A Balanced Calvinism

[glfredrick]

I do agree with your rejection of the idea that the idea of people going to hell is somehow "not up to God." God could save everyone, if he chose to do so.

I disagree. God is clearly not a liar, both by example, by testimony, and by direct revelation. God decreed a law that says, simply, the one who sins, dies. There are two ways that God could violate that law. First, He could simply negate or never speak it. Second, He could ignore it. But, if God ignores that law, then He has indeed lied, for all who sin do not surely die. Also, we end up with universal salvation, and so far, we've not seen anything like universal salvation in the history of humankind, so that possibility is obviously not true.

What about never writing the law in the first place? What to do then with persons who would rebel against God in sin? Just allow that sin and reduce the holiness of God? Or perhaps, adopt a hyper-hyper Calvinistic position, whereby we are all mere automatons (robots) who cannot stray against God.

If we were indeed robots who could never stray from God, however, could God be the most loving possible God? Many would say no. The highest possible point of love for an Almighty God would be to allow human free will to the point where man chose his own fate -- we saw that in Adam (and the Bible says that clearly, In Adam, all have sinned -- and then God could make a way to redeem those lost sinners at a price that none of them could pay. He could give Himself as the payment for their sin -- which He indeed did -- the MOST loving possible act.

So, at the end of the day, no, God could not have just made a race of humans who did not sin. Not without violating His law, His will, His plan, or His love.

 

[quantumfaith]

I disagree. God is clearly not a liar, both by example, by testimony, and by direct revelation. God decreed a law that says, simply, the one who sins, dies. There are two ways that God could violate that law. First, He could simply negate or never speak it. Second, He could ignore it. But, if God ignores that law, then He has indeed lied, for all who sin do not surely die. Also, we end up with universal salvation, and so far, we've not seen anything like universal salvation in the history of humankind, so that possibility is obviously not true.

What about never writing the law in the first place? What to do then with persons who would rebel against God in sin? Just allow that sin and reduce the holiness of God? Or perhaps, adopt a hyper-hyper Calvinistic position, whereby we are all mere automatons (robots) who cannot stray against God.

If we were indeed robots who could never stray from God, however, could God be the most loving possible God? Many would say no. The highest possible point of love for an Almighty God would be to allow human free will to the point where man chose his own fate -- we saw that in Adam (and the Bible says that clearly, In Adam, all have sinned -- and then God could make a way to redeem those lost sinners at a price that none of them could pay. He could give Himself as the payment for their sin -- which He indeed did -- the MOST loving possible act.

So, at the end of the day, no, God could not have just made a race of humans who did not sin. Not without violating His law, His will, His plan, or His love.

gl

I do so appreciate you tact. Thanks for it. I do so wish I could remember C.S. Lewis's argument to your last statement. I remember reading in Mere Christianity something about, if there were another race of "people' in the universe, they would not necessarily have fallen. Perhaps you have read it and may remember.

 

[Luke2427]

First, I want to say I appreciate your exchanges on here the past couple weeks.

Great. I hope that you and I can put the past behind us and be respectful to one another starting this new year.

I get riled easily and you tend to rile. Maybe we can get to where we actually debate the subject rather than each other.

I'll try to do my part.

Agreed...it means He is in control of everything which is not contrary to free will.

Agreed if "free will" is defined as the ability to do what you want to do.

That is a false dichotomy. By God granting man a choice to receive what He has decreed, man is not in charge of his destiny, God is.

That only works if God has no preference one way or the other.

If God wants something to happen and it does not then he did not get his way.

Whoever got their way ON THAT PARTICULAR THING is the one who was in control of of that particular thing.

That does not mean that God was not Sovereign over the universe- but what it means is that God was not sovereign over that particular thing.

God has thus forfeited his Sovereignty over that decision to the one who makes the decision.

Whoever is in control of something is Sovereign over it.

If you are in control of whether or not you will repent and be saved then you are sovereign over that decision. That does not mean that God has stopped ruling the cosmos- but it means that he does not rule your decision.

If he does not rule EVERYTHING big and small then God is NOT exhaustively sovereign. He is sovereign above all but not IN all.

I believe the Bible teaches that God is exhaustively sovereign- not just in an overarching manner in which he will ultimately cause all things to come to the conclusion he desires- but that God is Sovereign IN all and as such controls the choices of man- not just that he HAS a choice but WHAT that choice will be.

The way I see your view of Sovereignty is this: you believe God gave man a choice and that since God was the one who gave it then God is sovereign over it.

But what that means, to me, is that God has forfeited his sovereignty on that tiny matter to the one to whom he has given the control of it.

Control and sovereignty are the same thing in my book.

If God does not control WHICH choice you make then he is not sovereign over WHICH choice you make. If YOU control WHICH choice you will make then YOU are sovereign over that choice.

That's an incorrect view of sovereignty. My children do things all of the time contrary to what I want them to do and I'm still sovereign over them in our relationship.

Yes, you are sovereign over your relationship but NOT over those things that you wish they would not have done. You may over see those things. You may have granted them the freedom to choose one way or the other. But when they do what you don't want then they are in charge of those things- granted you ALLOWED them to be in charge and that maintains your position as sovereign ABOVE them but you forfeit sovereignty in those small matters to them.

As a non reformed, I can honestly say I have never heard that one. Maybe it's those blasted arminians :laugh:

When you say to your children, "It is up to you whether you want to clean the yard or not today, but I want you to," you are forfeiting to them your control over whether or not they clean the yard that day. You could force them to clean the yard. But when you leave it up to them then you give them control over whether or not they will clean the yard today.

Giving them control over that makes them sovereign over that particular event.

What I believe you believe is that God, while maintaining overarching sovereignty above the universe and mankind, forfeits to man some sovereignty- that which has to do with whether or not they will repent, etc...

Man becomes sovereign over whether or not he will go to heaven because whether or not he will go to heaven is really up to him.

Because if it were up to God EVERYBODY would go to heaven.

Since it is not up to God, God has forfeited his sovereignty on that issue to man. Man is in control of who goes and who does not go- not God. God has done all that He can do to save everybody- now MAN controls whether or not he will take advantage of the merits of Calvary. Man controls whether or not he will go to heaven. God no longer controls that. He helps. Man cannot do it without Him. And God made it possible. But ultimately man's eternal destiny is now up to his choice. Man controls man's choice. Man is sovereign over his eternal destiny. God has made it such.

That is not exhaustive sovereignty. I believe God controls man's choices. I believe whether or not man goes to heaven is up to God. Not just that God made it possible but that God decides it.

Thus God is completely sovereign. Men choose what God determines that men choose.

Yes, but you are not sovereign over what time, who is paying and even whether your wife wants to go with you.

But that's not the point. I am sovereign over the small part that I am sovereign over.

Forfeiting a decision IS an act of sovereignty!!

That may be true, but once forfeited you are not sovereign over it. The one to whom you forfeited the decision is sovereign over the decision.

 

[Jerome]

Spurgeon called Andrew Fuller "the greatest theologian of the century".:thumbs:

 

[StefanM]

I disagree. God is clearly not a liar, both by example, by testimony, and by direct revelation. God decreed a law that says, simply, the one who sins, dies. There are two ways that God could violate that law. First, He could simply negate or never speak it. Second, He could ignore it. But, if God ignores that law, then He has indeed lied, for all who sin do not surely die. Also, we end up with universal salvation, and so far, we've not seen anything like universal salvation in the history of humankind, so that possibility is obviously not true.

What about never writing the law in the first place? What to do then with persons who would rebel against God in sin? Just allow that sin and reduce the holiness of God? Or perhaps, adopt a hyper-hyper Calvinistic position, whereby we are all mere automatons (robots) who cannot stray against God.

If we were indeed robots who could never stray from God, however, could God be the most loving possible God? Many would say no. The highest possible point of love for an Almighty God would be to allow human free will to the point where man chose his own fate -- we saw that in Adam (and the Bible says that clearly, In Adam, all have sinned -- and then God could make a way to redeem those lost sinners at a price that none of them could pay. He could give Himself as the payment for their sin -- which He indeed did -- the MOST loving possible act.

So, at the end of the day, no, God could not have just made a race of humans who did not sin. Not without violating His law, His will, His plan, or His love.

God could save everyone, period. Of course we haven't seen universal salvation because God clearly has not chosen to take this course. However, he could have done so, had he chosen.

Also, God is making a race of people who will not sin. That's exactly what is he doing by eventually glorifying the redeemed.

 

[Luke2427]

The highest possible point of love for an Almighty God would be to allow human free will to the point where man chose his own fate --

I think this position is indefensible.

This idea that love cannot be love without free will, meaning, I assume to ability to choose to love or not to love- is not biblical or logical.

The love that Jesus has for the Father is real love- the highest and greatest of loves.

But Jesus does not have the power of contrary choice. He MUST love the father. His perfect and divine nature will not allow otherwise.

My love for my children is real love. I do not have the power of contrary choice. I MUST love them. Love for them has overtaken my will.

This is real love.

The BEST loves in the universe are indeed those that are so great that the will is done away with by them.

 

[Robert Snow]

Wonderful quote. Spurgeon had a way with this subject that I and my peers would do well to learn.

If it wasn't for Calvin and Spurgeon, you guys wouldn't have anything to read! :laugh:

 

[pinoybaptist]

I think this position is indefensible.

.......

It is rank humanism. It places humans at a par with God, negates what God said: My ways are not your way, neither are my thoughts your thoughts.

 

[Luke2427]

If it wasn't for Calvin and Spurgeon, you guys wouldn't have anything to read! :laugh:

We would be limited to the Word of God and the rest of the greatest theological minds in the past 500 years like Edwards, and Beza, etc...

What do you have?:laugh:

 

[Amy.G]

We would be limited to the Word of God and the rest of the greatest theological minds in the past 500 years like Edwards, and Beza, etc...

What do you have?:laugh:

The Holy Spirit.

 

[Luke2427]

The Holy Spirit.

Is it your contention that Calvinists do not?

 

[Amy.G]

Originally Posted by glfredrick
The highest possible point of love for an Almighty God would be to allow human free will to the point where man chose his own fate --

I think this position is indefensible.

Romans 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;



Paul disagrees with you Luke.

 

[Amy.G]

Is it your contention that Calvinists do not?

You asked the question "what do you have?".

I answered you.

I implied nothing.

 

[Luke2427]

Romans 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;



Paul disagrees with you Luke.

This verse does not even address the subject at hand much less does it disagree with me.

Love does not require free will. Period. There is nothing in that verse that says otherwise.

 

[Luke2427]

You asked the question "what do you have?".

I answered you.

I implied nothing.

I asked what do you have to read.

Snow said all we Calvinists have is Calvin and Spurgeon. I asked, "What do you have?"

You replied the Holy Spirit. I am very interested in that book. I bet it's a dandy!:laugh:

 

[Robert Snow]

We would be limited to the Word of God and the rest of the greatest theological minds in the past 500 years like Edwards, and Beza, etc...

What do you have?:laugh:

Harry Ironside
Avery Rogers
Charley Ryrie
Dwight Pentecost
John Walvoord
Lester Roloff
John R. Rice
Chuck Missler
Jack Hayford

to name a few!

 

[RAdam]

It sounds like you misunderstand Paul's nested arguments.

Really? Let's see:

2 Corinthians 5:17-21

"Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us hte ministry of reconciliation; to wit, that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God. For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him."

Notice that Paul states that God hath reconciled (past tense) us to Himself by Jesus Christ. In Romans 5 Paul would say that God did this by the death of His Son. He didn't make us reconcilable, He did reconcile us, it is a done deal. God was in Christ reconciling us to Himself, not imputing our trespasses to us. That's because He imputed them to Christ. On this basis he tells us to be reconciled to God. Our being reconciled to God through the gospel (the word of reconciliation) is based on the reality that God already reconciled us to Himself at the cross. The gospel deals with our perception of the reality of salvation.

 

[Amy.G]

I asked what do you have to read.

Snow said all we Calvinists have is Calvin and Spurgeon. I asked, "What do you have?"

You replied the Holy Spirit. I am very interested in that book. I bet it's a dandy!:laugh:

You know, you and P4T have a way of making me feel stupid. Like bullies on the playground. I know I'm not stupid, but you make me feel that way. Maybe that's just my problem, I don't know, but I do know I will be better off just not conversing with either of you anymore.

 

[Robert Snow]

This verse does not even address the subject at hand much less does it disagree with me.

Love does not require free will. Period.

Yes it does. Continue to post this untruth, but it doesn't change the truth.

Love requires a choice.

 

[webdog]

Okay, I am wrong. You are not arguing for libertarian human free will. Please tell me (and I've asked this before) what, exactly, you ARE arguing for.

I believe in the moral free agency of man, a moral being created in God's image but affected by the fall. I don't even care for "free will" that much as the confusion of libertarian free will can creep in, as it did here.

As in sports, free agency has it's rules and requirements even though the player is free to choose which team he wants to play for.

You are for human free will, but not libertine human free will. You are for human free will that God has to respond to. You are for human free will that God cannot trump (or coerce). That, to me, sounds just like libertine free will, so you may have to forgive my saying that because I can only go on what you post to decipher your position.

You say the last thing you want to do is misrepresent one's position...yet do that again here. Who said God "has to respond" to our will? If God desires to do that hasn't HE set the rules? I believe a choice is a choice, and how it is defined. I believe there are ramifications for our choices, since this is what Scripture teaches. I believe in accountability and responsibility, as defined....ability included.