Calvinism

[stovebolts]

Well Red, like I said, this is the General section of the Forums, not Apologetics…

And it’s really kind of a shame that in every post, you seem to plant seeds of doubt of others; to enforce your own sense of certainty. I don’t need to highlight them… it really wouldn’t serve any purpose that I could think of anyway that’s really worth a hoot and the readers of this thread can decide for themselves where they stand.

I must say though, that I’ve really been thinking about a few things these last few weeks in regard to this whole predestination, election thingy you seem to promote. Let me ask you, and I truly hope that you will answer me honestly (and no, I’m not out to lock horns with you). What purpose does this whole election stance that you hold serve?

The way I understand it, is that we have been blessed so that we can be a blessing to those around us. Look at what Isaiah has to say as to why the people were choosen by God. Isaiah 42:6-7 I the LORD have called thee in righteousness, and will hold thine hand, and will keep thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles; To open the blind eyes, to bring out the prisoners from the prison, and them that sit in darkness out of the prison house.

To open the blind eyes… who opens the blind eyes?... Philippians 4:13 I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me.

Furthermore, it is grace THROUGH faith (eph 2:8)[the word ‘through’ here, in the greek, is literally an Instrument, thus, our faith is the instrument of God’s grace], while the purpose remains constant, and that is to do the works of our Lord, which is to be a light for the lost; thus; Matthew 5:16 Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven. Emphasised by Philippians 4:13's I through Christ.

The entire history of the Church is a beautiful picture of God working his wonders. I am reminded by these verses; (this is God talking to the Nation Israel)
Ezekiel 16:7-14 I have caused thee to multiply as the bud of the field, and thou hast increased and waxen great, and thou art come to excellent ornaments: thy breasts are fashioned, and thine hair is grown, whereas thou wast naked and bare. Now when I passed by thee, and looked upon thee, behold, thy time was the time of love; and I spread my skirt over thee, and covered thy nakedness: yea, I sware unto thee, and entered into a covenant with thee, saith the Lord GOD, and thou becamest mine. Then washed I thee with water; yea, I throughly washed away thy blood from thee, and I anointed thee with oil. I clothed thee also with broidered work, and shod thee with badgers' skin, and I girded thee about with fine linen, and I covered thee with silk. I decked thee also with ornaments, and I put bracelets upon thy hands, and a chain on thy neck. And I put a jewel on thy forehead, and earrings in thine ears, and a beautiful crown upon thine head. Thus wast thou decked with gold and silver; and thy raiment was of fine linen, and silk, and broidered work; thou didst eat fine flour, and honey, and oil: and thou wast exceeding beautiful, and thou didst prosper into a kingdom. And thy renown went forth among the heathen for thy beauty: for it was perfect through my comeliness, which I had put upon thee, saith the Lord GOD.

And I am left asking, why did God make the church such a beautiful entity? Was it so she could flaunt her righteousness in front of the world? No, it was so she could attract the nations around her. But she used her beauty for self gain and prostituted herself for personal gain and stature are documented in the remaining verses.

The Bible was written to encompass a story and it is a great story which is full of hope for the lost and assurance for helpless. To parse it any other way is to take away the hope of the nations and the people that it was truly intended for.

I hope that you have not found me argumentative, for it is not my mission to argue. I simply don’t understand your definitive line in the sand from a biblical perspective.

 

[lovely]

Hey Noc,

I found your post very truthful, and an echo of my own heart on the matter. The Lord bless you.

 

[Guest]

Why does God determine all His creatures and all their actions?
Romans 9:21-23

It really is that simple.

Soli Deo Gloria
Red Beetle

 

[Drew]

It is not really "that simple"

Here is the text in question:

"Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use? What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrathâ€â€prepared for destruction? What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory"

All this text justifies is a claim that God does indeed direct His created order, including the wills of human persons, towards some goal or purpose. It does not jutify that this control is complete - that He determines all the actions of all creatures at all times. It is not at all obvious that achieving certain goals requires this kind of complete determination. In fact, I believe that I have clearly shown that it is not for some simple hypothetical example "systems".

We need to have more support for any case that God fully determines the actions of all His creatures.

 

[stovebolts]

Well Red,
Maybe this is another area that we will not see eye to eye on. Here's why. When I look at scripture, I try and take a theological view at it. This isn't easy sometimes and I'm not going to say that I'm even close to mastering it. But all things taken into account, the larger ones foundation, the more likely ones theology will stand.

When we look at the verse you posted, does your theology take into account these items?
1. Whence?
a. Sources (Oral traditions or written sources i.e. Jawist Source, Priestly source, Apostolic source or disciples)
b. Historical Author or Sender
2. What / What about?
a. The World of the Text (Implied author <-> Implied Receiver)
3. Whither
a. The World in front of the Text
b. Historical Receiver (Israel, Southern Kingdom, Church in Rome Theophilus etc)
c. Interpreter (Rabbis, School of Alexandria, Augustine, Luther, Calvin etc)

So far (and it’s simply my opinion) the only difference between what I hear you saying in regard to salvation (which is my own interpretation and may be skewed or misunderstood, so please take this into account) but the only difference between what I hear you saying, and what I’ve heard the Universalists say, is that the Universalists say that All mankind goes to heaven; the whole kitten kabootal. (some even say Satan goes to heaven) while your approach seems to say that this crowd on the right goes to heaven and this crowd on the left doesn’t. And ohh, by the way, there isn’t anything anyone can do either way to change that. If I have misunderstood, please let me know.

Now, can you provide us an exegesis based on the 3 above mentioned qualities that agree with your inference?

Peace and Much thanks,
Jeff

 

[JM]

Quotations taken from: http://www.5solas.org/media.php?id=553
_____________________
The power of God is God:

* Hebrews 1:3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;
Exodus 15:6 Thy right hand, O LORD, is become glorious in power: thy right hand, O LORD, hath dashed in pieces the enemy.
Numbers 14:17-18 And now, I beseech thee, let the power of my LORD be great, according as thou hast spoken, saying, {18} The LORD is longsuffering, and of great mercy, forgiving iniquity and transgression, and by no means clearing the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation.
2 Samuel 22:33 God is my strength and power: And he maketh my way perfect.

This power of God is Jesus Christ:

* 1 Corinthians 1:23-24 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; {24} But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.

The Christian life is lacking when the power of God is only praised for good. In everything we are to give thanks. This includes good, evil, righteousness, and sin. This concept is foreign to many because the nature of man gravitates toward likening God to man:

Psalms 50:21 These things hast thou done, and I kept silence; thou thoughtest that I was altogether such an one as thyself: but I will reprove thee, and set them in order before thine eyes.

Revelation 4:11 Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.

Do we really include all things as we consider this passage and sing so many songs that use this verse? Some try to say that sin is not a thing. What is sin if it is not a thing? To identify something as a thing does not mean it has to be material. The Bible speaks of immaterial things:

Colossians 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

Isaiah 46:9-11 Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me, {10} Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure: {11} Calling a ravenous bird from the east, the man that executeth my counsel from a far country: yea, I have spoken it, I will also bring it to pass; I have purposed it, I will also do it.

God has declared the end from the beginning. Nothing was left undone. Nothing was decreed after an event. To say otherwise would be to deny the omniscience of God. Not only did God declare the end from the beginning, He also promised to bring it to pass and to do it. "Do it" is not an act of permission but commission.

Proverbs 16:4 The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.

God created all things, sin and righteousness for Himself. This is the purpose of all creation: to bring glory to God. God created the wicked to be damned.

Jude 1:4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.

This passage clearly teaches they were ordained for condemnation. God planned or decreed that certain men would be damned for eternity.

Romans 9:22-23 What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: {23} And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,

There are some who have correctly analyzed the use of the passive voice for the word "fitted" and the active voice for the word "prepared." A faulty analysis of the "passive" voice is made when associating the "passiveness" with God. The truth that the phrase is conveying is diametrically opposed to that imagination. The passive voice is used to describe the passiveness of the vessel of destruction. That is, the vessel of destruction is passively having to receive the decree and hardening of God upon their hearts. Otherwise, vv. 18,19 would not make any sense in the context:

Romans 9:18-19 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. {19} Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?

Incidentally, the command to Pharaoh was, "Let my people go." Sin is disobedience to God. To disobey God's command would be sin. For Pharaoh to not hearken to the command of God to let the children of Israel go would be to sin and rebel against God. There is no contention here among all positions. The issue is clarified in God's explicit statement to Moses:

Exodus 4:21-23 And the LORD said unto Moses, When thou goest to return into Egypt, see that thou do all those wonders before Pharaoh, which I have put in thine hand: but I will harden his heart, that he shall not let the people go. {22} And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD, Israel is my son, even my firstborn: {23} And I say unto thee, Let my son go, that he may serve me: and if thou refuse to let him go, behold, I will slay thy son, even thy firstborn.

There is no mistaking the fact that God caused Pharaoh to sin. But before we ascribe evil to God, we must ask two essential questions: Does God have the right and does God have a purpose? No true Christian would deny the fact that God has a right to do whatever He pleases. This is certainly Scriptural:

Psalms 115:3 But our God is in the heavens: he hath done whatsoever he hath pleased.
Psalms 135:6 Whatsoever the LORD pleased, that did he in heaven, and in earth, in the seas, and all deep places.
Daniel 4:35 And all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing: and he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou?

Romans 9:20-21 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? {21} Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

We could close the case here, but there are far too many Scriptural jewels we would overlook in doing so.

Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

Some try to make the distinction between moral evil and natural calamity in their analysis of this verse. However, this view simply will not harmonize with the rest of Scripture for two reasons: First, the word for evil is the identical Hebrew word used in these passages:

Genesis 2:9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
Genesis 6:5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

These passages elucidate the fact that good and evil are contrasted. Certainly moral evil is that to which the writer of Genesis is referring. This in and of itself, however, does not prove our point. But Lamentations certainly does:

Lamentations 3:37-38 Who is he that saith, and it cometh to pass, when the Lord commandeth it not? {38} Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good?

God's sovereignty over the will of man is seen in vs. 37. To clarify the sense of the verse, the writer is saying, "Who is the one that says 'It shall come to pass,' when the Lord has not ordained it to come to pass?" In other words, regardless of man's counsel, only God's counsel stands:

Psalms 33:10-11 The LORD bringeth the counsel of the heathen to nought: he maketh the devices of the people of none effect. {11} The counsel of the LORD standeth for ever, the thoughts of his heart to all generations.

Lamentations 3:38 is especially apparent:

Lamentations 3:38 Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good?

Even Job recognized this after Satan had taken his property, his children and had given him boils:

Job 2:10 But he said unto her, Thou speakest as one of the foolish women speaketh. What? shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil? In all this did not Job sin with his lips.

Certainly Satan's acts are all morally evil. Job said this came from the hand of the Lord. The moral evil Satan committed was from the hand of the Lord. This idea is very pronounced in a comparison of Samuel and Chronicles:

2 Samuel 24:1 And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and He moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah.
1 Chronicles 21:1 And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel. cf. Job 1,2

Compare the two clauses:

"Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel"
"…the LORD was kindled against Israel, and He moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel"

The question is not who did it, but rather, who controls whom. Satan was a piece of wicked clay that God created to do whatever He wanted:

Job 26:6-14 Hell is naked before him, and destruction hath no covering. {7} He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing. {8} He bindeth up the waters in his thick clouds; and the cloud is not rent under them. {9} He holdeth back the face of his throne, and spreadeth his cloud upon it. {10} He hath compassed the waters with bounds, until the day and night come to an end. {11} The pillars of heaven tremble and are astonished at his reproof. {12} He divideth the sea with his power, and by his understanding he smiteth through the proud. {13} By his spirit he hath garnished the heavens; his hand hath formed the crooked serpent. {14} Lo, these are parts of his ways: but how little a portion is heard of him? but the thunder of his power who can understand?

Notice that God formed the crooked serpent.

Ecclesiastes 7:13 Consider the work of God: for who can make that straight, which he hath made crooked?

From what we have studied so far, it is clear that God creates men wicked for the purpose of condemning them. The reasons are as follows: First, so that God would show His power and that His name would be declared in all the earth. The second reason is found in Romans 9, that ever-so-faithful passage that will always convince me of the supralapsarian position so long as it is in the Bible:

Romans 9:22-23 What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: {23} And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,

Peace,

~JM~

 

[christian_soldier]

Well Red, like I said, this is the General section of the Forums, not Apologetics…

And it’s really kind of a shame that in every post, you seem to plant seeds of doubt of others; to enforce your own sense of certainty. I don’t need to highlight them… it really wouldn’t serve any purpose that I could think of anyway that’s really worth a hoot and the readers of this thread can decide for themselves where they stand.

I must say though, that I’ve really been thinking about a few things these last few weeks in regard to this whole predestination, election thingy you seem to promote. Let me ask you, and I truly hope that you will answer me honestly (and no, I’m not out to lock horns with you). What purpose does this whole election stance that you hold serve?

The way I understand it, is that we have been blessed so that we can be a blessing to those around us. Look at what Isaiah has to say as to why the people were choosen by God. Isaiah 42:6-7 I the LORD have called thee in righteousness, and will hold thine hand, and will keep thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles; To open the blind eyes, to bring out the prisoners from the prison, and them that sit in darkness out of the prison house.

To open the blind eyes… who opens the blind eyes?... Philippians 4:13 I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me.

Furthermore, it is grace THROUGH faith (eph 2:8)[the word ‘through’ here, in the greek, is literally an Instrument, thus, our faith is the instrument of God’s grace], while the purpose remains constant, and that is to do the works of our Lord, which is to be a light for the lost; thus; Matthew 5:16 Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven. Emphasised by Philippians 4:13's I through Christ.

The entire history of the Church is a beautiful picture of God working his wonders. I am reminded by these verses; (this is God talking to the Nation Israel)
Ezekiel 16:7-14 I have caused thee to multiply as the bud of the field, and thou hast increased and waxen great, and thou art come to excellent ornaments: thy breasts are fashioned, and thine hair is grown, whereas thou wast naked and bare. Now when I passed by thee, and looked upon thee, behold, thy time was the time of love; and I spread my skirt over thee, and covered thy nakedness: yea, I sware unto thee, and entered into a covenant with thee, saith the Lord GOD, and thou becamest mine. Then washed I thee with water; yea, I throughly washed away thy blood from thee, and I anointed thee with oil. I clothed thee also with broidered work, and shod thee with badgers' skin, and I girded thee about with fine linen, and I covered thee with silk. I decked thee also with ornaments, and I put bracelets upon thy hands, and a chain on thy neck. And I put a jewel on thy forehead, and earrings in thine ears, and a beautiful crown upon thine head. Thus wast thou decked with gold and silver; and thy raiment was of fine linen, and silk, and broidered work; thou didst eat fine flour, and honey, and oil: and thou wast exceeding beautiful, and thou didst prosper into a kingdom. And thy renown went forth among the heathen for thy beauty: for it was perfect through my comeliness, which I had put upon thee, saith the Lord GOD.

And I am left asking, why did God make the church such a beautiful entity? Was it so she could flaunt her righteousness in front of the world? No, it was so she could attract the nations around her. But she used her beauty for self gain and prostituted herself for personal gain and stature are documented in the remaining verses.

The Bible was written to encompass a story and it is a great story which is full of hope for the lost and assurance for helpless. To parse it any other way is to take away the hope of the nations and the people that it was truly intended for.

I hope that you have not found me argumentative, for it is not my mission to argue. I simply don’t understand your definitive line in the sand from a biblical perspective.

SB

For reasons I don't fully grasp, but deem to be not of God, Calvin sneers in the face of God and cheapens the Sacrifice and Resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him. For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life.

Romans 5:9,10 NASB

 

[stovebolts]

CS,
Thank you kindly for your last comment.

JM,
I don’t like the way that’s redacted. Kyril used to call that kind of threading of scripture witch craft… I almost agree because although it expresses an idea, it’s theologically empty. Besides, it’s always dangerous to base any core doctrine from the wisdom literature and I still believe that the central theme of Job is having a God that is worthy to be praised and worshipped under any circumstance. Other than that, Job is an interesting study in Apologetics and discernment.

Anyway…I wasn’t going to post this, but ohh well. Hope my fingers hold out…

This is Zondervan’s Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary
Volume 3
Clinton E. Arnold General Editor.

Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated Romans 9:13

This famous -- and difficult! -- quotation is from Malachi 1:2-3. A quick glance at Malachi reveals that the prophet is not talking about the individuals Jacob and Esau. He is using these names to refer to the nations founded by these individuals: Israel and Edom, respectively. The words that come immediately before the texts that Paul quotes in Romans 9:12 (Gen. 25:23) move in the same direction: “Two peoples from within you will be separated; one people will be stronger than the other, and the older will serve the younger.â€Â

With this Old Testament background in view, many scholars think Paul is speaking throughout this chapter about God’s calling of nations and their place in his plan of salvation. He is notâ€â€ass o many interpreters have thought – teaching anything about the salvation of individuals. The Old Testament context of Paul’s quotations forces us to recon seriously with the possibility that Paul’s focus on the identity of God’s chi8ldren (9:7-9, 29); the contrast between wrath and glory in 9:22-23; and the whole point of the discussion, which is to demonstrate which people from within the single nation of Israel are really chosen by God. Probably, then, Paul is choosing Old Testament texts about God’s sovereign and gracious election to illustrate the point about the salvation of individuals that is the heart of Romans 9. (*87)

The verb “love†and “hate†in Malachi are covenantal terms. They do not express God’s emotions about Israel and Edom but his actions with respect to them. We might paraphrase, “Jacob I have chosen, but Esau I have rejected.â€Â

END>>>>>>>

Now, I could go into my Paul House OT Theology book and substantiate this claim… But I do believe this gives us a good starting point. Perhaps we can all later get together and discuss Romans 9:21-23 and break out the ol 2 Maccabees 6:12-14 texts lol! Wa hoo, wouldn’t that just be a hoot now!

 

[Guest]

Steve Bolts wrote:

When we look at the verse you posted, does your theology take into account these items?
1. Whence?
a. Sources (Oral traditions or written sources i.e. Jawist Source, Priestly source, Apostolic source or disciples)
b. Historical Author or Sender
2. What / What about?
a. The World of the Text (Implied author <-> Implied Receiver)
3. Whither
a. The World in front of the Text
b. Historical Receiver (Israel, Southern Kingdom, Church in Rome Theophilus etc)
c. Interpreter (Rabbis, School of Alexandria, Augustine, Luther, Calvin etc)

Sorry Steve, but Calvinism does not use oral tradition or Rabbis when it comes to the development of systemic doctrine.
Your style is a bit too eclectic.

Calvinism starts with the 66 Books of the Protestant Bible as its axiom, then explicitly states or logically deduces its doctrine. I refer you to the Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 1. I would go on to give the article, but after seeing the confusion of your hermeneutical principles I would suggest you read the entire first chapter of the Westminster Confession several times slowly.

the Universalists say that All mankind goes to heaven; the whole kitten kabootal. (some even say Satan goes to heaven) while your approach seems to say that this crowd on the right goes to heaven and this crowd on the left doesn’t. And ohh, by the way, there isn’t anything anyone can do either way to change that. If I have misunderstood, please let me know.

The Westminster Confession of Faith states, "(3)By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men and angels are predestined unto evelasting life; and others foreordained to everlasting death. (4)These angels and men, thus predestinated, and foreordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed, and their number so certain and definite, that it cannot be either increased or diminished" WCF, Chapter III, articles 3&4).

One thing is for sure, not only is Calvinism over your head, but you guys can't handle those pesky Universalist's either, who claim that all will be saved.
You see, when a person claims that God is omnipotent, and then he claims that God desires the salvation of every single human who will ever live, then the logical and necessary conclusion is that all will be saved.

1)
All omnipotent beings are beings who always accomplish their desires
God is an omnipotent being
Therefore, God is a being who always accomplishes his desires
(Job 23:13, Psalm 115:3)

2)
All omnipotent beings who desire the salvation of every single individual human who will ever live are beings who save every single individual human who will ever live

The God of the Bible is an omnipotent being who desires the salvation of every single individual human who will ever live (Typical Arminianism)

Therefore, The God of the Bible is a being who saves every single individual human who will ever live
(This is the heresy of universalism and is no where taught in Scripture. The Bible teaches that God only desires to save His elect, and the rest He sends to hell, and all for His glory: Romans 9:13-23)

The only hope for the Arminian is to posit a theory of free will, but then he must define free will, then show where the notion is taught in Scripture. I hope you can do better than your buddies. They have all failed miserably.

Only Calvinism can consistently explain these things.
Soli Deo Gloria
Red Beetle



God is a being who desires the salvation of every human who will ever live (Arminian claim)
Therefore, God is a being who

 

[Vic C.]

I guess Peter was wrong when he said:

2 Peter 3
9 ¶ The Lord of the promise is not slow, as some deem slowness, but is long-suffering toward us, not having purposed any to perish, but all to come to repentance. (litv)

Jeff, you said:

The way I understand it, is that we have been blessed so that we can be a blessing to those around us. Look at what Isaiah has to say as to why the people were choosen by God. Isaiah 42:6-7 I the LORD have called thee in righteousness, and will hold thine hand, and will keep thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles; To open the blind eyes, to bring out the prisoners from the prison, and them that sit in darkness out of the prison house.

Read that in light of what it says in Luke 18:7, Romans 9:21-23 and Jeremiah 18:4-6.

Furthermore, it is grace THROUGH faith (eph 2:8)[the word ‘through’ here, in the greek, is literally an Instrument, thus, our faith is the instrument of God’s grace], while the purpose remains constant, and that is to do the works of our Lord, which is to be a light for the lost; thus; Matthew 5:16 Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven. Emphasised by Philippians 4:13's I through Christ.

I agree Jeff.

Questions to think about...

Is Man totally depraved in light of Genesis 1:27 and Genesis 1:31?

Was there no free choice in light of Genesis 2:17, Genesis 3:6 and Genesis 4:7?

 

[Drew]

The only hope for the Arminian is to posit a theory of free will, but then he must define free will, then show where the notion is taught in Scripture. I hope you can do better than your buddies. They have all failed miserably.

RB, you wouldn't be trying to deflect attention from your failed arguments for full on determinsm by placing a burden on others to prove free will, would you?

In case you are referring to me as one of the "buddies", I will point out something a reader who has been following the other threads will already know.

I never claimed to be prepared to provide a Biblical defence for free will. Does this mean that I cannot critique arguments for God's full determinism? Let the reader answer that one for themselves.

All omnipotent beings are beings who always accomplish their desires

Although this does indeed confer a challenge on those of us with a more "Arminian" stance, I will echo the text that Vic posted:

The Lord of the promise is not slow, as some deem slowness, but is long-suffering toward us, not having purposed any to perish, but all to come to repentance.

This issue is not simple to resolve (obviously).

 

[JM]

JM,
I don’t like the way that’s redacted. Kyril used to call that kind of threading of scripture witch craft… I almost agree because although it expresses an idea, it’s theologically empty. Besides, it’s always dangerous to base any core doctrine from the wisdom literature and I still believe that the central theme of Job is having a God that is worthy to be praised and worshipped under any circumstance. Other than that, Job is an interesting study in Apologetics and discernment.

Would it be dangerous to base a doctrine on a revealed pattern of God working in the life of an individual? I don’t think so. Using Job to establish a pattern of God’s sovereignty over man along with supporting verses from other books is not dangerous, but needful to practical theological understanding. It gives context. I’d be more tempted to call those who dismiss clear wisdom given from God in hopes of creating a humanistic theology “witch craft.†If we think God’s thoughts after Him we see patterns of wisdom reveal theological truths.

This is Zondervan’s Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary
Volume 3
Clinton E. Arnold General Editor.

Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated Romans 9:13

If you continue on, you’ll noticed that Paul changes the context from the original OT quotation in verses 20-23 creating hypothetical singular opponent. As the Holy Spirit lead Paul to write, the context has changed and we need to be aware of that because it doesn’t follow the same application. You can argue for singular or national election but the point of Romans 9 is the soverignity and right of God over ALL people to do with them as He wishes, besides, national election is the election of a group of individuals so the commentary really doesn’t change anything. It’s a false dichonomy.

The verb “love†and “hate†in Malachi are covenantal terms. They do not express God’s emotions about Israel and Edom but his actions with respect to them. We might paraphrase, “Jacob I have chosen, but Esau I have rejected.â€Â

Again, this really doesn’t change the meaning f Romans 9, we are told why one was loved and the other hated or why one was accepted and the other rejected, “for the purpose of God’s election might stand.â€Â

~JM~

 

[christian_soldier]

Only Calvinism can consistently explain these things.

To your satisfaction, perhaps, but not mine. Calvinism diminishes God's Love and Grace and I found that abhorrent.

As far as scripture demonstrating man's choices, I have supplied many. Your reply was to the effect that God determines choice, which is to say that God is pulling the strings and you are no more than a puppet.

Are you one of "the elect", Beetle?

 

[Guest]

To your satisfaction, perhaps, but not mine. Calvinism diminishes God's Love and Grace and I found that abhorrent.

As far as scripture demonstrating man's choices, I have supplied many. Your reply was to the effect that God determines choice, which is to say that God is pulling the strings and you are no more than a puppet.

Are you one of "the elect", Beetle?

You have never put forth any verse which teaches that the human will is free.
What you have done is to assume that the term 'will' is equal to 'free will.'
The question is not "Does man have a will?"
The question is "Is the will of man free from God determining it?"
Calvinism believes that man has a will, it does not believe that man's will is free from God.
You need to speak to the issue from the Scriptures alone.

Beetle is one of the elect:

Anyone who believes the Gospel is one who has been elected unto salvation by God from eternity (Acts 13:48, Ephesians 1:4)
Red Beetle is one who believes the Gospel
Therefore, Red Beetle is one who has been elected unto salvation by God from eternity

Sola Scriptura
Red Beetle

 

[christian_soldier]

Well, Beetle, you are free to beieve all that if you like.

:o

oops. No, you aren't. Sorry, my mistake.

:

ChristianSoldier believes the Gospel and is one of the elect.

God determined that Beetle will hold fast to the tenets of Calvin, but that ChristianSoldier would not.

Therefore, debating Calvinism is meaningless.

:wink:

 

[JM]

Well, Beetle, you are free to beieve all that if you like.

:o

oops. No, you aren't. Sorry, my mistake.

:

ChristianSoldier believes the Gospel and is one of the elect.

God determined that Beetle will hold fast to the tenets of Calvin, but that ChristianSoldier would not.

Therefore, debating Calvinism is meaningless.

:wink:

Quote:

WHY BOTHER VOTING? The Bible says that the powers that be are ordained of God (Romans 13:1) God says, By Me, king's reign and princes decree justice (Proverbs 8:15).

WHY BOTHER PRAYING? God knows what we have need of before we ask (Matthew 6:8) He declares in the most definite of language, And it shall come to pass, that before they call, I will answer; and while they are yet speaking, I will hear. (Isaiah 65:24).

WHY BOTHER SOWING? God says that the harvest will not cease (Genesis 8:22).

WHY BOTHER STAYING SAFE AND HEALTHY? The day of your death is appointed of God (Hebrews 9:27) You will not die one split second before your God ordained time. A thousand shall fall at thy side, and ten thousand at thy right hand; but it shall not come nigh thee. (Psalm 91:7) We may not know the day of our death (Genesis 27:2) but we know that God knows, and God knows because it is written down in His diary in indelible ink.

 

[christian_soldier]

Quote:

WHY BOTHER VOTING? The Bible says that the powers that be are ordained of God (Romans 13:1) God says, By Me, king's reign and princes decree justice (Proverbs 8:15).

WHY BOTHER PRAYING? God knows what we have need of before we ask (Matthew 6:8) He declares in the most definite of language, And it shall come to pass, that before they call, I will answer; and while they are yet speaking, I will hear. (Isaiah 65:24).

WHY BOTHER SOWING? God says that the harvest will not cease (Genesis 8:22).

WHY BOTHER STAYING SAFE AND HEALTHY? The day of your death is appointed of God (Hebrews 9:27) You will not die one split second before your God ordained time. A thousand shall fall at thy side, and ten thousand at thy right hand; but it shall not come nigh thee. (Psalm 91:7) We may not know the day of our death (Genesis 27:2) but we know that God knows, and God knows because it is written down in His diary in indelible ink.

MOST IMPORTANTLY:

WHY BOTHER WITNESSING???

 

[JM]

MOST IMPORTANTLY:

WHY BOTHER WITNESSING???

You missed the point. As for witnessing, Calvinists have always stepped up, ever hear of Korea? With a short time the country has converted to Christianity, most of them Presbyterians [Calvinists]. AV has a list of the who's who of mission work and all but a few were Calvinists.

AN INTERESTING AND STIRRING CONVERSATION BETWEEN A RC ARCHBISHOP
AND JAMES HALDANE, A NOTED PROTESTANT EVANGELIST

Taken from "The lives of Robert and James Haldane" by Alexander Haldane (Banner of Truth Trust: pp 406-409)

In 1816 Mr. James Haldane spent some weeks at Gilsland, in Cumberland, in the hope of recruiting his wife's drooping health. On that occasion he met a well-known Roman Catholic Archbishop, the late Dr. Everard, titular of Cashel. He was one of the old school of Irish priests, before the well-educated and well-mannered race, trained in France, had been exchanged for the coarser and more turbulent pupils of the College of Maynooth. Dr. Everard was a man of very cultivated mind, who had lived in the families of some of the highest English aristocracy, and had seen much of the world. His character was described in glowing colours by Lord Glenelg, in one of his speeches in favour of what was called Roman Catholic emancipation. At first he appeared at the hotel simply as Mr. Everard; and the only circumstance which created any suspicion, in regard to his rank, was the awe with which he was obviously regarded by a priest, who was also staying at the hotel, and whose reserved conversation and altered habits denoted a restraint, which he had not previously indicated.

On the very first day that they met at table, Dr. Everard singled out Mr. James Haldane from the crowd of visitors, and in the evening made up to him and engaged him in very interesting conversation. Next day his attentions became more marked, and, at dinner, it appeared that the Doctor's servant had received orders to wait on Mr. and Mrs. Haldane as much as on himself. The intimacy increased, and every day hours were spent in the walks or drives around Gilsland, discussing the claims of the Romish Church and the doctrines of the Gospel. Mighty in the Scriptures, and armed in Christian panoply, Mr. James Haldane repelled every argument drawn from the traditions of the Church or the authority of man; and, on the other hand, assured his new acquaintance, that if Romanists refused an appeal "to the law and to the testimony," it must be because there was no light in them. These friendly discussions were carried on with intense earnestness. and in a spirit that inspired mutual respect. Dr. Everard confidentially disclosed his rank and position in the Romish Church, but solemnly appealed to heaven, that he sought only the truth, and was indifferent to all secular considerations. The conversations became daily more interesting.

On the Lord's-day Mr. James Haldane preached in the assembly-room. Before the service, Dr. Everard begged the daughter of his Protestant friend to persuade her father to preach in the drawing-room, and tell him how much he himself desired to listen. After the service was over, Dr. Everard asked why his request had not been complied with, and why the sermon had not been preached in the drawing room, "where," he said, "I could have remained and listened without any breach of discipline or canonical law, although, of course, it was impossible to follow you to another place." It was explained that many servants and cottagers would have been excluded from hearing, had he conducted the service in the drawing-room, but he offered to go over all the leading topics of his discourse. This he did, and discussed them with his usual candour.

A few days before he left Gilsland, Dr. Everard confined himself to his room and did not appear in public. He afterwards sought a parting interview with his Protestant friend; it was at once solemn and affecting. The Archbishop told Mr. James Haldane that the conversations he had enjoyed with him, and particularly his appeals to the Bible, had shaken him more than anything he had ever before heard, and that they had made him very uneasy; that he had, therefore, determined, with fasting and prayer, once more to seek counsel of God, in order that his error, if he were in error, might be shown to him. He added, that his meditations, during his hours of fasting, and retirement, had led him to this train of thought: "Here is a man who is certainly mighty in the Scriptures, but who interprets the Bible for himself and depends on his own private judgement. The case is different with myself. If I err, I err with a long line of holy men who have lived and died in the bosom of the Catholic Church." Mr. James Haldane endeavoured to show the danger of trusting to the example or opinions of fallible men, although some of those named, such as Pascal and Fenelon, had been themselves persecuted for their Protestant tendencies; and he contrasted the conclusions based on the shifting sands of human opinion, with the certainty that belongs to the written Word of God, read by the light of God's Holy Spirit shining on its pages. He also said something about "the traditions of the apostles." "What," said Dr. Everard, 'do you speak of traditions? I had thought you discarded them entirely." The reply was, "The traditions of fallible men I reject, but the traditions of the apostles, as recorded by the finger of inspiration, are to be received as every other part of the inspired Word of God." Mr. James Haldane added, "Pardon me, but I must tell you, in faithfulness and love, that it is my firm conviction, that the Church which you so much esteem is no other than the woman which the apostle John beheld in the Apocalypse " drunken with the blood of the saints and martyrs of Jesus.'" Again he said, "Do not think me rude." The Archbishop affectionately pressed his hand, and said, "No, my dear Sir; I know you too well to think so. I am persuaded that you only speak for my good." The necessity of further investigation of the Bible with prayer, was once more urged on the amiable Prelate. A compliance with this request was promised, coupled with an urgent entreaty that his Protestant friend would do the same. Mr. James Haldane replied that his convictions were based upon a rock too solid to be shaken, and one which would admit of being again and again examined with minute attention. But he reminded Dr. Everard, that all the claims of Popery rested on human testimony; on principles that would not bear the light of God's Word, and around which there was, at best, a lurid halo of doubt and uncertainty.

They parted with mutual expressions of regard, and Dr. Everard died a few years afterwards, at Cashel, where there were whispers in the neighbourhood, which intimated that his dying room was carefully watched to prevent the intrusion of those whose presence was not desired, and that the mystery which was kept up, as to his illness, arose from suspicions that he did not continue steadfast in the Romish faith. The deathbed of the celebrated Bishop Doyle, at Carlow, was attended with similar and even darker suspicions, some of which have been since confirmed by the touching narrative published by his amiable wards, who were not suffered to enter his chamber until the lifeless corpse was laid out in state, in his Episcopal robes, attended by monks, with lighted torches, chanting his requiem, amidst all that pompous ceremonial with which Rome strives to make the senses the slaves of the imagination.

THE END

SEVEN REASONS WHY CALVINISTS BELIEVE IN EVANGELISM

1) Because God has commanded it. The gospel is to preached to every creature (Mark 16:15) This is why Calvinists have been to the forefront of missionary endeavour. The man acknowledged as "the Father of Modern Missions" was William Carey… and William Carey was a Calvinist. If a missionary (strictly speaking) is someone who leaves his homeland to preach the gospel elsewhere, then John Calvin qualifies as a missionary. Spurgeon said of him: " John Calvin…is looked upon now, of course, a theologian only, but he was really one of the greatest of gospel preachers. When Calvin opened the Book and took a text, you might be sure that he was about to preach "Through grace are ye saved, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God." (MTP 14:216) Even if we had no other reason, we would still evangelise…because it is a clear command from God.

2) Because we believe that God has ordained the means of bringing many sons to glory as well as the end. Hyper Calvinists believe He has ordained the end but not the means, non Calvinists/Arminians believe that He has ordained the means but not the end… Calvinists alone consistently take the balanced view that He has ordained both. If we don't evangelise…someone else rightly will. Calvinists believe as much in man's responsibility as they do in God's sovereignty.

3) Evangelism gives Calvinists the glorious opportunity to praise the God whom they believe unconditionally elected them to salvation. We love to preach the gospel in all its fullness. Just to recount the old, old story of Jesus and His love thrills our soul and leads us to praise His name. We glorify God when we proclaim the gospel.

4) Evangelism gives us the opportunity to unburden our souls for the lost. We cannot be silent while souls around us are bound for hell. We believe the gospel ourselves and therefore we speak (2 Corinthians 4:13) Many of us were brought savingly to Christ because someone else was burdened for us and prayed for us and witnessed to us. Any man who names the name of Christ, Calvinist or not, should have the burden to win others. It is an evidence of grace when we want others to experience it for themselves. If there is no burden for the lost, we are left to wonder does the professing Christian (of whatever school) believe there is a Day of Judgement…an immortal soul and an eternal hell?

5) Evangelism gives us an opportunity to serve God. The fields are white unto harvest and yet the labourers are few. There is a great reward awaiting for soul winners (Daniel 12:3) …but even if there wasn't, we would still labour just for the sheer joy of being in God's work and spreading His word.

6) Evangelism gives us an opportunity to bear reproach for the name of Christ. Paul witnessed to the gospel with much contention (1 Thessalonians 2:2) and whilst such is irksome to the flesh, yet the spiritual man rejoices every whit. Such were the Apostles (Acts 5:41) Obviously we do not set out to annoy, but we recognise that the natural heart is going to kick hard against the message of Christ. If we have to bear reproach in our evangelism…then amen! "So be it"

7) Far down our list, but there nevertheless, we evangelise because it nails the lie often uttered against us that Calvinism kills evangelistic endeavour. Why should it? The doctrine of predestination is the only grounds of evangelism. If God did not predestine folk out of their sins to be saved, then no one would be saved. The non Calvinist says that if there were no faith, then there would be no predestination because the latter (which is God's work) is totally and absolutely dependent on the former which is due ultimately to man's decision. The Calvinist says that if there were no predestination, then there would be no faith because the latter (which is man's responsibility) flows from the former. Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God (Romans 10:17) and the word of God comes to sinners through gospel preachers (Romans 10;13-16)

With the exception of the last point, every Christian (Calvinist or not) has a reason for evangelism. Evangelism is the common lot of every child of God, no matter what his understanding of the outworking of the decree of God may be. Both Whitefield (Calvinist) and Wesley (Arminian) preached together and rejoiced in each others great work. This is the way it ever should be.

 

[Drew]

Since we are on the topic of Calvinism and since election has been mentioned....

I have argued that the notion of truly unconditional election is conceptuallyincoherent - kind of like saying that someone chooses one triangle over another based on the length of the fourth side.....

My argument is here

http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopi ... c&start=30

To my recollection, no advocate of this doctrine has responded to this argument. If supporters of Calvinism cannot show how unconditional election is not incoherent (e.g. by responding to my argument), are you simply willing to accept a doctrine that has this problem of coherence?

 

[stovebolts]

Sorry for not responding... Got really busy. I'll try and do some catch up tomorrow, if time permits.
Jeff