Calvinists, help a Determinist out!

[mandym]

"That" must refer to some point I made.

Calvinism asserts God ordains whatsoever comes to pass. My position is no scripture supports that assertion. That is not man-made logic, it is a statement of my view based on reading scripture. God certainly causes or allows everything that comes to pass, but allowing something to occur as a result of the autonomous actions or thoughts of His creation, does not make Him the author of sin. But if, as Calvinism does, folks say God predestines everything (ordain = predestine) that makes Him the author of sin. Now you can say "God does not predestine everything." But when you do, you depart from Calvinism.

I am not a Calvinist nor an Arminian or any other name they feel they need. They do not seem to be able to function if they cannot assign some sort of label on things. But I hold that God is sovereign in the midst of our choices throughout life including salvation. But neither does that mean that God does not know something. That is the extreme in the other direction. To many people are trying to explain to many things not given explanation in scripture. Some of the discussions reminds me of Jobs friends. There is no doubt that saw in themselves a clear logic in their accusations against Job. But God stepped in and asked:

Job 38:1 Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said,
Job 38:2 Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?
Job 38:3 Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me.
Job 38:4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
Job 38:5 Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?
Job 38:6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;
Job 38:7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?
Job 38:8 Or who shut up the sea with doors, when it brake forth, as if it had issued out of the womb?
Job 38:9 When I made the cloud the garment thereof, and thick darkness a swaddlingband for it,
Job 38:10 And brake up for it my decreed place, and set bars and doors,
Job 38:11 And said, Hitherto shalt thou come, but no further: and here shall thy proud waves be stayed?
Job 38:12 Hast thou commanded the morning since thy days; and caused the dayspring to know his place;
Job 38:13 That it might take hold of the ends of the earth, that the wicked might be shaken out of it?

 

[humblethinker]

Sorry I hurt your feelings....Let me rephrase. Are you writing a paper?

No, I am not writing a term paper or any other paper about this subject.
I would be glad to share with you my story but that would be off topic of the OP.
My reply was not due to my feelings being hurt as much as it was due to truly not understanding your motive in making the statement, except that it was an attempt to dismiss the legitimacy of my question and avoid answering it.

I appreciate the spirit of your reply.

 

[Van]

Hi Mandym, many posters say they are not Calvinists, but when I ask which of the 5 doctrines of the TULIP they think are false doctrines, they do not answer. Which of course suggests they were Calvinists in disguise.

I support my views with specific referenced scripture. I say God can limit His knowledge but I support this with God remembering no more our sins forever. I say God can choose not to know something, such as Jesus choosing not to know the time of His return.

 

[mandym]

Hi Mandym, many posters say they are not Calvinists, but when I ask which of the 5 doctrines of the TULIP they think are false doctrines, they do not answer. Which of course suggests they were Calvinists in disquise.

I don't think it is necessary to assume the worst about someone. Not very charitable. And if someone says they do not study Calvin but hold to the same doctrines in tulip then there is no inconsistency there. What you may find is that they will admit to holding a reformed theology rather than bearing the label of Calvinist. It is perfectly reasonable if a reformed person distances themselves from Calvin.

 

[humblethinker]

I am not a Calvinist nor an Arminian or any other name they feel they need. They do not seem to be able to function if they cannot assign some sort of label on things. But I hold that God is sovereign in the midst of our choices throughout life including salvation. But neither does that mean that God does not know something. That is the extreme in the other direction. To many people are trying to explain to many things not given explanation in scripture. Some of the discussions reminds me of Jobs friends. There is no doubt that saw in themselves a clear logic in their accusations against Job...

Based on your first quote I thought you were a Calvinist.
Wouldn't you agree though, that it is reasonable that Calvinists should be able to provide more answers to the OP than what they have thus far?

Here's the restatement of the main part of the OP:
I am really curious as to whether this person would be interested in trying to reach out to the hard determinist and help him see that hard determinism is unscriptural. If there is such a concern, then what scriptures would the Calvinist offer as proof texts that hard determinism is not scriptural? Or would you think hard determinism is compatible with Calvinism?

 

[mandym]

I support my views with specific referenced scripture. I say God can limit His knowledge but I support this with God remembering no more our sins forever. I say God can choose not to know something, such as Jesus choosing not to know the time of His return.

and has been pointed out you misapply that statement to an extreme level. Using the phrase "remember no more" does not have to mean God chooses not to know something. It can, and more reasonably does, mean that God does not any longer deal with them according to those sins. Quite honestly it is your extreme handling of scripture that gives fuel to much criticism of those who see both a literal interpretation of scripture and a level of free will of man. You seem to be reacting to what you see as an extreme and in the process taking on bad arguments to defend against them.

 

[JesusFan]

I don't think it is necessary to assume the worst about someone. Not very charitable. And if someone says they do not study Calvin but hold to the same doctrines in tulip then there is no inconsistency there. What you may find is that they will admit to holding a reformed theology rather than bearing the label of Calvinist. It is perfectly reasonable if a reformed person distances themselves from Calvin.

Also, am sure there are seveal like me who DO hold to TULIP as vaid expression of the model God uses to save.apply grace/atonement towards, but are NOT reformed in other than Salavtion mode, as do not see rest of the main doctrines as traditional "real" cals do...

Like infant baptising, type of Church govt, covenant theology etc
See there are Calvanist who take "whole" system that it epouses, others in baptist circles taking "just" the 4/5 points of salavtion model, remainder doctrines staying "Baptist"

 

[mandym]

Also, am sure there are seveal like me who DO hold to TULIP as vaid expression of the model God uses to save.apply grace/atonement towards, but are NOT reformed in other than Salavtion mode, as do not see rest of the main doctrines as traditional "real" cals do...

Like infant baptising, type of Church govt, covenant theology etc
See there are Calvanist who take "whole" system that it epouses, others in baptist circles taking "just" the 4/5 points of salavtion model, remainder doctrines staying "Baptist"

I meet with another pastor once a week for prayer and fellowship. He claims to be reformed but is dispensational and refuses infant baptism.

 

[JesusFan]

Based on your first quote I thought you were a Calvinist.
Wouldn't you agree though, that it is reasonable that Calvinists should be able to provide more answers to the OP than what they have thus far?

Here's the restatement of the main part of the OP:
I am really curious as to whether this person would be interested in trying to reach out to the hard determinist and help him see that hard determinism is unscriptural. If there is such a concern, then what scriptures would the Calvinist offer as proof texts that hard determinism is not scriptural? Or would you think hard determinism is compatible with Calvinism?

Basically, IF you held to that, you would be upholding a view of God more compatible with the God of Islam, Allah, NOT God and father of the Lord jesus Christ!

 

[The Archangel]

Here's the restatement of the main part of the OP:

I am really curious as to whether this person would be interested in trying to reach out to the hard determinist and help him see that hard determinism is unscriptural. If there is such a concern, then what scriptures would the Calvinist offer as proof texts that hard determinism is not scriptural? Or would you think hard determinism is compatible with Calvinism?

I think a distinction must be made between "Hard Determinism" and God's sovereignty.

Hard Determinism is understood as God actively causing men to sin to suit His purposes. Calvinism says nothing of the sort, despite what other ignorant persons might say.

A true understanding of God's sovereignty does, indeed, speak against Hard Determinism.

If you look, again, at Genesis 50:20 you will see that there are two strains of intent, with God being sovereign (but not causing) both:

As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today
​

In this case, Joseph is talking to his brothers and recounting their selling him into slavery. Notice that he points to their intent--it was evil. But, notice the over-arching sovereign intent of God--it was good.

What we have here is this: God ordained that the brothers would sell Joseph into slavery. God did not cause them to do this in an active way. It was of their own free will. God, however, because He is sovereign and all-knowing, etc., allows the brothers to sin in this way, all the while intending their sin to serve His greater purpose.

It must be noted that "Ordain" does not mean cause. Ordain is a passive allowance, not an active cause.

So, this is why we say: "God fore-ordains the free (and sometimes sinful) actions of human beings to serve His purposes and display His glory.

I think this speaks against hard determinism because Joseph address both the brother's will and God's will. Also, there are many more passages like this as well.

The Archangel

 

[Allan]

I think a distinction must be made between "Hard Determinism" and God's sovereignty.

Hard Determinism is understood as God actively causing men to sin to suit His purposes. Calvinism says nothing of the sort, despite what other ignorant persons might say.

A true understanding of God's sovereignty does, indeed, speak against Hard Determinism.

If you look, again, at Genesis 50:20 you will see that there are two strains of intent, with God being sovereign (but not causing) both:

As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today
​

In this case, Joseph is talking to his brothers and recounting their selling him into slavery. Notice that he points to their intent--it was evil. But, notice the over-arching sovereign intent of God--it was good.

What we have here is this: God ordained that the brothers would sell Joseph into slavery. God did not cause them to do this in an active way. It was of their own free will. God, however, because He is sovereign and all-knowing, etc., allows the brothers to sin in this way, all the while intending their sin to serve His greater purpose.

It must be noted that "Ordain" does not mean cause. Ordain is a passive allowance, not an active cause.

So, this is why we say: "God fore-ordains the free (and sometimes sinful) actions of human beings to serve His purposes and display His glory.

I think this speaks against hard determinism because Joseph address both the brother's will and God's will. Also, there are many more passages like this as well.

The Archangel

Brother, there is an old saying in the south which comes to mind:
Hmm.. I like that!

another is:
OHH... I'd sop THAT up with a biscuit!

But I think I'll stick with the Colonel on this one:
Finger lickin good! :tongue3:

 

[humblethinker]

...It must be noted that "Ordain" does not mean cause. Ordain is a passive allowance, not an active cause.

None of these dictionaries seem to agree with your definition of 'ordain'. Can you please clarify, or justify your use of the word as you define it? (or I could be wrong, in which case I can accept with proper evidence)
Ordain defined 1

Ordain defined 2

Ordain defined 3

Ordain defined 4

 

[DHK]

I think a distinction must be made between "Hard Determinism" and God's sovereignty.

Hard Determinism is understood as God actively causing men to sin to suit His purposes. Calvinism says nothing of the sort, despite what other ignorant persons might say.

A true understanding of God's sovereignty does, indeed, speak against Hard Determinism.

If you look, again, at Genesis 50:20 you will see that there are two strains of intent, with God being sovereign (but not causing) both:

As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today
​

In this case, Joseph is talking to his brothers and recounting their selling him into slavery. Notice that he points to their intent--it was evil. But, notice the over-arching sovereign intent of God--it was good.

What we have here is this: God ordained that the brothers would sell Joseph into slavery. God did not cause them to do this in an active way. It was of their own free will. God, however, because He is sovereign and all-knowing, etc., allows the brothers to sin in this way, all the while intending their sin to serve His greater purpose.

It must be noted that "Ordain" does not mean cause. Ordain is a passive allowance, not an active cause.

So, this is why we say: "God fore-ordains the free (and sometimes sinful) actions of human beings to serve His purposes and display His glory.

I think this speaks against hard determinism because Joseph address both the brother's will and God's will. Also, there are many more passages like this as well.

The Archangel

I like your explanation Archangel, particularly the bolded statement. You have stated your case well.

 

[The Archangel]

None of these dictionaries seem to agree with your definition of 'ordain'. Can you please clarify, or justify your use of the word as you define it? (or I could be wrong, in which case I can accept with proper evidence)
Ordain defined 1

Ordain defined 2

Ordain defined 3

Ordain defined 4

The thing is, though, we are not talking about dictionary definitions. Rather, we are talking about definitions in and from Biblical Theology.

The verse where Joseph talks to his brothers shows a definition without actually defining words. We can see the same thing in Acts 13:27 "For those who live in Jerusalem and their rulers, because they did not recognize him nor understand the utterances of the prophets, which are read every Sabbath, fulfilled them by condemning him"

In this verse, as well as the Genesis verse, we see the intent of humans to kill Jesus. But, we also know, from so much else in the Bible, that it was God's will to crush Him.

So, again, there are two strains of intent going on here--man's and God's

When God's plan includes the free and sinful actions of Man, we say those were "ordained" because God is passively including them. As opposed to when, say, God created the world. Those actions on His part were active.

Now, in one sense, the "Ordination" of these things is not left to chance. In other words, there was no doubt that Joseph's brothers would sell him into slavery and there was no chance that the Jewish leaders of Jesus' day wouldn't seek to (and succeed therein) crucify Him. But, the distinction is made--God didn't cause, necessarily, the sinful free actions of human beings, because God cannot sin or tempt to sin.

Is there a tension here? Is there mystery here? Absolutely. But the biblical evidence is, I would argue, quite clear that God's ordinance of something will come to pass, but it will be the active will of the human actor, not God.

The Archangel

 

[humblethinker]

Archangel, can you show me anyone or anything outside of yourself that defines the word "ordain" as you have: "It must be noted that "Ordain" does not mean cause. Ordain is a passive allowance, not an active cause."

I have not found such and this would be one reason a Determinist would believe that God Actively caused the things you say that He passively allowed.

 

[Van]

Does anyone actually believe what Archangel wrote. Ordain does not mean predestine? Of course it does. All Calvinists are exhaustive determinists. Not one Calvinist has said God does not predestine everything. Not one.

Lets take the brothers, did they mistreat Joseph in a way that was not predestined by God. How did He mean it for good, if He did not cause it. Just like those who put Christ to death, they in their ignorance mistreated Jesus, but God meant it for good. And that too was the predetermined plan of God.

As Joe Louis might have said, they can run, but they cannot hide.

 

[The Archangel]

Archangel, can you show me anyone or anything outside of yourself that defines the word "ordain" as you have: "It must be noted that "Ordain" does not mean cause. Ordain is a passive allowance, not an active cause."

I have not found such and this would be one reason a Determinist would believe that God Actively caused the things you say that He passively allowed.

Again, and I will continue to caution you here, you are looking to apply a textbook definition to something that the textbook never intends to talk about.

My suggestion is to read this article by John Piper: Is God Less Glorious Because He Ordained That Evil Be?

In this article, he quotes at length from Jonathan Edwards and adds quite a bit of his own explanation.

In the end, the word "ordain" is the word that I choose to use to represent God's passive allowance of sin. Other authors might choose different words. So, again, a textbook definition won't do.

The Archangel

 

[mandym]

I believe everyone of you are talking above your pay grade.

 

[humblethinker]

Again, and I will continue to caution you here, you are looking to apply a textbook definition to something that the textbook never intends to talk about....

In the end, the word "ordain" is the word that I choose to use to represent God's passive allowance of sin. Other authors might choose different words. So, again, a textbook definition won't do.

I am very concerned that you would purposely use such a significant word improperly. What's more is that the word that you improperly use is the fulcrum of your argument. As you open the scripture, making your case to the Determinist, are you informing him in advance of the altered meaning of this word since he surely would not initially share your understanding of the word?

 

[The Archangel]

I am very concerned that you would purposely use such a significant word improperly. What's more is that the word that you improperly use is the fulcrum of your argument. As you open the scripture, making your case to the Determinist, are you informing him in advance of the altered meaning of this word since he surely would not initially share your understanding of the word?

I'm not using the word improperly. And, in fact, I do explain what I mean by my use of the word when I make any case to you or anyone else, just as I have done in our discussion on this thread.

Ordain stands in contrast to the other word usually batted about by determinists--caused.

"Caused" is best understood, in relation to God's sovereignty and action, as God being the first cause. "Ordained," on the other hand, is best understood--in contrast to caused--as God permitting something to happen, rather than causing it directly.

Perhaps the alternate explanation of God's decreed will (caused) and God's permissive will (ordained)?

In either case, that which is ordained by God--though He is not the first cause--is still part of His perfect plan. Nothing takes God by surprise. He is never left guessing what someone will do and then making the best outcome after the facts are revealed to Him.

In fact, this is one of the reasons God is always pictured in heaven as seated--He never need run to give something attention. Everything is working itself out according to His plan--that which He causes and that which He ordains.

The Archangel