Non-Calvinist Help- Questions

[zrs6v4]

Good afternoon,

It has been a long time (10-15 years) since I have posted on here. I have recently been involved in a Calvinist/Non-Calvinist discussion and wanted to hear from Non-Calvinists with a few questions I had as a refresher.

1. How do you define God's Sovereignty?
2. How do you view the application of God's sovereignty?
3. What are your concerns with a Calvinistic view of God's sovereignty and why do you believe it is flawed?
4. What are the weaknesses in your view of Sovereignty and what are the weaknesses of a Calvinist view of sovereignty?

Thank you!

 

[37818]

1. How do you define God's Sovereignty?

The term Sovereignty is an extra Biblical term to refer to God's supreme power and authority.

Isaiah 45:5, I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: . . .

What are your concerns with a Calvinistic view of God's sovereignty and why do you believe it is flawed?

Where the Calvinist believes in it's view, things that, are not true, and so divides us as Christians.

 

[kyredneck]

wanted to hear from Non-Calvinists

I'm neither a Calvinist or non/anti-Calvinist, but I'll try to give you scriptural answers as it concerns soteriology:

1. How do you define God's Sovereignty?

As concerns soteriology:

16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that hath mercy. Ro 9

2. How do you view the application of God's sovereignty?

As concerns soteriology:

6 Seeing it is God, that said, Light shall shine out of darkness, who shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. 2 Cor 4

3. What are your concerns with a Calvinistic view of God's sovereignty and why do you believe it is flawed?

This does not concern soteriology:

Much of 'Calvinism' holds to the 'predestination of all things', even down to the mosquito that bit you at your outside BBQ last night. The fact is that the word translated 'predestination' is used only four times in scripture and is always in reference to God choosing a people for His own possession. In lieu of 'predestination of all things', 'overuling providence' fits better to the scriptural account, as in:

28 And we know that to them that love God all things work together for good, even to them that are called according to his purpose. Ro 8

4. What are the weaknesses in your view of Sovereignty and what are the weaknesses of a Calvinist view of sovereignty?

As concerns soteriology:

You have to decide which is true for you. At their root Calvinists are Monergists, free-willers are Synergists:

Synergism: the doctrine that the human will cooperates with the Holy Ghost in the work of regeneration.

Monergism: the doctrine that the Holy Ghost acts independently of the human will in the work of regeneration.

...and don't be in a hurry to decide, we all change our minds.

 

[zrs6v4]

The term Sovereignty is an extra Biblical term to refer to God's supreme power and authority.

Thank you for the response.

It seems that when using the term sovereign in reference to God it is often connected to His secret will- purpose-plan. In other words, my question was geared to a more in depth explanation to how God's sovereignty relates to His accomplishing His will in space and time.

Often I hear Calvinist referred to as deterministic. In addition I hear a lot of Christians say things like, "Everything happens for a reason" or, "God is in control." My specific interest is on the Non-Calvinistic views on how God sovereignly accomplishes and brings out His purposes in a way that answers these questions of God's control or purposes in creation.

 

[zrs6v4]

I'm neither a Calvinist or non/anti-Calvinist, but I'll try to give you scriptural answers as it concerns soteriology:

...

Much of 'Calvinism' holds to the 'predestination of all things', even down to the mosquito that bit you at your outside BBQ last night. The fact is that the word translated 'predestination' is used only four times in scripture and is always in reference to God choosing a people for His own possession. In lieu of 'predestination of all things', 'overuling providence' fits better to the scriptural account, as in:

I was thinking I included anyone who is Not a Calvinist by saying Non-Calvinist . Back when I posted on here years ago people preferred being called non-Calvinist. I understand that some prefer to avoid titles if that is what you mean.

Along with what I stated in my last response I was hoping someone would flesh out their view a little. I respect and agree that our views and concerns should arise from the Scripture organically as we follow Christ. In your example of the mosquito. It seems that someone who does not identify with Calvinist views would not see God having any control or connection with the life of the mosquito? In that sense much of what we see in this world is random chance?

Im trying to gauge a deeper understanding of the view of how God manages the world in time and space under His rule to accomplish all He wills. With that said, salvation would fall under that umbrella in some way shape or form.

 

[37818]

. . . my question was geared to a more in depth explanation to how God's sovereignty relates to His accomplishing His will in space and time.

You, really wanted more from the Calvinist view. From my non Calvinist view a call of some kind, precedes an election, an election which occurs in time. Romans 9:11, Matthew 22:14.

 

[kyredneck]

I was thinking I included anyone who is Not a Calvinist by saying Non-Calvinist . Back when I posted on here years ago people preferred being called non-Calvinist. I understand that some prefer to avoid titles if that is what you mean.

Oh, I don't mind a label if it's true. I'm definitely a Monergist. What about you? Monergist? Or Synergist?

Along with what I stated in my last response I was hoping someone would flesh out their view a little.

Lol, everyone on this site believes 'their view' is scriptural. You probably need to be more specific than "flesh out their view a little".

Often I hear Calvinist referred to as deterministic.

A lot of scripture agrees with 'Calvinist determinism', but not all.

"Everything happens for a reason" or, "God is in control."

As I pointed out previously:

28 And we know that to them that love God all things work together for good, even to them that are called according to his purpose. Ro 8

My specific interest is on the Non-Calvinistic views on how God sovereignly accomplishes and brings out His purposes in a way that answers these questions of God's control or purposes in creation.

Im trying to gauge a deeper understanding of the view of how God manages the world in time and space under His rule to accomplish all He wills.

To know the mind of God is a tall order. I don't believe it's ever been done.

8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith Jehovah.
9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.
10 For as the rain cometh down and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, and giveth seed to the sower and bread to the eater;
11 so shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it. Isa 55

 

[kyredneck]

From my non Calvinist view a call of some kind, precedes an election

In the example of Paul, which came first, his election or the call?:

15 But when it was the good pleasure of God, who separated me, even from my mother`s womb, and called me through his grace, Gal 1

4 and he fell upon the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? Acts 9
15 But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles and kings, and the children of Israel: Acts 9

 

[kyredneck]

Which came first. election or 'the call'?:

48 And as the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of God: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed. Acts 13

 

[kyredneck]

Which came first, coming to Christ or God working within?:

21 But he that doeth the truth cometh to the light, that his works may be made manifest, that they have been wrought in God. Jn 3

 

[37818]

New Which came first. election or 'the call'?:

Always a call. Where both are mentioned, a call is mentioned to precede the election.

 

[37818]

Which came first, coming to Christ or God working within?:

21 But he that doeth the truth cometh to the light, that his works may be made manifest, that they have been wrought in God. Jn 3

Not at issue. Hearing precedes regeneration.

 

[zrs6v4]

Oh, I don't mind a label if it's true. I'm definitely a Monergist. What about you? Monergist? Or Synergist?

I am a Monergist. I have slightly different views of the mainstream Calvinism specifically in regard to how I view regeneration.

Lol, everyone on this site believes 'their view' is scriptural. You probably need to be more specific than "flesh out their view a little".

(scratching head) Yea, Yea I guess you are right.

A lot of scripture agrees with 'Calvinist determinism', but not all.

I am not sure I am comfortable with what Arminian/Non-Cals define as deterministic in the pure sense of the term. I think the Bible unpacks things a little differently than most like to package up. There are aspects of this conversation that the Bible is silent on although teaches the concept for us to believe.

As I pointed out previously:

28 And we know that to them that love God all things work together for good, even to them that are called according to his purpose. Ro 8

Agreed ^ assuming your interpretation is how I read it . To be clear I believe there is 1 correct interpretation of the passage and am not suggesting that there is more than one.

To know the mind of God is a tall order. I don't believe it's ever been done.

To be clear, I really didn't intend for someone to try to explain mystery or what God has not revealed about Himself. I was simply hoping for a Non-Calvinist to explain how they see this working in their view on a basic level. I realize that all view points struggle. To give an example of my view of God's sovereign will, I would point to the garden of Eden and draw the following conclusions:

1. God allowed mankind to fall for a purpose.
2. In regard to God's character, he did not desire for this or tempt Adam or Eve. He did not collaborate with the serpent either.
3. His hidden/secret/ultimate will was for mankind to fall and bring Christ to save sinners.
4. God had the power to prevent the fall. Example: He could have destroyed the serpent in advance yet chose not to.
5. God could have provided grace to effectually lead Adam and Eve to NOT sin similarly to that which is provided to heavenly beings. Yet God chose to give His grace after the fall.
6. Ultimately, what happened in the garden was precisely what God's plan/will/purpose was for Adam and Eve. In a sense, this was the "All things working together for good" for Adam and Eve.
7. Adam and Eve were both fully accountable for their actions and could not point a finger at God and blame Him. They were the primary cause of their own sin and rebellion.
8. The serpent is also fully accountable for his sin and will be judged for his actions.

Those are some thoughts I have in how God's sovereign will works from scriptural truths we find in Genesis 3. The outcome of the fall is not Plan B or C. It is also not something God merely foreknew in the sense that some like to interpret that word. The garden and its outcome were God's eternal plan and happened precisely in the exact way as well as all history that follows. In the same way God is sovereign (decretive will) over the garden and history that follows He is also sovereign over individual's salvation. We can exchange any of my 8 points above with lost people and saved people in time and space:

1. God saves some and not others for a specific purpose/s.
2. In regard to God's character, he does not desire for anyone to rebel or sin. He desires all to repent and trust Christ.
3. His hidden/secret will is for The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit to be glorified in salvation.
4. God has the power to save all. He chooses to save some.
5. God can provide grace to effectually lead any to Christ at any time. (John 6:35-45 / 6:63-65) The Father has choses some to be saved by Christ. All who are granted, drawn, chosen are raised on the last day.
6. Ultimately, exactly how many are saved are the precisely what God's plan/will/purpose are for mankind.
7. All humans are fully accountable for their actions/sin. They are the primary cause of their sin.
8. The serpent will be fully accountable for his actions and work against the Gospel and will of God. God's will is that he will not prevail.

 

[zrs6v4]

Not at issue. Hearing precedes regeneration.

In regard to your order of salvation, this is where I would slightly differ from mainstream Calvinism as mentioned in my comments above. Most Calvinist's see regeneration being the point in the process where God gives life to drawn a lost person to salvation that results in faith. The Blue highlighted part of the order of salvation is what I see as the process of rebirth:

Predestination/Election > Gospel Message/External Call > Effectual Call > Faith/Repentance > Justification+ Adoption > Sanctification > Glorification.

What I see scripturally is rebirth as the process of salvation as a whole starting with the Effectual Call and resulting in Justification/Adoption. The effectual call is the Spirit working through the Gospel. John 6:63, "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life." In other words, Jesus repeatedly in John 6 told the crowd that by coming to him they would be saved yet he also told them why they weren't coming. John 6:64-65, " 64 But there are some of you who do not believe.” (For Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray him.) 65 And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”

In these two verses we learn:

1. The Spirit Gives Life
2. The Flesh is no help
3. Many don't believe because they are not drawn or granted.

If we put these 3 truths together we can assume that the drawing/granting of the Father is done through the Spirit through the Words of Christ.

Additionally, if this drawing means that everyone who is drawn is raised on the last day then we know that this work of the Spirit is certain (Effectual Call) to accomplish a purpose. By other deductions from the text we see that coming to Christ (Faith) is a requirement to have Life then we can confirm that the work of the Spirit (Effectual Call) will always result in Faith since that is the vehicle to be justified and have eternal life. (John 6:35-40; 44-45).

 

[kyredneck]

I was simply hoping for a Non-Calvinist to explain how they see this working in their view on a basic level.

Calling, @Silverhair

Calling, @Silverhair

 

[kyredneck]

Not at issue. Hearing precedes regeneration.

'Hearing' is not even mentioned, 'works' are.

19 And this is the judgment, that the light is come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the light; for their works were evil.
20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, and cometh not to the light, lest his works should be reproved.
21 But he that doeth the truth cometh to the light, that his works may be made manifest, that they have been wrought in God. Jn 3

Ponder this:

11 And into whatsoever city or village ye shall enter, search out who in it is worthy; and there abide till ye go forth. Mt 10

35 but in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is acceptable to him. Acts 10

 

[Silverhair]

Calling, @Silverhair

Calling, @Silverhair

Simple answer:

Drop all the calvinist buzz words and just trust what the bible says,

God desires all to come to repentance and be saved
He has provided the means, trust in His risen Son.

When you start adding your effectual call and special grace etc you are stepping outside scripture and into a man-made theology.

Look at it this way:
Is Jesus Lord without being our savior? Yes
Is Jesus our Savior without being our Lord? No
Does Jesus expect those who know him to live a certain way? Yes.
Do those "certain ways" in any way determine if one is saved or not? No.
Can someone know Jesus as Lord and Savior, and thus be saved, but not fully understand what all of that means? Yes.
The last question is the key, in my mind.
It's not unlike how I reject both Calvinism and Arminianism. I'm a Baptist.

 

[Silverhair]

'Hearing' is not even mentioned, 'works' are.

19 And this is the judgment, that the light is come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the light; for their works were evil.
20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, and cometh not to the light, lest his works should be reproved.
21 But he that doeth the truth cometh to the light, that his works may be made manifest, that they have been wrought in God. Jn 3

Ponder this:

11 And into whatsoever city or village ye shall enter, search out who in it is worthy; and there abide till ye go forth. Mt 10

35 but in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is acceptable to him. Acts 10

You should ponder this KY

Joh 6:29 Jesus answered and said to them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent."

Rom 4:5 But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness,

Rom 11:6 And if by grace, then it is no longer of works; otherwise grace is no longer grace. But if it is of works, it is no longer grace; otherwise work is no longer work.

Gal 2:16 "knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.

Gal 3:6 just as Abraham "believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness."

 

[kyredneck]

You should ponder this KY

Oh, I have, deeply. My point is simply that the scriptures in many instances show 'heart change' from God, the birth from above, occurring long before 'hearing' the gospel. But again, if you're unable to wrap your mind around the 'T' in TULIP, you'll never see it.

 

[zrs6v4]

Simple answer:

Drop all the calvinist buzz words and just trust what the bible says,
God desires all to come to repentance and be saved
He has provided the means, trust in His risen Son.

When you start adding your effectual call and special grace etc you are stepping outside scripture and into a man-made theology.

No doubt we see this differently.

Look at it this way:
Is Jesus Lord without being our savior? Yes (Agreed)
Is Jesus our Savior without being our Lord? No (Agreed)
Does Jesus expect those who know him to live a certain way? Yes. (Agreed)
Do those "certain ways" in any way determine if one is saved or not? No. (Agreed)
Can someone know Jesus as Lord and Savior, and thus be saved, but not fully understand what all of that means? Yes. (Agreed)
The last question is the key, in my mind. It's not unlike how I reject both Calvinism and Arminianism. I'm a Baptist. (Fair Enough)

I assume this is a response to my 8 points I made about Genesis 3 and how I see that working similarly in Salvation? If so it would help me understand you better if you interacted with the points that you disagree with. Take these statements I made for example, is what I said unbiblical in some way here:

"2. In regard to God's character, he did not desire for this or tempt Adam or Eve. He did not collaborate with the serpent either.
3. His hidden/secret/ultimate will was for mankind to fall and bring Christ to save sinners.
4. God had the power to prevent the fall. Example: He could have destroyed the serpent in advance yet chose not to.
5. God could have provided grace to effectually lead Adam and Eve to NOT sin similarly to that which is provided to heavenly beings. Yet God chose to give His grace after the fall."

Thank you,
Zach