am trying to understand the basic points concerning salvation from a Calvinist perspective. Maybe in a very simplified form for illustration purposes, it could be posited as follows:

God created two human beings and decreed that both would hate Him and rebel against Him.

So, given this behavior, they both deserved to suffer eternal damnation.

However, from the start, God’s decree was that one of them, Human A, would in fact be saved.

On the other hand, Human B was always destined to damnation and would not be saved.

For the Calvinist, the amazing and most important thing is that God showed His great mercy and love by saving Human A, who rightfully could have punished for his hatred and rebellion.

Others might say the more important question is why God created Human B in first place in the full knowledge that Human B would have no choice other than to hate God and be punished accordingly.

Calvinists say that we don’t know exactly why God chose A versus B, but that we can be assured that God did it for His good purposes. As humans, we might think that this is “unfair”, but that is based on our limited understanding.

Is this description of the basic structure too simplistic?

 

[Who Me]

I just saw this.
What did I say about Calvinism that you believe is faulty?
There's always a slight possibility that it's not presented to you properly....

You stated Calvinism teaches God is a sinner.
The Bible teaches that God does not sin.
So it follows that your understanding of Calvinism is faulty.

 

[Mikeyg]

You stated Calvinism teaches God is a sinner.
The Bible teaches that God does not sin.
So it follows that your understanding of Calvinism is faulty.

So it could indeed follow that Wondering's understanding of Calvinism is faulty, but it could follow that Calvinism itself is faulty.

 

[Walpole]

I too am trying to understand the basic points concerning salvation from a Calvinist perspective. Maybe in a very simplified form for illustration purposes, it could be posited as follows:

God created two human beings and decreed that both would hate Him and rebel against Him.

So, given this behavior, they both deserved to suffer eternal damnation.

However, from the start, God’s decree was that one of them, Human A, would in fact be saved.

On the other hand, Human B was always destined to damnation and would not be saved.

For the Calvinist, the amazing and most important thing is that God showed His great mercy and love by saving Human A, who rightfully could have punished for his hatred and rebellion.

Others might say the more important question is why God created Human B in first place in the full knowledge that Human B would have no choice other than to hate God and be punished accordingly.

Calvinists say that we don’t know exactly why God chose A versus B, but that we can be assured that God did it for His good purposes. As humans, we might think that this is “unfair”, but that is based on our limited understanding.

Is this description of the basic structure too simplistic?

Calvin taught the poor sap, "Human B" in your example, was only created for the purpose of God to take the pleasure in destroying. (cf. Institutes, 3:21.6) "Human B" was doomed from the womb for destruction and was created for this sole purpose. The emperor has no clothes.

The God of Calvinism is liken to a man who throws his children into a lake and only chooses to save half of them. In Calvinism, God himself is the danger. He does the drowning, he lights the fire. He is nothing more than a re-branded version of the old gods of paganism, where if God likes you, he saves you; if God hates you, you are pulpwood.

This is the complete antithesis of the God of Christianity, who loves man so much He become one and offers salvation to ALL.

 

[GodsGrace]

So it could indeed follow that Wondering's understanding of Calvinism is faulty, but it could follow that Calvinism itself is faulty.

Right.
I'd say, with all confidence, that Calvinism is very faulty.

Because God is Not a sinner.
And Calvin made God to be the biggest sinner of all.

 

[GodsGrace]

You stated Calvinism teaches God is a sinner.
The Bible teaches that God does not sin.
So it follows that your understanding of Calvinism is faulty.

Could you please tead the O.P. again?
I'd say my understanding of Calvinism is 100% correct.

 

[GodsGrace]

this idea has been addressed by some of the smartest apologists and theologians we have and they don't always agree. My attitude: believe what system you want but more important is to do as Christ commanded. Love God and others. The place to start. And remember, no one has a perfect theology and that includes Calvinists.

Too many cooks do in fact spoil the soup and too many theologians with differing views have brought confusion into the Faith. It's not helpful for example to have 4 views of hell by 4 different well-trained theologians. If they can't agree, why listen to me on that topic?

Same with any theological system.

Read your Bible, do your best to do what it says. Pray for understanding. Love God, love others. If that's done, you will do well.

I do like Piper and Sproul though. But I am not interested in systems. Better to study the early Church Fathers but beware, they had their problems too!

I need a keyboard!
Tomorrow....

 

[PaulChristensen]

Right.
I'd say, with all confidence, that Calvinism is very faulty.

Because God is Not a sinner.
And Calvin made God to be the biggest sinner of all.

I am in the process of reading Calvin's commentaries, and what I see is that in the final analysis, according to his teaching, all those who will go to hell will go there because they chose not to believe the Gospel. He says that election and reprobation are mysteries because they belong to the secret counsels of God that have not been revealed to us.

Common sense would tell us that if people had no choice about whether they could believe the Gospel or not, they would have a valid defence at the Judgment. But because the invitation to believe the Gospel is open to all, and all have equal opportunity to believe or disbelieve the Gospel, then at the Judgment, a person will be Judged on his own acts and not anything where he had no choice.

Calvin's systematic theology is no worse than any other imperfect theologian's. Every one has their faults. Paul's view of "prophecy" included preaching and teaching, and he taught that it should be judged - tested against God's Word in the Scriptures.

If we are to understand Calvin more fully, we need to read what he actually says, rather than what commentators say about his teaching, and we have to compare his teaching with the written Scriptures, and extract the good bits out of it, like we have to do with all Bible teaching from any theologian or commentator.

Cults are formed and believers deceived because they take a religious teacher at face value and don't "search the Scriptures to see if these things be so".

 

[GodsGrace]

I am in the process of reading Calvin's commentaries, and what I see is that in the final analysis, according to his teaching, all those who will go to hell will go there because they chose not to believe the Gospel. He says that election and reprobation are mysteries because they belong to the secret counsels of God that have not been revealed to us.

Common sense would tell us that if people had no choice about whether they could believe the Gospel or not, they would have a valid defence at the Judgment. But because the invitation to believe the Gospel is open to all, and all have equal opportunity to believe or disbelieve the Gospel, then at the Judgment, a person will be Judged on his own acts and not anything where he had no choice.

Calvin's systematic theology is no worse than any other imperfect theologian's. Every one has their faults. Paul's view of "prophecy" included preaching and teaching, and he taught that it should be judged - tested against God's Word in the Scriptures.

If we are to understand Calvin more fully, we need to read what he actually says, rather than what commentators say about his teaching, and we have to compare his teaching with the written Scriptures, and extract the good bits out of it, like we have to do with all Bible teaching from any theologian or commentator.

Cults are formed and believers deceived because they take a religious teacher at face value and don't "search the Scriptures to see if these things be so".

No keyboard!!
Will reply tomorrow
BUT
I base my statements on Calvin's writings.
Institutes of the Christian Religion.
Look forward to discussing it with you.

 

[GodsGrace]

I am in the process of reading Calvin's commentaries, and what I see is that in the final analysis, according to his teaching, all those who will go to hell will go there because they chose not to believe the Gospel. He says that election and reprobation are mysteries because they belong to the secret counsels of God that have not been revealed to us.

Hi Paul,
You touched on different topics here.
I'll say that I don't understand how you come to this conclusion:
according to his teaching, all those who will go to hell will go there because they chose not to believe the Gospel.

We need to understand some basic beliefs of the reformed faith. I am sometimes told that I don't understand Calvinism...I know that some do not believe everything Calvin wrote, but if one is to call themselves a Calvinist, they can't hold me responsible if THEY do not understand what he wrote.

Some churches have softened the message somewhat because the truth is so hard to accept. The truth does not represent the God we know from scripture...a loving, merciful and just God. Or, they feel superior in some way because they are able to accept that God and other Christians must be less mature because they cannot. Instead the reason other Christians cannot accept the Calvinist God is because those beliefs simply change the character of God.

So,,,belief number 1 regarding your statement I highlighted....
According to Calvin,,,those who go to hell will go there because they were "passed over" and were not selected for salvation.
Some will argue against this stating that God did not choose the lost, only the saved...but, by necesssity,,,He also chose the lost.

By predestination we mean the eternal decree of God, by which he determined with himself whatever he wished to happen with regard to every man. All are not created on equal terms, but some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and, accordingly, as each has been created for one or other of these ends, we say that he has been predestinated to life or to death.

source: Institutes of the Christian Religion Book 3 Chapter 21 Paragraph 5

I think the above makes it very clear what Calvin taught...

Common sense would tell us that if people had no choice about whether they could believe the Gospel or not, they would have a valid defence at the Judgment. But because the invitation to believe the Gospel is open to all, and all have equal opportunity to believe or disbelieve the Gospel, then at the Judgment, a person will be Judged on his own acts and not anything where he had no choice.

Amen to that!
But it certainly is not what Calvinism teaches...

Calvin's systematic theology is no worse than any other imperfect theologian's. Every one has their faults. Paul's view of "prophecy" included preaching and teaching, and he taught that it should be judged - tested against God's Word in the Scriptures.

Amen again.
There is no denomination that has everything 100% correct...however, can we agree that true Calvinism changes the nature of God?

Isn't this worse than teaching an incorrect doctrine?
I'm sure we all believe a doctrine that is not correct.

If we are to understand Calvin more fully, we need to read what he actually says, rather than what commentators say about his teaching, and we have to compare his teaching with the written Scriptures, and extract the good bits out of it, like we have to do with all Bible teaching from any theologian or commentator.

Cults are formed and believers deceived because they take a religious teacher at face value and don't "search the Scriptures to see if these things be so".

This is what I do.
I don't listen to teachers to come to what I believe.
I like to read the N.T. and see what Jesus and the other writers had to say.
Teachers, I should say however, are necessary to learn a lot..for instance, I learned a lot of Christian history from teachers.
You posted somewhere that you like the Early Church Fathers (I think) I also agree with you there.
Those that come directly after Jesus...the Apostles and those they taught and maybe the next generation..are the persons we should be looking to for direction.

You also mentioned that you like Piper and Sproul...
Ditto...I believe they are very good at explaining scripture.
I'm sorry they get lost at times trying to explain, for instance,
how God created EVERYTHING,,,, and yet we cannot say that God is responsible for our sins and not us.

This would go back to what you said just above about responsibility for our actions....
We cannot be responsible for what God predestined us to do.

 

[PaulChristensen]

Hi Paul,
You touched on different topics here.
I'll say that I don't understand how you come to this conclusion:
according to his teaching, all those who will go to hell will go there because they chose not to believe the Gospel.

We need to understand some basic beliefs of the reformed faith. I am sometimes told that I don't understand Calvinism...I know that some do not believe everything Calvin wrote, but if one is to call themselves a Calvinist, they can't hold me responsible if THEY do not understand what he wrote.

Some churches have softened the message somewhat because the truth is so hard to accept. The truth does not represent the God we know from scripture...a loving, merciful and just God. Or, they feel superior in some way because they are able to accept that God and other Christians must be less mature because they cannot. Instead the reason other Christians cannot accept the Calvinist God is because those beliefs simply change the character of God.

So,,,belief number 1 regarding your statement I highlighted....
According to Calvin,,,those who go to hell will go there because they were "passed over" and were not selected for salvation.
Some will argue against this stating that God did not choose the lost, only the saved...but, by necesssity,,,He also chose the lost.

By predestination we mean the eternal decree of God, by which he determined with himself whatever he wished to happen with regard to every man. All are not created on equal terms, but some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and, accordingly, as each has been created for one or other of these ends, we say that he has been predestinated to life or to death.

source: Institutes of the Christian Religion Book 3 Chapter 21 Paragraph 5

I think the above makes it very clear what Calvin taught...





Amen to that!
But it certainly is not what Calvinism teaches...



Amen again.
There is no denomination that has everything 100% correct...however, can we agree that true Calvinism changes the nature of God?

Isn't this worse than teaching an incorrect doctrine?
I'm sure we all believe a doctrine that is not correct.


This is what I do.
I don't listen to teachers to come to what I believe.
I like to read the N.T. and see what Jesus and the other writers had to say.
Teachers, I should say however, are necessary to learn a lot..for instance, I learned a lot of Christian history from teachers.
You posted somewhere that you like the Early Church Fathers (I think) I also agree with you there.
Those that come directly after Jesus...the Apostles and those they taught and maybe the next generation..are the persons we should be looking to for direction.

You also mentioned that you like Piper and Sproul...
Ditto...I believe they are very good at explaining scripture.
I'm sorry they get lost at times trying to explain, for instance,
how God created EVERYTHING,,,, and yet we cannot say that God is responsible for our sins and not us.

This would go back to what you said just above about responsibility for our actions....
We cannot be responsible for what God predestined us to do.

I'll respond to your last sentence. You are correct. If the responsibility is taken from us through predestination, then the unsaved person has a valid defence in the Judgment, in the same way that a person commits a criminal act by duress being forced to do it at gunpoint, cannot be found guilty in a court of law.

The only place where the Bible uses "predestine" is the verse that says that the converted Christian is predestined to be conformed to the image of Christ.

Charles Spurgeon, the Calvinist preacher said that is important to preach the Gospel and urge unsaved listeners to turn to Christ and be converted first, and then deal with "election", rather than try to determine whether a person is "elected" first before giving them the invitation to believe the Gospel.

I don't think that Calvin knew the real answer to predestination and election. He viewed Scriptures that implied that God chose who was going to be saved before the foundation of the world ("you did not choose me, I chose you" for example). But then he viewed Scriptures that told of the free invitation to all to believe the Gospel and turn to Christ as Saviour.

So, the difficulty is that an unsaved person freely decides to believe the Gospel and turns to Christ, and then finds out that he was "elected" all along. Or was it the fact that he turned to Christ that he became "elected"? It is right back to the chicken and the egg - which came first originally.

Then Peter brings up the concept of the foreknowledge of God - that God knew who were going to turn to Christ before He created the universe.

I think that with the information that was before him, Calvin decided more on the side of predetermination (a word that is not in the Bible) of who was going to be saved or lost.

His view was that because of Adam's sin, every human being was under condemnation anyway, so God would not be doing anything wrong by not saving anyone, therefore to select a group to be saved is an expression of God's wonderful grace.

I don't believe that Calvin taught that God deliberately sends people to hell. He taught that they were going there anyway because of their rebellion against God because of Adam's original disobedience and rebellion. All God does was to allow them to go the way they choose without doing anything to stop them.

But through His grace, He sent Jesus into the world and through the Gospel gave an invitation to all that anyone who comes to Jesus will be saved. The complication that Calvin introduces is that one cannot believe the Gospel because he is blinded to it, until the Holy Spirit enlightens him, and the Holy Spirit enlightens those who were "elected" from the foundation of the world.

So, I think that Calvin has introduced more questions than answers in his teaching. My view in the face of this is that God, through His omniscience knew all those were and are going to believe the Gospel and trust in Christ if the Holy Spirit enlightened them, so all He had to do was to enlighten the ones who He knew were going to believe. In that sense He elected all those He already knew were going to choose to believe the gospel.

After reading all the Scriptures involved, then that is the only conclusion I can come to.

 

[GodsGrace]

I'll respond to your last sentence. You are correct. If the responsibility is taken from us through predestination, then the unsaved person has a valid defence in the Judgment, in the same way that a person commits a criminal act by duress being forced to do it at gunpoint, cannot be found guilty in a court of law.

Right. God is a just God and if we're to spend our time in hell, then it should be our choice and certainly not God's.

The only place where the Bible uses "predestine" is the verse that says that the converted Christian is predestined to be conformed to the image of Christ.

Agreed. This is so important because many take predestined to mean that God predestined everything....
even man's salvation....and, as I stated in the O.P.,,,,this would make God the biggest sinner of all since He also determined the sins we commit.

What is predestined is HOW we're saved and not WHO is saved.
We were predestined before time to be saved IN CHRIST.
Agreed.

Charles Spurgeon, the Calvinist preacher said that is important to preach the Gospel and urge unsaved listeners to turn to Christ and be converted first, and then deal with "election", rather than try to determine whether a person is "elected" first before giving them the invitation to believe the Gospel.

Elect just means chosen.
To elect someone, like the President, is to choose from among persons.
God chooses us but based on our desire to be saved and to follow His commandments.

I must say, however, that I don't understand the joy in proclaiming the gospel to someone IF, as a high calvinist would believe, it's not even up to the person to become saved!

I believe we have a thread on this.
I'll check.

I don't think that Calvin knew the real answer to predestination and election. He viewed Scriptures that implied that God chose who was going to be saved before the foundation of the world ("you did not choose me, I chose you" for example). But then he viewed Scriptures that told of the free invitation to all to believe the Gospel and turn to Christ as Saviour.

Hmmm. I don't think we could agree here.
Did you see what I quoted?
He followed what Augustine believed....400 AD or so.
NO ONE before Augustine ever thought of predestination because, actually, it's not in the N.T.
Augustine was a gnostic manechaen for about 10 years and took some ideas with him to Christianity.
Guess it's difficult to let go of everything.
The church at that time really appreciated him because he was very good at debating and the Pelagius debate was going on.
But, alas, even the Catholic Church does not believe in predestination.
This is something high calvinists should ponder.

As to I Chose You , You didn't choose Me...
That would be John 15:16
Jesus was speaking to the Apostles.....
He did, in fact, choose the 12 Apostles.

So, the difficulty is that an unsaved person freely decides to believe the Gospel and turns to Christ, and then finds out that he was "elected" all along. Or was it the fact that he turned to Christ that he became "elected"? It is right back to the chicken and the egg - which came first originally.

Yes,,,God knew all along we would choose Him, but this is foreknowledge.
Nothing could be more clear than John 3:16
Whoever believes in Jesus will be saved....

Then Peter brings up the concept of the foreknowledge of God - that God knew who were going to turn to Christ before He created the universe.

I think that with the information that was before him, Calvin decided more on the side of predetermination (a word that is not in the Bible) of who was going to be saved or lost.

Just want to say that foreknowledge is not causal.
Because we know something is going to happen,,,does not cause it to happen.
It was going to happen anyway and no matter what...
we just knew about it.

His view was that because of Adam's sin, every human being was under condemnation anyway, so God would not be doing anything wrong by not saving anyone, therefore to select a group to be saved is an expression of God's wonderful grace.

Yes, I understand this line of reasoning.
But it's not correct reasoning.
God's wonderful grace will give to everyone the opportunity to be saved (if they want to be).
If I have the power/ability to save every person drowning....
and I only pick out 10...
how is that wonderful grace??
Wonderful grace is if I save all....
At least those that have their arm up and want to be saved.

Also, did you ever consider this?
If God predetermined everything, including Adam's sin...
why are WE responsible for it???

I don't believe that Calvin taught that God deliberately sends people to hell. He taught that they were going there anyway because of their rebellion against God because of Adam's original disobedience and rebellion. All God does was to allow them to go the way they choose without doing anything to stop them.

Sure...except they didn't choose (according to Calvin).
According to him...GOD did all the choosing.
What you're saying above every Christian agrees with.
God does not force anyone to do anything,,,but allows them to go their way.
This goes back to your statement about how we are not robots.
Which, of course, is the way God planned it.
Why would God want robots worshipping Him?

But through His grace, He sent Jesus into the world and through the Gospel gave an invitation to all that anyone who comes to Jesus will be saved. The complication that Calvin introduces is that one cannot believe the Gospel because he is blinded to it, until the Holy Spirit enlightens him, and the Holy Spirit enlightens those who were "elected" from the foundation of the world.

God was making Himself be known to man even before the gospel and also to many that did not have the gospel.
Romans 1:19-20
18For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,
19because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.
20For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

Man will be without excuse if he denies God because God made Himself be revealed to mankind,,,whether or not they had the bible. God made Himself be known by what He created...His power, attributes and divine nature were always known to those that wished to know God.

If we read 1 Corinthians 2:14 it says that the natural man cannot understand t he things of the Spirit,,,nor can he accept them.
This is true...to understand the Spirit we must have the spirit within us and be enlightened by Him.

The question is: HOW do we come to receive the Holy Spirit (not whether or not we understand Him).
Of course the non-believer cannot understand God.
But how does one become saved?
John 3:16 tells us how.

So, I think that Calvin has introduced more questions than answers in his teaching. My view in the face of this is that God, through His omniscience knew all those were and are going to believe the Gospel and trust in Christ if the Holy Spirit enlightened them, so all He had to do was to enlighten the ones who He knew were going to believe. In that sense He elected all those He already knew were going to choose to believe the gospel.

After reading all the Scriptures involved, then that is the only conclusion I can come to.

We need to understand God in some way or other.
I find that true Calvinists change the nature of God and this is disturbing to me.
If God predestined everything, then He also predestined every murder and every act of child abuse that is taking place right now.
This I cannot accept as I believe you will also agree.

Well, nice conversation,
A good exchange of ideas with no fireworks....