Featured The 5 Points that lead me out of Calvinism

Is there even one 4 or 5 point Calvinist that describes/defines Calvinism in such a way as not to be make God out to be His own Gospel "saboteur"?? #1

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=2061900&postcount=1

It does not appear that Calvinists have found a Bible solution for their problem.

in Christ,

Bob

 

Hahahaha....what problem? LOL

 

Was God a Trinity from eternity?

Then He has eternal sovereignty over His essential being.

HankD

 

A double Amen on that!

 

Make that a triple:thumbs:

 

The one listed at that link - OP - where God says "what more could I have done that I did not do?".

But if you don't look at the problem described there - I suppose you could claim that "that" is your answer.

For those avoiding the question asked by "not clicking" --

[FONT=&quot]“He CAME to HIS OWN and [/FONT][FONT=&quot]His OWN received Him not[/FONT][FONT=&quot]” John 1[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Matt 23[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]37“Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]38“Behold, your house is being left to you desolate![/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Luke 7[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]28 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]When all the people and the tax collectors heard this, they acknowledged God’s justice, having been baptized with the baptism of John. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]29 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]But the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected God’s purpose for themselves, not having been baptized by John.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Is 5:4[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
What could have been done more to my vineyard, that I have not done in it? wherefore, when I looked that it should bring forth grapes, brought it forth wild grapes?[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Response: [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] Well the Calvinist would have an answer for God's question on that one. An answer contrived via “extreme inference” in places like Deut 5:29. Calvinism would inform the world – and God Himself of just what God did to cause the lamentable result that God is complaining about in t[FONT=&quot]he verse above[/FONT].

[FONT=&quot]I[FONT=&quot]n Calvinism i[/FONT][/FONT]f the result is wrong if it is to be lamented if the question [FONT=&quot]is to be asked "What more could have been done" w[FONT=&quot]ell [/FONT][/FONT]then Calvinism argues He [FONT=&quot]knows exactly what He failed to do [/FONT] - [FONT=&quot]in effect [/FONT] sabotaging His own plans - the cause of His own "lament" - or at the very least - being forgetful to "do the necessary" as the saying goes in India.[/FONT]

in Christ,

Bob

 

Wow.
......

 

LOL! You sound like Norm Cosby, the master of malaprop. It's tantamount silly.

Getting back to the subject --Skan, you need to invest some time in reading Scripture. God's sovereignty is infused with it. My, my. I would encourage you to meditate on Isaiah alone for concentrated study. One cannot read its contents without coming to the overwhelming conclusion that God is indeed sovereign. It is inescapable.

 

How can God be eternally omnipotent if He is not eternally Sovereign? I would also note that you have not responded to the Scripture I presented:

Malachi 3:6. For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.

 

Wow indeed.

God is sovereign - and God sovereignly chose "free will" as the link above points out.

The very thing that Calvinism does not allow God to choose.

The very thing that Calvinism cannot fathom - how can God be sovereign and yet still choose a free will system --

When Calvinism sits in God's chair it cannot figure out how to make both work-- so it makes claims that do not fit the Bible trying to solve the problem.



in Christ,

Bob

 

Universaly accepted by whom? You start with the presupposition then look for a definition to fit it. Sovereignty can be applied to any number of contexts. Trying to assert that creation is the only single context it can be used is not only absurd but i find it sophomoric at best.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Not necessarily...

You stated: "Sovereignty means 'complete rule or dominion over creation.'” The "over creation" part is something that is not germane to the definition. At base, sovereignty means "complete rule or dominion." A king is said to be sovereign over the realm (not everything in the universe), for example. This means the king has complete rule or dominion over his realm. Other examples could be cited, of course, but suffice it to say that the Bible never presents God's sovereignty as being limited to the realm of "creation."

You are hypothesizing that His sovereignty extends only to creation by virtue of His omnipotence. However, that's a philosophical construct; not a statement of biblical theology.

The sovereignty of God and the omnipotence of God cannot be separated biblically. God is presented as sovereign. Period. God is presented as omnipotent. Period.

Furthermore, to suggest that His sovereignty is contingent upon something is to say that there is a time when God is not sovereign--which is exactly what you're arguing. However, again, the Bible never describes such a thing.

The Bible never constructs a "contingent" God where any of His attributes (whether they be "temporal" or otherwise) are contingent upon another of His attributes. Biblically, it cannot be said that God could not love if He had not created, etc. So His inner-trinitarian love or the Love that proceeds from Him to His creation isn't contingent upon anything else; it is facet of His Person and Character.

Of course not. You're starting with a presupposition--that God relinquishes some of His sovereignty. To support your position, you must
theorize that sovereignty isn't an inherent part of His character. In doing so, I dare say you've taken one giant leap towards Open Theism.

By the way, your statement above suggesting that God can and does limit his sovereignty in the temporal world glaringly contradicts your own preferred definition which states that sovereignty is "Complete rule or dominion..."

By your own definition you're de-Goding God because your God (not intended to be a questioning of your salvation) doesn't exercise "complete" authority even in the created realm. According to you, your God (see note above) isn't sovereign because He chooses to limit His sovereignty.

Biblically, however, it cannot be said that He limits His sovereignty. If the evil that men do is super-intended by Him to accomplish His good purposes, which it is, then He is indeed "more" sovereign than you give Him credit for. Indeed, He exercises "complete rule or dominion" at every minute of every day of every moment in eternity.

The problem here is the logical fallacy of asking me to provide the burden of proof against your statement. You've made a statement against that which the Bible simply assumes, namely that God is sovereign and that sovereignty is but one facet of His character. So, the burden of proof is on you to make your case according to scripture, not your philosophy or hypothesis.

You've quoted no scripture in making your argument against the sovereignty of God (vis-a-vis your stated definition and the subsequent application thereof). Therefore, you're assuming a contrary argument from silence. What you've asked here is tantamount to asking someone to prove that there is no God from the text of Scripture when the Bible simply assumes the existence of God.

The Archangel

 

Bob,

I think that you will find that Rev 3 is addressed to the church of Laodicea, not to unbelievers. Also, it's not in regard to eternal salvation. It's regarding fellowship with Christ. It has to do with intimacy - relationship. Sin causes a severed relationship, but Christ is always willing to restore it. *He* is the one seeking restoration with the church which is lukewarm. In all humility, He is making the first move.

“And to the angel of the church in Laodicea write. . . I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with me. . . He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.’”

Brian

 

So when do we get to the heart of the matter, ie the claim that Calvinism is really causitive absolute predetermined theology.

 

God "Sovereignly chose" free will - and both John 1 and Rev 3 are in agreement on that point.

Calvinism argues that God does not have the sovereign ability/right to do so even though His Word claims it "He came to His own - and His OWN received Him not" John 1:11

It is the gospel to "whosoever will" such that "I STAND at the door and knock if ANYONE hears my voice AND opens the door - I WILL come in" Rev 3.

the same offer to the lost "anyone" is also the offer to the lost inside the church.

In Rev 3 He does not say "I arbitrarily select out the FEW doors of Matt 7 and not the MANY doors of Matt 7 - I burst down the door and let myself in - ".

As for the OP - I like it. But one thing about that article is that "it is impossible to be 100% certain that God makes any choice/statement in full ignorance of any certain knowledge that He has about the future" - to claim to have such certainty is not at all compelling.

========================

Rev 3 is addressed to the lost who do not have the righteousness of Christ who are alone on the inside with Christ outside, standing and knocking.

At the very least this is the Christless lost inside the church. At the most it is the christless lost at the time/age of Ladicea.

If your claim is that the lost inside the church have free will but the lost outside the church do not - then this is the first I have heard that as a primary belief in 4 or 5 point Calvinism. I know of no principle in Calvinism that would allow for such a thing. Not possible in the Arminian model either.

Let me know.

As it is - the Bible appears to support the fact that God "sovereignly" chose free will for the world.

in Christ,

Bob

 

Was that claim not addressed here?

 

No... In quoting only part of my post you have, for lack of a better term, misquoted me. Remember, I said this:

Biblically, however, it cannot be said that He limits His sovereignty. If the evil that men do is super-intended by Him to accomplish His good purposes, which it is, then He is indeed "more" sovereign than you give Him credit for. Indeed, He exercises "complete rule or dominion" at every minute of every day of every moment in eternity.
​

This is, essentially, the Genesis 50:20 test. Man intends something for evil (acting upon his own free will) and at the same time--unbeknownst to the evil-doer(s)--God is super-intending their free action or actions to serve His good purposes.

A Sovereign God is sovereign over the evil that is done, but not in such a way that He causes said evil. The scripture is quite clear on this.

The Archangel