Bible Study John Calvin's Predestination.

[Jim Parker]

The reason for the edit violation of
10) Discussion of Catholic doctrine is allowed only in the One on One Debate and End Times forums. (ToS 2.2)
RCC content in the End Times forum should relate to End Times beliefs. Do not start new topics elsewhere or sway existing threads toward a discussion or debate that may be viewed as ‘Catholic’ in nature.
Reba

Yeah. I got that.
I wasn't discussing "Catholic Doctrine."

 

[Jim Parker]

"All are not created on equal terms, but some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation. Preordained to life or death."

This is complete departure from the consensus of early Christian teaching other than that of Augustine.

John Hick, in his comparison of Irenaeus’ theodicy against that of Augustine, notes: Instead of the fall of Adam being presented, as in the Augustinian tradition, as an utterly malignant and catastrophic event, completely disrupting God’s plan, Irenaeus pictures it as something that occurred in the childhood of the race, an understandable lapse due to weakness and immaturity rather than an adult crime full of malice and pregnant with perpetual guilt. And instead of the Augustinian view of life’s trials as a divine punishment for Adam’s sin, Irenaeus sees our world of mingled good and evil as a divinely appointed environment for man’s development towards perfection that represents the fulfillment of God’s good purpose for him (1968:220-221).

Justin Martyr wrote: For the coming into being at first was not in our own power; and in order that we may follow those things which please Him, choosing them by means of the rational faculties He has Himself endowed us with, He both persuades us and leads us to faith (First Apology 10; ANF Vol. I, p. 165).

Irenaeus of Lyons affirmed humanity’s capacity for faith: Now all such expression demonstrate that man is in his own power with respect to faith (Against the Heretics 4.37.2; ANF Vol. I p. 520).

Cyril of Jerusalem, Patriarch of Jerusalem in the fourth century. In his famous catechetical lectures, Cyril repeatedly affirmed human free-will (Lectures 2.1-2 and 4.18, 21; NPNF Second Series Vol. VII, pp. 8-9, 23-24).

Gregory of Nyssa, in his catechetical lectures, taught: For He who holds sovereignty over the universe permitted something to be subject to our own control, over which each of us alone is master. Now this is the will: a thing that cannot be enslaved, being the power of self-determination (Gregory of Nyssa, The Great Catechism, MPG 47, 77A; in Gabriel 2000:27).

John of Damascus, an eighth century Church Father. is famous for his Exposition of the Catholic Faith, the closest thing to a systematic theology in the early Church. John of Damascus explained that God made man a rational being endowed with free-will and as a result of the Fall man’s free-will was corrupted (NPNF Series 2 Vol. IX p. 58-60).

Saint John of the Ladder, a sixth century Desert Father, in his spiritual classic, The Ladder of Divine Ascent, wrote: Of the rational beings created by Him and honored with the dignity of free-will, some are His friends, others are His true servants, some are worthless, some are completely estranged from God, and others, though feeble creatures, are His opponents (1991:3).

ANF = Ante-Nicene Fathers.

MPG = Migne’s Patrologia Graecae

NPNF = Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers.

"Ultimately, the underlying flaw of Reformed soteriology is the emphasis on God’s sovereignty to the denial of love. The Calvinist insistence on God’s sovereignty undercuts the ontological basis for the human person. Closer inspection of the doctrine of irresistible grace brings to light a certain internal contradiction in Reformed theology: God’s free gift of grace is based on compulsion. Or to put it another way: How can a gift be free if there’s no freedom of choice? Love that is not free cannot be love. Love must arise from free choice. " (my emphasis)
From" Plucking the TULIP (1) – An Orthodox Critique of the Reformed Doctrine of Predestination August 12, 2012 by Robert Arakaki

Bishop Kallistos Ware writes: Where there is no freedom, there can be no love. Compulsion excludes love; as Paul Evdokimov used to say, God can do everything except compel us to love him (Ware 1986:76; emphasis in original).

jim

 

[Malachi]

Malachi
Nice post.

Thanks.

ELECTION THROUGH AND FOR SANCTIFICATION

The THROUGH makes it sound like we have to be sanctified in order to be elected. I'm sure this is not what is meant. Election FOR sanctification would be correct.

Since Peter uses the word "through" (1 Pet 1;2) I have indicated both *through* and *for". The *through* would apply to positional sanctification (the gift of the Holy Spirit means we are deemed to be sanctified right now, even though we are not fully sanctified), and the *for* would be the progressive sanctification, leading to ultimate perfection -- conformed to the image of God's Son (the purpose of predestination or election).

NOT PERSEVERANCE BUT PRESERVATION

Must we not also persevere? Romans 10:22; James 1:12

The *perseverance of the saints* is the Calvinistic interpretation of the eternal security of the believer. Theopedia says "Perseverance of the saints is the Calvinist doctrine that those who are truly saved will persevere to the end and cannot lose their salvation."

But the Bible says that we cannot lose our salvation because (1) we are born again, (2) we have received the gift of eternal life, (3) we are in Christ, and Christ is in us, and (4) we are kept by the power of God unto [ultimate] salvation.

Your Romans 10:22 could be a typo, but what James says in James 1:12 is that we are blessed because we endure trials,temptations and testings. That is not a condition for eternal security, but a proof that we are genuinely saved.

The reason Calvinists stumble is because they begin with a faulty premise -- that Christ died only for the elect (limited atonement). There is ample Scripture to show that this is utterly false, and misrepresents the finished work of the Lamb of God who took away THE SIN OF THE WORLD (Jn 1:29).

 

[Runner]

Calvin's premise on the "unsaved" was entirely speculative on his part. Calvin had no more clue about the eternal fate of any man including himself than a man in the moon.
...
Therefore, speculation.

Remembering that this is all speculation is an important point. Calvin was one of the giants of theology and is not easily dismissed - but there are plenty of other giants who disagree with him. I like Chopper's attempt in the OP - but it, too, is speculative (as Chopper recognizes). All attempts are speculative because, as you suggest, the Bible is ambiguous on this point and there are definitely passages pointing in different directions. I have a gut-level bias against any view that doesn't afford every last human a full and fair opportunity at salvation, to the extent that I am willing at least to consider some distinctly non-mainstream possibilities - but this is just my speculation and intuition (Spirit-led intuition, I hope). What is important (in my opinion) is how we lead our lives. A bit of uncertainty on doctrines such as this is (in my opinion) a generally good thing. It is likely to lead to a view of oneself and one's relationship to others that is more consistent with what Jesus was talking about than is a cocksure, divisive attitude that my answers are right and everyone else's answers are wrong.

I've recently been reading quite a bit of Eastern Orthodox theology. What I like is that their overarching premise is that God is and will always remain a mystery. With this as their starting premise, they feel less need for dogmatic certainty about particular doctrines. Relevant to this thread, I am just beginning a chapter on a segment of Orthodoxy that is friendly toward universal salvation but can apparently be accommodated within the church. I'm not sure why so many of us feel that we must have a dogmatic position on particular doctrines and must defend this position against all others. It's to Chopper's credit that he is trying to work through this issue for himself and remains flexible. I enjoy theological exercises myself, but it's important to remember that in regard to many doctrines it's highly speculative and that the best we can come up with will be, "This is what currently seems to me to be the best fit with the Bible and what I understand to be the nature and character of God."

 

[Malachi]

So if you believe that foreknowledge has to do with future knowledge making up God's mind as far as His choice of Salvation or damnation, you have no argument at all with Calvin.

Foreknowledge is not the same as pre-determination (fore-ordination). God knows everything that will ever happen in future, but He is NOT the cause of everything that happens. But the Westminster Confession of Faith (Reformed Theology) teaches that God is the ultimate cause of everything. That is clearly false when you look at all the evil that has existed, now exists, and will exist.

 

[Malachi]

Or, could they believe ONLY in the concept of OSAS and reject the other points.

As noted above one does not have to be a Calvinist to believe in the ETERNAL SECURITY of the believer. And because Arminianism does not believe this, they too are in error.

 

[Jim Parker]

The reason for the edit violation of
10) Discussion of Catholic doctrine is allowed only in the One on One Debate and End Times forums. (ToS 2.2)
RCC content in the End Times forum should relate to End Times beliefs. Do not start new topics elsewhere or sway existing threads toward a discussion or debate that may be viewed as ‘Catholic’ in nature.
Reba

AAAARRRRGGGH!
This makes it very difficult to have any kind of discussion in which historical fact is presented.

 

[smaller]

Remembering that this is all speculation is an important point. Calvin was one of the giants of theology and is not easily dismissed - but there are plenty of other giants who disagree with him. I like Chopper's attempt in the OP - but it, too, is speculative (as Chopper recognizes). All attempts are speculative because, as you suggest, the Bible is ambiguous on this point and there are definitely passages pointing in different directions. I have a gut-level bias against any view that doesn't afford every last human a full and fair opportunity at salvation, to the extent that I am willing at least to consider some distinctly non-mainstream possibilities - but this is just my speculation and intuition (Spirit-led intuition, I hope). What is important (in my opinion) is how we lead our lives. A bit of uncertainty on doctrines such as this is (in my opinion) a generally good thing. It is likely to lead to a view of oneself and one's relationship to others that is more consistent with what Jesus was talking about than is a cocksure, divisive attitude that my answers are right and everyone else's answers are wrong.

I've recently been reading quite a bit of Eastern Orthodox theology. What I like is that their overarching premise is that God is and will always remain a mystery. With this as their starting premise, they feel less need for dogmatic certainty about particular doctrines. Relevant to this thread, I am just beginning a chapter on a segment of Orthodoxy that is friendly toward universal salvation but can apparently be accommodated within the church. I'm not sure why so many of us feel that we must have a dogmatic position on particular doctrines and must defend this position against all others. It's to Chopper's credit that he is trying to work through this issue for himself and remains flexible. I enjoy theological exercises myself, but it's important to remember that in regard to many doctrines it's highly speculative and that the best we can come up with will be, "This is what currently seems to me to be the best fit with the Bible and what I understand to be the nature and character of God."

Thank God for well balanced responses, such as the above.

 

[smaller]

Of course satan and his messengers will never be forgiven. They're angels and were immediately sent to their abode in hell upon they're betrayal.

But, are you saying MANKIND will be saved? Meaning each and every person past, present and future?

Wondering

Of course "mankind" are the entity class that experience salvation. Devils don't and won't. We do however have quite a bit of information about "them" and "their world" and how "they" operate, which is in the flesh of mankind and that is exactly what makes these conversations so complex at times ain't it? You see we all tend to only see ourselves as individuals but in the eyes of scripture that was never the case. Christian theology presents God, man and devils, all in various stages and mixes of engagements. It's not as simple as God reaching down to man and vice versa with their finger as depicted by Michelangelo's painting on the ceiling of the Sistine chapel.

I put enough on the table in the post to critically examine some aspects of Calvinism, some of which I AGREE with Calvin on, to make conversation and without getting too far into forbidden topics.

 

[brother Paul]

Thanks.


Since Peter uses the word "through" (1 Pet 1;2) I have indicated both *through* and *for". The *through* would apply to positional sanctification (the gift of the Holy Spirit means we are deemed to be sanctified right now, even though we are not fully sanctified), and the *for* would be the progressive sanctification, leading to ultimate perfection -- conformed to the image of God's Son (the purpose of predestination or election).


The *perseverance of the saints* is the Calvinistic interpretation of the eternal security of the believer. Theopedia says "Perseverance of the saints is the Calvinist doctrine that those who are truly saved will persevere to the end and cannot lose their salvation."

But the Bible says that we cannot lose our salvation because (1) we are born again, (2) we have received the gift of eternal life, (3) we are in Christ, and Christ is in us, and (4) we are kept by the power of God unto [ultimate] salvation.

Your Romans 10:22 could be a typo, but what James says in James 1:12 is that we are blessed because we endure trials,temptations and testings. That is not a condition for eternal security, but a proof that we are genuinely saved.

The reason Calvinists stumble is because they begin with a faulty premise -- that Christ died only for the elect (limited atonement). There is ample Scripture to show that this is utterly false, and misrepresents the finished work of the Lamb of God who took away THE SIN OF THE WORLD (Jn 1:29).

I agree Mal...even the T of Tulip (if taken as absolute incapability) is on error both with scripture and with what the Apostles taught the next generations of leadership. This particular error came by the judicial interpretation of the fall. When God said "Thou shalt not eat of the tree...for in the day you do you shall surely die", He was not threatening them with punishment, He was warning them from love of the foreseen consequence, just as when we tell our child "Thou shalt not run out into the busy traffic, for in the day you do you shall surely get hit by a car" we are not saying if they do we will get a car and hit them with it we are warning them of the consequence because we love them and are aware of what for them is an unseen possibility. If they did it and learned would we not be willing to forgive them? How much greater is the Father's love and ability to love? Would it grieve us or even anger us that they would not trust our word or doubt our motive? Yes! But would we love them less or cast them away or condemn the, from that point on? No!

 

[GodsGrace]

This is complete departure from the consensus of early Christian teaching other than that of Augustine.

John Hick, in his comparison of Irenaeus’ theodicy against that of Augustine, notes: Instead of the fall of Adam being presented, as in the Augustinian tradition, as an utterly malignant and catastrophic event, completely disrupting God’s plan, Irenaeus pictures it as something that occurred in the childhood of the race, an understandable lapse due to weakness and immaturity rather than an adult crime full of malice and pregnant with perpetual guilt. And instead of the Augustinian view of life’s trials as a divine punishment for Adam’s sin, Irenaeus sees our world of mingled good and evil as a divinely appointed environment for man’s development towards perfection that represents the fulfillment of God’s good purpose for him (1968:220-221).

Justin Martyr wrote: For the coming into being at first was not in our own power; and in order that we may follow those things which please Him, choosing them by means of the rational faculties He has Himself endowed us with, He both persuades us and leads us to faith (First Apology 10; ANF Vol. I, p. 165).

Irenaeus of Lyons affirmed humanity’s capacity for faith: Now all such expression demonstrate that man is in his own power with respect to faith (Against the Heretics 4.37.2; ANF Vol. I p. 520).

Cyril of Jerusalem, Patriarch of Jerusalem in the fourth century. In his famous catechetical lectures, Cyril repeatedly affirmed human free-will (Lectures 2.1-2 and 4.18, 21; NPNF Second Series Vol. VII, pp. 8-9, 23-24).

Gregory of Nyssa, in his catechetical lectures, taught: For He who holds sovereignty over the universe permitted something to be subject to our own control, over which each of us alone is master. Now this is the will: a thing that cannot be enslaved, being the power of self-determination (Gregory of Nyssa, The Great Catechism, MPG 47, 77A; in Gabriel 2000:27).

John of Damascus, an eighth century Church Father. is famous for his Exposition of the Catholic Faith, the closest thing to a systematic theology in the early Church. John of Damascus explained that God made man a rational being endowed with free-will and as a result of the Fall man’s free-will was corrupted (NPNF Series 2 Vol. IX p. 58-60).

Saint John of the Ladder, a sixth century Desert Father, in his spiritual classic, The Ladder of Divine Ascent, wrote: Of the rational beings created by Him and honored with the dignity of free-will, some are His friends, others are His true servants, some are worthless, some are completely estranged from God, and others, though feeble creatures, are His opponents (1991:3).

ANF = Ante-Nicene Fathers.

MPG = Migne’s Patrologia Graecae

NPNF = Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers.

"Ultimately, the underlying flaw of Reformed soteriology is the emphasis on God’s sovereignty to the denial of love. The Calvinist insistence on God’s sovereignty undercuts the ontological basis for the human person. Closer inspection of the doctrine of irresistible grace brings to light a certain internal contradiction in Reformed theology: God’s free gift of grace is based on compulsion. Or to put it another way: How can a gift be free if there’s no freedom of choice? Love that is not free cannot be love. Love must arise from free choice. " (my emphasis)
From" Plucking the TULIP (1) – An Orthodox Critique of the Reformed Doctrine of Predestination August 12, 2012 by Robert Arakaki

Bishop Kallistos Ware writes: Where there is no freedom, there can be no love. Compulsion excludes love; as Paul Evdokimov used to say, God can do everything except compel us to love him (Ware 1986:76; emphasis in original).

jim

Augustine. Why did he ever write anything?
I could quote Augustine and show that he's for double predestination.
I could quote Augustine and show that he's against it.
He changed his mind on Grace.
He changed his mind on evil and what why it exists.

I don't remember too much about him, but I do remember the above and to know what he believes would require knowing at what point of his life he believed it. I think he ended up not believing in double predestination, but in predestination as accepted by the original church.

Wondering
P.S. Bishop Ware says it all...Where there is no freedom, there can be no love.

 

[GodsGrace]

v

Yeah. I got that.
I wasn't discussing "Catholic Doctrine."

I'd have to agree with you Jim.

In this discussion the beliefs of the early church should be allowed.
It would not be a discussion of "Catholic" doctrine, but beliefs of the early church which DID EXIST!

And why should it be allowed?
Because the church did not begin in the year 1,500 AD, and it would behoove us to know what the early church fathers thought of all this. Those that actually knew someone who knew an Apostle or disciple, and those that were the next generation (and those even after this).

IOW, the closer you are to an event, the more truth will be derived from its witnesses.

Wondering

 

[GodsGrace]

Thanks.

Since Peter uses the word "through" (1 Pet 1;2) I have indicated both *through* and *for". The *through* would apply to positional sanctification (the gift of the Holy Spirit means we are deemed to be sanctified right now, even though we are not fully sanctified), and the *for* would be the progressive sanctification, leading to ultimate perfection -- conformed to the image of God's Son (the purpose of predestination or election).

The *perseverance of the saints* is the Calvinistic interpretation of the eternal security of the believer. Theopedia says "Perseverance of the saints is the Calvinist doctrine that those who are truly saved will persevere to the end and cannot lose their salvation."

But the Bible says that we cannot lose our salvation because (1) we are born again, (2) we have received the gift of eternal life, (3) we are in Christ, and Christ is in us, and (4) we are kept by the power of God unto [ultimate] salvation.

Your Romans 10:22 could be a typo, but what James says in James 1:12 is that we are blessed because we endure trials,temptations and testings. That is not a condition for eternal security, but a proof that we are genuinely saved.

The reason Calvinists stumble is because they begin with a faulty premise -- that Christ died only for the elect (limited atonement). There is ample Scripture to show that this is utterly false, and misrepresents the finished work of the Lamb of God who took away THE SIN OF THE WORLD (Jn 1:29).

Thanks Malachi -

I don't know about positional sanctification. This is new to me. I understand that, as you explain it, we are ALREADY sanctified in God's eyes, although, HUMANLY it is a progressive work, which would be my understanding of sanctification. God is not in time and so I can grasp your explanation.

I indeed did make an error in thought-typing: I did not mean Romans 10:22 but MATHEW 10:22.
Jesus is also speaking about enduring trials which He knew would come upon the Apostles and also all Christians.
But, as I understand it, if we endure ALL trials till the end, we will be saved. Life is full of trials. Sometimes this may be the cause of one leaving the faith - a particular trial causes them to doubt and abandon their faith.

Just to clarify you position: Are you saying that you believe that once one is saved he can never lose his salvation?

I've just learned on this thread that it's possible to be a OSAS believer and not be a Calvinist. (which might be you).

Wondering
Ooops. Just saw your post no. 26. I have my answer from you!
Just going through. It's my morning here...

 

[GodsGrace]

Remembering that this is all speculation is an important point. Calvin was one of the giants of theology and is not easily dismissed - but there are plenty of other giants who disagree with him. I like Chopper's attempt in the OP - but it, too, is speculative (as Chopper recognizes). All attempts are speculative because, as you suggest, the Bible is ambiguous on this point and there are definitely passages pointing in different directions. I have a gut-level bias against any view that doesn't afford every last human a full and fair opportunity at salvation, to the extent that I am willing at least to consider some distinctly non-mainstream possibilities - but this is just my speculation and intuition (Spirit-led intuition, I hope). What is important (in my opinion) is how we lead our lives. A bit of uncertainty on doctrines such as this is (in my opinion) a generally good thing. It is likely to lead to a view of oneself and one's relationship to others that is more consistent with what Jesus was talking about than is a cocksure, divisive attitude that my answers are right and everyone else's answers are wrong.

I've recently been reading quite a bit of Eastern Orthodox theology. What I like is that their overarching premise is that God is and will always remain a mystery. With this as their starting premise, they feel less need for dogmatic certainty about particular doctrines. Relevant to this thread, I am just beginning a chapter on a segment of Orthodoxy that is friendly toward universal salvation but can apparently be accommodated within the church. I'm not sure why so many of us feel that we must have a dogmatic position on particular doctrines and must defend this position against all others. It's to Chopper's credit that he is trying to work through this issue for himself and remains flexible. I enjoy theological exercises myself, but it's important to remember that in regard to many doctrines it's highly speculative and that the best we can come up with will be, "This is what currently seems to me to be the best fit with the Bible and what I understand to be the nature and character of God."

Hi Runner,
I can agree with all you've said. I've often said that it will NOT be our doctrinal beliefs that save us.

However, I would like to reiterate that Calvin's theory goes against all we know about God, however limited that will be. To the extent that Jesus made us know God, Calvin's God is different from the one Jesus presented to us.
John 14:7-9

In Calvinism God is neither JUST - condemning whom He wills to hell for no apparent reason,
nor is He a God of LOVE - If He loved the condemned ones, he would not send them to hell.

This is the one doctrinal belief that changes God and so, I'd have to say that it is MORE than a doctrinal belief. It creates a new God that was unknown to the Apostles.

Wondering

 

[GodsGrace]

AAAARRRRGGGH!
This makes it very difficult to have any kind of discussion in which historical fact is presented.

A historical fact
is not the same
as Catholic Doctrine

Present it as historical fact...

W

 

[GodsGrace]

Of course "mankind" are the entity class that experience salvation. Devils don't and won't. We do however have quite a bit of information about "them" and "their world" and how "they" operate, which is in the flesh of mankind and that is exactly what makes these conversations so complex at times ain't it? You see we all tend to only see ourselves as individuals but in the eyes of scripture that was never the case. Christian theology presents God, man and devils, all in various stages and mixes of engagements. It's not as simple as God reaching down to man and vice versa with their finger as depicted by Michelangelo's painting on the ceiling of the Sistine chapel.

I put enough on the table in the post to critically examine some aspects of Calvinism, some of which I AGREE with Calvin on, to make conversation and without getting too far into forbidden topics.

Smaller,
It took 5 months, but I finally understand your position!
Nuff said.

W

 

[Chopper]

This is complete departure from the consensus of early Christian teaching other than that of Augustine.

John Hick, in his comparison of Irenaeus’ theodicy against that of Augustine, notes: Instead of the fall of Adam being presented, as in the Augustinian tradition, as an utterly malignant and catastrophic event, completely disrupting God’s plan, Irenaeus pictures it as something that occurred in the childhood of the race, an understandable lapse due to weakness and immaturity rather than an adult crime full of malice and pregnant with perpetual guilt. And instead of the Augustinian view of life’s trials as a divine punishment for Adam’s sin, Irenaeus sees our world of mingled good and evil as a divinely appointed environment for man’s development towards perfection that represents the fulfillment of God’s good purpose for him (1968:220-221).

Justin Martyr wrote: For the coming into being at first was not in our own power; and in order that we may follow those things which please Him, choosing them by means of the rational faculties He has Himself endowed us with, He both persuades us and leads us to faith (First Apology 10; ANF Vol. I, p. 165).

Irenaeus of Lyons affirmed humanity’s capacity for faith: Now all such expression demonstrate that man is in his own power with respect to faith (Against the Heretics 4.37.2; ANF Vol. I p. 520).

Cyril of Jerusalem, Patriarch of Jerusalem in the fourth century. In his famous catechetical lectures, Cyril repeatedly affirmed human free-will (Lectures 2.1-2 and 4.18, 21; NPNF Second Series Vol. VII, pp. 8-9, 23-24).

Gregory of Nyssa, in his catechetical lectures, taught: For He who holds sovereignty over the universe permitted something to be subject to our own control, over which each of us alone is master. Now this is the will: a thing that cannot be enslaved, being the power of self-determination (Gregory of Nyssa, The Great Catechism, MPG 47, 77A; in Gabriel 2000:27).

John of Damascus, an eighth century Church Father. is famous for his Exposition of the Catholic Faith, the closest thing to a systematic theology in the early Church. John of Damascus explained that God made man a rational being endowed with free-will and as a result of the Fall man’s free-will was corrupted (NPNF Series 2 Vol. IX p. 58-60).

Saint John of the Ladder, a sixth century Desert Father, in his spiritual classic, The Ladder of Divine Ascent, wrote: Of the rational beings created by Him and honored with the dignity of free-will, some are His friends, others are His true servants, some are worthless, some are completely estranged from God, and others, though feeble creatures, are His opponents (1991:3).

ANF = Ante-Nicene Fathers.

MPG = Migne’s Patrologia Graecae

NPNF = Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers.

"Ultimately, the underlying flaw of Reformed soteriology is the emphasis on God’s sovereignty to the denial of love. The Calvinist insistence on God’s sovereignty undercuts the ontological basis for the human person. Closer inspection of the doctrine of irresistible grace brings to light a certain internal contradiction in Reformed theology: God’s free gift of grace is based on compulsion. Or to put it another way: How can a gift be free if there’s no freedom of choice? Love that is not free cannot be love. Love must arise from free choice. " (my emphasis)
From" Plucking the TULIP (1) – An Orthodox Critique of the Reformed Doctrine of Predestination August 12, 2012 by Robert Arakaki

Bishop Kallistos Ware writes: Where there is no freedom, there can be no love. Compulsion excludes love; as Paul Evdokimov used to say, God can do everything except compel us to love him (Ware 1986:76; emphasis in original).

jim

I agree with most of this except the last, "Ultimately, the underlying flaw of Reformed soteriology" It appears to me that writers of old, as well as new, isolate the group known as the "Elect" chosen before the foundation of the world....
Ephesians 1:4 "According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
1:5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will."

Now, by isolating this specific group called the Elect, and applying it to the rest of humanity is simply wrong and shortsighted to say the least. I remember Jesus stating that the Pharisee's were the blind leading the blind. I apply the same to all who follow in the footsteps of those believing that Ephesians 1:4, 5 refers to all humanity, it does not!! The Elect are the remnant of followers of YHWH, by a special call of God to these alone and no one else. They also make up the Bride of Christ Jesus thru the ages.

As I've said before, there is a second group beyond the Elect. They are the Pharaoh's that God purposely hardened their hearts in order to display His power and authority over wicked men, all the while protecting Israel His chosen people.

Then there is a third group. They are the ones who by their "free will choice" respond to....
John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

These are those of whom I have coined the phrase, "the General Call of the Gospel" in which by their freewill choice either believe God's plan of Salvation thru His Son Christ Jesus, or not.

Why exactly Calvin did not consider John 3:17 God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; as to his belief that God predestined some to be damned to hell is beyond me. In all of Calvin's writings, I've not read a good explanation as to why.

Now, in saying all this, I realize that folk are applying their thoughts from true Calvinism and not modern theology and the doctrines of the true Church of Jesus, the Son of God.

Just my thoughts.

 

[smaller]

I agree with most of this except the last, "Ultimately, the underlying flaw of Reformed soteriology" It appears to me that writers of old, as well as new, isolate the group known as the "Elect" chosen before the foundation of the world....
Ephesians 1:4 "According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
1:5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will."

Now, by isolating this specific group called the Elect, and applying it to the rest of humanity is simply wrong and shortsighted to say the least. I remember Jesus stating that the Pharisee's were the blind leading the blind. I apply the same to all who follow in the footsteps of those believing that Ephesians 1:4, 5 refers to all humanity, it does not!! The Elect are the remnant of followers of YHWH, by a special call of God to these alone and no one else. They also make up the Bride of Christ Jesus thru the ages.

You are very correct in that idea Chopper, that the elect were NOT unsympathetic from their unbelieving cohorts and WERE just as "human" as everyone else. They related to people and bemoaned the conditions of the unbelievers and related to them all, deeply.

In our believing it is not in all cases a favor to us, as Jesus shows us by personal example, in His sufferings and tears. Any of us who hasn't spent a lot of time in the "why" zones on these matters just ain't payin attention. I've why'd God without end. Like a little baby with incessant questions.

As I've said before, there is a second group beyond the Elect. They are the Pharaoh's that God purposely hardened their hearts in order to display His power and authority over wicked men, all the while protecting Israel His chosen people.

And that's where there is a big distinction between the freewill camps and the determinists. Determinists for the most part understand that God can do anything. That includes making evil for His Own Purposes and Reigning over it. Freewill stumbles badly at this point, quite falsely thinking that IF God created evil then He is evil. That is faulty logic. God IS Great Enough to create evil and make PERFECT come about from it in the end. He's Far Greater than anything we can imagine.

This I know, from experiences. And these things, these exposures to adversity and witnessing Gods! 'forms' of deliverance caused me and led me to read His Word differently, with Him Solidly at the Top and in control of all things and everything. Even when it is not easily apparent to most.

Freewill is illusory. I learned a long time ago that the sphere of my control is about the length of my arms. Not worth much. I'd take Gods Will over my own any day. Nor is God in "need" of anything of us. That is another fallacy of the freewill camps. God can make children of Abraham out of rocks if He wanted to. Matt. 3:9.

IF God wants anything He's certainly capable of getting it Himself without any help from us.

 

[Chopper]

Remembering that this is all speculation is an important point. Calvin was one of the giants of theology and is not easily dismissed - but there are plenty of other giants who disagree with him. I like Chopper's attempt in the OP - but it, too, is speculative (as Chopper recognizes). All attempts are speculative because, as you suggest, the Bible is ambiguous on this point and there are definitely passages pointing in different directions. I have a gut-level bias against any view that doesn't afford every last human a full and fair opportunity at salvation, to the extent that I am willing at least to consider some distinctly non-mainstream possibilities - but this is just my speculation and intuition (Spirit-led intuition, I hope). What is important (in my opinion) is how we lead our lives. A bit of uncertainty on doctrines such as this is (in my opinion) a generally good thing. It is likely to lead to a view of oneself and one's relationship to others that is more consistent with what Jesus was talking about than is a cocksure, divisive attitude that my answers are right and everyone else's answers are wrong.

I've recently been reading quite a bit of Eastern Orthodox theology. What I like is that their overarching premise is that God is and will always remain a mystery. With this as their starting premise, they feel less need for dogmatic certainty about particular doctrines. Relevant to this thread, I am just beginning a chapter on a segment of Orthodoxy that is friendly toward universal salvation but can apparently be accommodated within the church. I'm not sure why so many of us feel that we must have a dogmatic position on particular doctrines and must defend this position against all others. It's to Chopper's credit that he is trying to work through this issue for himself and remains flexible. I enjoy theological exercises myself, but it's important to remember that in regard to many doctrines it's highly speculative and that the best we can come up with will be, "This is what currently seems to me to be the best fit with the Bible and what I understand to be the nature and character of God."

Thank you so very much for defending some of my writings and thoughts, your kindness and grace shown to me is really a praise to Christ Jesus and His Holy Spirit Who inspires my good theology. My personal preconceptions are of no value, nor are my fleshly thoughts. I really liked this statement of yours...."I have a gut-level bias against any view that doesn't afford every last human a full and fair opportunity at salvation," That position of yours has earned a Chopper Home Run my friend, because it is exactly how I feel in my heart.

 

[smaller]

Probably the easiest flaw to observe in Calvin's TULIP is the T portion.

Now why would this be? It's quite easy to see. IF we read this scripture for example:

1 John 3:
8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.

or this one:

Mark 4:15
And these are they by the way side, where the word is sown; but when they have heard, Satan cometh immediately, and taketh away the word that was sown in their hearts.

and there are literally hundreds more like it, it quickly becomes PAINFULLY obvious that Calvin misses this fact sorely and is waaay too mancentric in his approach to the subject matters of scripture. Who is the Totally Depraved in the above? ding ding ding.

We should easily be able to observe that the accounts of mankind are not just about mankind. They are also every bit of accounts of our adversaries as well. And scriptures present that these parties are OVERLAPPED.

Religious people HATE to hear this fact. But then again, it's not just "them" that are reacting adversely, is it? lol