In Calvinism why are the sinners God made responsible for what God has made them?

[JLB]

Not much sense responding as you do not assign meanings to words per the standards of a common dictionary. I.E. you say "A" as defined by a dictionary, but you mean "B".

Why do you continue to misrepresent what I say, while ignoring the scriptures and questions I asked you?


Thank you though for proving my point about Calvinist's.




JLB

 

[Fastfredy0]

Why do you continue to misrepresent what I say, while ignoring the scriptures and questions I asked you?

Because you often don't mean what you say or possibly I am not intelligent to comprehend your meaning. The reason, whatever it is, means we can't communicate as we don't understand one another.

Aside: I am sorry you FEEL I misrepresent you. I tried using a dictionary to give a common understanding to the words you were using and even that didn't work.

 

[JLB]

Educated and intelligent Christians guided by the Spirit follow the teachings (doctrines) of Christ.

I agree that Christians guided by the Holy Spirit follow the teachings of Christ.

"Educated" is a broad term.

Do you believe defining a person by using a dictionary is something you call "educated".



JLB

 

[Fastfredy0]

Do you believe defining a person by using a dictionary is something you call "educated".

That doesn't make sense to me. Again, we have a communication problem. We are wasting our time.

Further communication is bound to lead to the breaking of ToS rule 1.4 as we don't understand what the other is saying.
1.4: Do not misquote or misrepresent another member. Do not state a negative opinion about a member's denomination, leaders, founders, or the veracity of a member's faith. (Exodus 20:16)

 

[JLB]

Because you often don't mean what you say or possibly I am not intelligent to comprehend your meaning.

I have observed in discussing the scriptures with Calvinist's that they are confused by the scriptures, tending to rely on what Mr Calvin teaches.

Now he who keeps His commandments abides in Him, and He in him. And by this we know that He abides in us, by the Spirit whom He has given us. 1 John 3:24

Do you believe the way we are instructed to remain in Christ is by keeping His commandments, according to this verse?




JLB

 

[JLB]

That doesn't make sense to me.

That doesnt suprise me.

 

[Free]

I know these ideas Free.
You believe the verses are descriptive and not prescriptive.
Hard to debate that.

I do want to say, though, that if God does the choosing, Jesus did not have to die.
On this I insist.
Why would salvation not be possible?
If God PREDETERMINED and CAUSED Adam to sin....
there goes your sacrificial plan and theology.
No need for it.
Is this not easy to see?

It'll only work (the plan and soteriology) if Adam DISOBEYED GOD
and broke God's command.
At this point God is damaged as a sovereign king and requires atonement.
The atonement is Jesus (animals in the OT).

Why would God MAKE ADAM SIN,
and then require atonement?
Is it all a game?
I'm not being mean when I say that the reformed faith just makes no sense to me.
And I've been thinking about it for over 10 years now. I remember when I first heard about it,
I couldn't believe the teaching and thought the person that told me about it had misunderstood.
But alas, he had it right.

God never made Adam sin. That idea is rejected by Reformed theology.

Jas 1:13 Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God,” for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one.
Jas 1:14 But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire.
Jas 1:15 Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death.
Jas 1:16 Do not be deceived, my beloved brothers.
Jas 1:17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change.
Jas 1:18 Of his own will he brought us forth by the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures. (ESV)

And I insist that God's choosing has nothing to do with the need for Jesus to die.

 

[Fastfredy0]

I have observed in discussing the scriptures with Calvinist's that they are confused by the scriptures, tending to rely on what Mr Calvin teaches.

Well, where the confusion lies, be it you or Calvinist's, is debatable. I know where you bias lies.

Now he who keeps His commandments abides in Him, and He in him. And by this we know that He abides in us, by the Spirit whom He has given us. 1 John 3:24

Do you believe the way we are instructed to remain in Christ is by keeping His commandments, according to this verse?

I believe every bible verse is true (not going into textual criticism to split hairs).
I also believe you and I do not use a common understanding of the English language making discussion pointless ... though my responding make my last statement hypocritical.

 

[Fastfredy0]

That doesn't make sense to me.

That doesnt suprise me.

Praise the Lord ... agreement at last. We are wasting each others time. My last correspondence.

 

[hawkman]

https://www.vincentcheung.com/books/Commentary%20on%20Colossians.pdf

Page 34 .....it's free .. he has lots of interesting stuff IMO

Yes that is the book . But lets look at what you posted . I don't think what you did by posting a partial paragraph in mid sentence was fair to Vincent Cheung's writing . I wonder what he would have to say about it ?
Christianity is a system is a pretty bold statement , IMO .

Christianity is system of thought summarized and contained in a series of doctrines that are arranged and considered in what we call “systematic theology”. These doctrines are biblically and logically related such that any topic can be, and often must be, discussed in relation to other topics. In fact, one way for a believer to comprehend truth and to guard against error is to do precisely that –that is, to learn each biblical doctrine itself as well as its relation to all other doctrines. Then, since they are related in such a manner that the central principles necessitate or authenticate all the others, and that all of them affirm or justify one another, as a result of grasping these doctrines as a system, each one gains greater depth and security in the Christian's thinking.

But here is the complete paragraph of what Vincent Cheung really said about Christianity .

Christianity is a complete and coherent belief system; it addresses every category of thought, living, and reality – often in explicit terms, but at least in principle or by implication. Putting this in terms suited to our purpose, Christianity is system of thought summarized and contained in a series of doctrines that are arranged and considered in what we call systematic theology.

 

[hawkman]

Because you often don't mean what you say or possibly I am not intelligent to comprehend your meaning. The reason, whatever it is, means we can't communicate as we don't understand one another.

Aside: I am sorry you FEEL I misrepresent you. I tried using a dictionary to give a common understanding to the words you were using and even that didn't work.

It is so hard sometimes to get across what we are saying so the other poster can understand us.
It is frustrating to say the least . I have learned so much on this forum from the knowledge of Fastfredy0 , Free , wondering , JLB , Jethro Bodine and so many others and for that I am grateful .

 

[Fastfredy0]

Christianity is a complete and coherent belief system; it addresses every category of thought, living, and reality – often in explicit terms, but at least in principle or by implication. Putting this in terms suited to our purpose, Christianity is system of thought summarized and contained in a series of doctrines that are arranged and considered in what we call systematic theology.

Agreed, the part in red precedes the quote I gave. Technically, I left out the 32 pages before my quote and the 74ish pages after my quote. I selected that portion long ago as it was germane to my purpose of showing the utility of "systematic theology".

 

[hawkman]

Agreed, the part in red precedes the quote I gave. Technically, I left out the 32 pages before my quote and the 74ish pages after my quote. I selected that portion long ago as it was germane to my purpose of showing the utility of "systematic theology".

I figured it was something along those lines . The part in red really helped me understand what the author said and I no longer had a problem with what he said in it's complete form . Thanks !

 

[GodsGrace]

"Anti" means against, which JWs are as well. But, yes, I agree that they are not Christians.


What about the Trinity, the creation of everything by God, that humans are made in the image of God, man's rebellion against God and need for a saviour, penal substitution, the resurrection, etc? In fact, I can all but guarantee there is far more in common than different.

Yes of course we have a lot in common.
But the difference is HUGE.
I'll tell you why I dislike reformed theology so much...
It's really the soteriology that I dislike.
In Christianity we're taught that God is loving and He would like for every man to be saved. Ok. Maybe a few women too. Unless God is totally unable to save everyone, it means that something has to happen for the person to be saved. That something is acceptance of Jesus as savior.
Calvinism does not teach this. It teaches that man can do nothing to save himself - God will do the choosing.
This is a big difference indeed.
I don't know how this let's God be a loving God.

And we must define the gospel. Is it not that man rebelled against God,

Yes. Man disobeyed the almighty God that created him, so the relationship with God was broken.

becoming deserving of his wrath, but he sent his own Son to die in our place,

Right. God made a plan for man to save himself, IF he wanted to.
Jesus is that answer.
You're talking about penal substitution, which is fine.
Jesus died in our place.
If we choose to follow Jesus and be a disciple, we can be saved.

the death we deserve and raised him to life, so that we can be justified and reconciled to God and become new creatures in Christ? Do you believe that? I'm fairly certain the Reformed faith teaches this.

Does the reformed faith teach what you and I are saying?
Or do they teach that we have nothing to do with our salvation because it is GOD that will choose who goes to hell and who goes to heaven?
Our choosing Jesus has nothing to do with our salvation because it is GOD that will choose us or not choose us.
I'll end up in hell or heaven based on nothing but God's good pleasure.

They believe in an entirely different Jesus, which means an entirely different God, unlike Reformed theology.

Yes. The JWs do not believe in the same Jesus we believe in.

We agree on much.

Agreed.

 

[JLB]

I believe every bible verse is true (not going into textual criticism to split hairs).
I also believe you and I do not use a common understanding of the English language making discussion pointless ... though my responding make my last statement hypocritical.

Here is the actual question I asked —


Do you believe the way we are instructed to remain in Christ is by keeping His commandments, according to this verse?


Now he who keeps His commandments abides in Him, and He in him. And by this we know that He abides in us, by the Spirit whom He has given us. 1 John 3:24





JLB

 

[for_his_glory]

This thread would be closed down if it wasn't in a safe zone.

We need to respect others for how they believe even if we disagree. Address the issue not the person without making derogatory remarks against each other. Be opened minded to others as we share scripture, not commentaries of any type of "ism's".

 

[GodsGrace]

"Anti" means against, which JWs are as well. But, yes, I agree that they are not Christians.

Hi Free, I was tired last night and can't even remember if I've replied to this...
Yes, I apologize, I did mean non-Christian and not anti-Christian.
Personally, I think that if a person is depending on Jesus for salvation then they must certainly be Christian.
But Jesus has to be God...if he's a man or some type of "Son" of God, I don't know that He could be a Savior.

What about the Trinity, the creation of everything by God, that humans are made in the image of God, man's rebellion against God and need for a saviour, penal substitution, the resurrection, etc? In fact, I can all but guarantee there is far more in common than different.

Agreed. But what the reformed and other denominations do NOT agree on is pretty important.
Does man have free will?
Is he born so depraved he is unable to seek God?
Does each person have any say in their salvation?

And we must define the gospel. Is it not that man rebelled against God, becoming deserving of his wrath, but he sent his own Son to die in our place, the death we deserve and raised him to life, so that we can be justified and reconciled to God and become new creatures in Christ? Do you believe that? I'm fairly certain the Reformed faith teaches this.

God sent His only Son to die for us.
But HOW does a person take advantage of this salvific death?

They believe in an entirely different Jesus, which means an entirely different God, unlike Reformed theology.


We agree on much.

Agreed on the above...it had to do with the JWs.

 

[GodsGrace]

God never made Adam sin. That idea is rejected by Reformed theology.

Actually, top reformed teachers state plainly that God created evil for His own glory.
Here's an article that mentions John Piper. Piper clearly states that God is the author of evil - and yet He is not sinful. If that makes sense to you, good luck.

In his last three sermons, John Piper has made some provocative statements about God’s sovereignty over sin.

• August 12: “God created [Satan and his demons] knowing what they would become and how, in that very evil role, they would glorify Christ. Knowing everything they would become, God created them for the glory of Christ.”
• August 19: “God is sovereign over Satan, and therefore Satan’s will does not move without God’s permission. And therefore every move of Satan is part of God’s overall purpose and plan.”
• August 26: “[E]verything that exists—including evil—is ordained by an infinitely holy and all-wise God to make the glory of Christ shine more brightly. . . . Adam’s sin and the fall of the human race with him into sin and misery did not take God off guard and is part of his overarching plan to display the fullness of the glory of Jesus Christ.”

Desiring God has received a batch of emails in response—some more heated than others!—questioning (or outright disagreeing with) God’s sovereignty over sin. [I believe it...it's a hard pill to swallow!]

Somehow, we must confess both that God has a role in bringing evil about, and that in doing so he is holy and blameless. . . . God does bring sins about, but always for his own good purposes. So in bringing sin to pass he does not himself commit sin. If that argument is sound, then a Reformed doctrine of the sovereignty of God does not imply that God is the author of sin.
source: https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/does-god-author-sin
Desiring God is a reformed site.
John Piper on God creating sin:

Jas 1:13 Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God,” for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one.
Jas 1:14 But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire.
Jas 1:15 Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death.
Jas 1:16 Do not be deceived, my beloved brothers.
Jas 1:17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change.
Jas 1:18 Of his own will he brought us forth by the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures. (ESV)

And I insist that God's choosing has nothing to do with the need for Jesus to die.

I AGREE with the above.
I'm not replying to the last sentence.
It's too complicated and I'm too tired.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Actually, top reformed teachers state plainly that God created evil for His own glory.
Here's an article that mentions John Piper. Piper clearly states that God is the author of evil - and yet He is not sinful. If that makes sense to you, good luck.

In his last three sermons, John Piper has made some provocative statements about God’s sovereignty over sin.

• August 12: “God created [Satan and his demons] knowing what they would become and how, in that very evil role, they would glorify Christ. Knowing everything they would become, God created them for the glory of Christ.”
• August 19: “God is sovereign over Satan, and therefore Satan’s will does not move without God’s permission. And therefore every move of Satan is part of God’s overall purpose and plan.”
• August 26: “[E]verything that exists—including evil—is ordained by an infinitely holy and all-wise God to make the glory of Christ shine more brightly. . . . Adam’s sin and the fall of the human race with him into sin and misery did not take God off guard and is part of his overarching plan to display the fullness of the glory of Jesus Christ.”

Desiring God has received a batch of emails in response—some more heated than others!—questioning (or outright disagreeing with) God’s sovereignty over sin. [I believe it...it's a hard pill to swallow!]

Somehow, we must confess both that God has a role in bringing evil about, and that in doing so he is holy and blameless. . . . God does bring sins about, but always for his own good purposes. So in bringing sin to pass he does not himself commit sin. If that argument is sound, then a Reformed doctrine of the sovereignty of God does not imply that God is the author of sin.
source: https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/does-god-author-sin
Desiring God is a reformed site.
John Piper on God creating sin:

I AGREE with the above.
I'm not replying to the last sentence.
It's too complicated and I'm too tired.

It is notable that reformed theology accuses God of evil, that is, being the author of evil. It makes me think of what those who hold this theology will say when they stand before Him and He asks them if they really believed that He created moral evil. Maybe he asks Piper exactly which sins Piper accuses God of bringing about in his own life. What if Piper is accused of bringing about some of those sins instead of God? Maybe He asks about WHO is the one who has decided to accuse the holy ones of evil.

 

[GodsGrace]

It is notable that reformed theology accuses God of evil, that is, being the author of evil. It makes me think of what those who hold this theology will say when they stand before Him and He asks them if they really believed that He created moral evil. Maybe he asks Piper exactly which sins Piper accuses God of bringing about in his own life. What if Piper is accused of bringing about some of those sins instead of God? Maybe He asks about WHO is the one who has decided to accuse the holy ones of evil.

Yes to the above.
But, you see, the confessions state God is not the author of evil, so, by golly, it must be so.
Yet the top theologians of the reformed teach that God Does create evil. If it was in writing, I could understand that maybe an article could be manipulated by the opposing side, but you see them saying it on YouTube with their own mouth!
I don't get it.




I just thought to tag in Iconoclast .
We're having a nice conversation.