Featured Has anyone else ever just been unsure about Calvinism and Arminianism?

I agree that God is soveriegn whether He decrees all things that come to pass or doesnt. He can choose to decree all things or choose not to. Predeterminism is not a necessity unless the BIBLE teaches it

 

God certainly has predetermined things. That does not mean He created sin or any kind of evil. He has predetermined how He will deal with them. The fact that God has allowed them is not the same as creating them.

 

Yes, of course I agree that God predetermined things. I meant predetermination of ALL THINGS that come to pass...

There are many things God preordained. But I do not believe He pre-ordained my or your sinful acts (knew about them beforehand, allowed them, but not ordained them), and if those were not ordained by Him, then He did not ordain all things whatsoever come to pass as the confession states.

I am a moderate Arminian, but I am trying to better understand Calvinism

I beieve in the absolute Soverienty of God and that He is certainly not the author of sin. These are compatible

I cannot see the compatibility of ordaining all things that come to pass and not ordaining sin. These appear incompatible to me.

Perhaps it is my definition of ordain that is lacking.

Calvinism states God ordained infallibly whatsoever comes to pass. Yet someone here (a Calvinist) excluded sin, which negates the "all things" part. I want to see how these two differring statements are compatible in the Cavinist's estimation

 

Well, it was God who planted the tree of knowledge of good and evil. But it was Adam who went against His command of not eating from it.

Just like the cross of the Christ. It was God's foreordained plan His Son would die at the hands of wicked men.

Look at all the evil that has befallen the Jews throughout the ages. He sent evil ppl as judgments against them. Nothing is beyond His control.

 

They are incompatible and they are also wrong and unscriptural.

 

Well, God did plant that one tree for reasons only known to Him. Why He did is where both sides attempt to delve into His mind as to why He did what He did.

So it appears there was a 'desire' for sin to be part of His redemptive plan. Why not just not plant that tree and let mankind live in a life of sinless perfection? I just don't know. But if sin was not part of His plan, He would not have planted that tree and also allowed Satan entrance to deceive Eve, imo.

 

Why do you believe God planted that one tree plus allowed Satan entrance into the Garden? Not baiting you, just want to know what you believe. Thanks.

 

Satan was already in the garden before Adam. IOW, Satan was first. God 'planted' Adam & Eve in the garden to provoke Satan to jealousy which started the whole story of redemption for fallen man and the historical conflict that immediately ensued from Gen 3:15.

 

Very good. So now I understand your position. That is why I asked about if that part was permissive or otherwise. So therefore, if part of God's decree is permissive, then whatever is permissive is not Divinely caused but permitted, and God permits or otherwise restrains evil as fitting to His eternal purpose. I can agree with this.

In this way, God is not the cause or author of evil, but the one who overrides evil on the one hand by restraining it, and on the other by permitting it in order to fulfill a purpose. (like the evil act of men crucifying Christ and Joseph's brothers selling him into slavery)

Is that a correct understanding?

But here's a question...If I decide to go out and fornicate with a woman tonight, was that act infallibly foreordained by God? (I am not trying to be offensive, but that would be part of "whatsoever comes to pass".

As to myself, my answer would be NO.

It was foreknown and permitted, but not ordained. And I am using the standard definition of ordain

I FULLY believe in the ABSOLUTE SOVERIENTY OF GOD, that nothing can happen that He does not will, allow, or permit, and that in everything that happens His Eternal Purpose cannot be thwarted. But that is where I stop. Do we agree on this, or am I leaving something out?

 

God put the tree there because that was a way that Adam and Eve could actively love God by obeying Him and by actively believing His Word (the day you eat, you will surely die) and by actively choosing Him over their own ambitions that were perverted by lust.

Also, He knew that they would fall, but the Fall worked into the wonderful plan of redemption. So in this way, God did not cause the Fall, but put a choice between life (tree of life) and death (forbidden tree), knowing beforehand which choice they would make; and at the same time that whole incident was used by God to glorify His mercy through the Lamb slain before the foundation of the earth who bore our sins in His own body upon the cross

And to show the unsearchable riches of His Grace on those who are the Called of Jesus Christ.

 

I'm absolutely sure that both views are incorrect.

I thank God I was predestined to be a non-Cal.



Sent from my Motorola Droid Turbo

 

Satan was already in the Garden? Please expound. Thanks.

 

I hope you're not referring to me, because if the question is "unsure about Calvinism/Arminianism", I am right on topic asking about the thing that makes me unsure. I am sincerely investigating the claims of Calvinism.

If you define "ordain evil" as God allows or permits evil, (not cause or command it) Soveriegnly using it for the Divine purpose then I agree with you on the principle. I don't know if that is the standard definition of Calvinism for "ordain", but we agree that God permits evil (not causes it) for His own purpose

Thank you for your help. I agree with the doctrine I asked about as you explained it. That is a big step.

So would you say that your definition of "ordain" is the same as Calvin's and other Calvinists. Because Classical Arminians say the same thing about God permitting evil and then soveriegnly overriding it and bringing good out of it. And I have always believed that. SO you removed one of my objections to Calvinism, (at least according to how you define "ordain")

 

I think if you were so 'COMPLETELY open minded to what (I) have to say' I wouldn't have received your scathing response.

I'd apologize for using Scripture (that isn't irrelevant and never is irrelevant btw) that directly applies to your inquiry but it's needless.

FTR I never assumed you were questioning God.

As far as attempting to help you understand Calvinism, and, that God uses both evil and good for his glory, I must use Scripture to do so, and that I have done in my previous post. We (Calvinists) always use Scripture to answer questions, address issues, offer insight.

Apologies also for not taking an exhaustive approach to answer you. Perhaps, if you want a detailed biblical response to God's decrees in this, on a Calvinist's perspective, you may find The 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith of some help:

http://www.vor.org/truth/1689/1689bc00.html

http://www.vor.org/truth/1689/1689bc03.html

FTR when I stated not having it all figured out it, it was stated without a thought of you in it, and honestly I never thought you ever even implied such a thing. I apologize if you felt that is what I implied, as my answer may have done just that.

All we know is that God has decreed all things that come to pass, as He is Sovereign; Isaiah 46:10, therefore He has allowed evil.

One purpose for evil that I see is that in it God is glorified. Now, many tend to think that when God is glorified that it means 'get's joy over it, get's a kick out of it'. The way Scripture describes His glory is that it is a manifestation of His attributes. God is holy and good, full of mercy and love. He is glorified when He punishes evil, and a reminder of this was given to me when reading Joshua 6-7 today. In this passage we see the glory of God manifest in exercising His justice on Achan and his kin.

Now, in your second post in this thread you are asking for a Calvinist to do the following:

"The part I am seeking explanation for is the apparant contradiction (I say apparant because it only appears to be contradictory TO ME , not that it is contradictory) in your affirmation that God ordains EVERYTHING that comes to pass while similtaneously denying that He ordained acts of sin. Would you please clarify this for me?

I am not a hard headed person who wants to argue and doesnt want to listen.

To say that God ordains EVERYTHING and then say that He did not ordain sin is contradictory. If He did not ordain sin, He did not ordain everything.

So do you agree with Calvin and the Westminster Confession that God infallibly ordained WHATSOEVER comes to pass? Would this not include acts of sin?

I am not attacking Calvinism. I am trying to find the missing piece in my understanding of it. I know that God did not ordain sin, therefore I cannot believe He ordained EVERYTHING. Am I missing something? If so, what is it?"
##

- What I believe you are missing is that you expect a bonafide, succinct and articulate answer to a mystery that no one fully understands. I believe you also know that no Scripture completely explains it.

Then again, define 'ordain' a word you continue to use.

We tend to use the word 'decree' meaning basically 'to order, to order by authority'. Ordain tends to come across as 'endorse' to too many persons, and seems an implication during debates and discussion. Certainly God did not endorse it in that sense, and no Calvinist I know of believes that.

And by the way, lest we forget, it was man that chose evil, and it is mankind suffering the consequences, and God is just in allowing that.

 

I agree. I would say that God ALLOWED AND FOREORDAINED Judas to betray Jesus and for Jesus to be Crucified by wicked men, and it was part of (rather the crux of) the Divine plan, but that Judas and others were responsible for the sin which came from their own hearts

I have no issue with what you said at all. The question was regarding "God ordaining all things". But T. Cassidy above answered my objection satisfactorily.

PS. I was not trying to present a positon. I was trying to get clarification on one of the tenets of Calvinism.

Now I will drop that subject and say that I'm not sure I agree with the five points of TULIP, but I understand the rationale behind them. IN other words, I have examined heard the arguments for them, and I understand the reasoning behind them, but I have not fully embraced them (for consistency in the various parts does not necessarily make a position true). I am a lot less Arminian than I used to be, though. I think I am not a Calvinist, but I agree with many things that Calvinists hold

I will cease and desist here, and if I want to go further in this I will create a new thread to keep the original topic intact. Blessings.