Featured Question about Calvinism

Dave you can try to make the words sound really nice but the reality is that for the calvinist theology to work you have to have God determine / ordain / decree, you can choose the word you like, all things unchangeably. You can not have any free will involved as that for the calvinist would mean that God was not sovereign. How many times have I been told by calvinists that God has to be absolutely totally sovereign or that the Holy Spirit has to make the decisive action.
From a biblical perspective I can see God working in the lives of Joseph's brother to accomplish His goals but calvinism steps outside of the bible into determinism.
So for the calvinist ordain just means suggestion is that what you want us to believe?

The real problem is that you know what the problem is and you just ignore what the the WCF actually says and you want us to accept your contradictory view. And why, because according to you that is not how it was understood when the WCF was written.

The KJV only uses G1299 diatássō 16 times in the NT. appointed 3, ordained 3, commanded 8, set in order 1, given order 1. Even the three where ordain is used it show it means more than just a suggestion as you want us to believe the WCF is saying. "What the Apostle ordained in the churches in regard to marital conditions (1Co_7:17); of what the Lord ordained in regard to the support of those who proclaim the gospel (1Co_9:14); of the Law as administered through angels by Moses (Gal_3:19)" The Complete WordStudy Dictionary

They can make that claim all they want but the text is clear "God from all eternity did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass ". I can understand why you want to run away from it. They even tried to do so by then denying what they had just written.

 

I'm not sure what you're doing there since the WCF was not translated from Greek or Hebrew. Maybe they wrote it in Latin? But anyway, "set in order" would be fine. That shows a deliberate purpose to use a word different than "cause", or directly cause, which is what extreme determinists want.

And why did they do that? For two reason, both of which they stated. One. They didn't want to eliminate the idea of free will because to do so causes other theological problems. Two. They did not want to make God the author of moral evil because that would be against what has been revealed about his nature.

I think the writers of the WCF were sufficiently careful to fully explain exactly what they meant by saying what they did. You can mock it or reject it. It's not scripture, although if you get on a site where they included the scriptures that go along with the points you will be impressed. But I am not under any obligation by church affiliation to swear to it or the London Baptist Confession of Faith, which is slightly modified. And neither are you. Just reject the points you don't like.

 

You said I should try to understand how the word ordain was used in the time when the WCF was written and since I am sure those writers were aware of the KJV bible then they would be aware of what it meant in the context in which they used it. That context does not allow for a different understanding of the word than "cause". Calvinism is based on a deterministic view which is what you see in the WCF statement.

They had to add the second part of the statement in an effort to soften the logical outcome of the first part of the statement.
You even agree that they had to add the qualifier statement because they knew that to say God unchangeably ordained whatsoever comes to pass would include evil in the "whatsoever". The bible does not make God the author of evil, calvinism does that on its' own.

What you call being careful to fully explain what they meant falls far short of any form of explanation. I can see where they tried to cover up the error with a contradictory statement.

I do not need to mock it but I do reject it as a logical incoherent statement. And since I have the WCF & LBCF on my system and have looked into them I am not impressed. I have no problem with the parts that agree with scripture but do reject anything that calls the character of God into question.

As with any confession they are written from a theological position in support of that position. The problem comes in when that confession is held in higher regard that scripture. This is what I see happening with the WCF & LBCF. and by extension TULIP/DoG.

 

I find it the best position to take. Your OP was about you possibly leaning toward Calvinism and from what you post you are well into the modern, highly deterministic, Calvinist camp. I was just pointing out that a thorough reading of Calvinist preachers who really lived it, like Spurgeon, you get a different take on it than you get from the internet Calvinists of the recent Calvinist resurgence, which is on the way out already.

 

There are scriptures where God is clearly interacting with humans where they are clearly given a choice that will matter. There are passages where God seems to say "now I know" something, after seeing what a person will do. There are also passages clearly saying God chooses someone for something and they are going to fulfill that role. There are scriptures indicating you must choose God's will for you, and scriptures saying that men don't do this naturally. There are clear differences in God's dealing with Israel and surrounding heathens and there are indications of heathen nations being praised as at least being as basically good as the Jews. There are scriptures that indicate we are all irrecoverably evil and scriptures promising blessing upon repentance. All these confessions are attempts by men to systematize this in a coherent way. But they are something else too.

They are also documents designed to establish boarders. They needed to come up with a document that would serve as a way for churches and even denominations to unite and to exclude others, like Catholics and Quakers. They also were presented to the ruler at the time as a plea for toleration, so it would be understood what they could teach and not teach and avoid persecution from the government. From what I have read in the WCF the parts on the extent of the atonement and free will were definitely designed for compromise.

What you said about putting scripture first is absolutely true. For instance, scripture promises that if you come to Christ by faith he will save you. Anyone who at that point would throw up anything about election or predestination is misusing theology. Anyone who says that such a person by coming to Christ, may be changing a decree of God does not understand scripture or the proper use of theology. But it also does not mean that when you decide to come to Christ you came by way of an autonomous free will. You are invited to come. You can decide to come. If you really put scripture first then leave it at that and you are fine. But theological speculation is not just a problem with Calvinists. Claiming that you were not called, that you have always had the ability to figure this out on your own, or that God had to wait for your autonomous decision is just as abusive of scripture as any Calvinist theology. Spurgeon and Wiersbe knew this. So did Owen, Edwards and Bonar and even Wesley and Baxter.

 

"There are also passages clearly saying God chooses someone for something and they are going to fulfill that role." Do you mean people such as Pharaoh, Cyrus in OT or Paul, Judas in NT? I agree that God chose them for a task but do you think they could have rejected the call?
When you say "we are all irrecoverably evil" would that not negate our ability for "repentance" ?

Agreed men have tried to systematize their views which has both a good and bad side to it.

I do not see much compromise when you consider "All those whom God hath predestinated unto life, and those only, He is pleased in His appointed and accepted time effectually to call, " Chapter X. Of Effectual Calling "The grace of faith, whereby the elect are enabled to believe to the saving of their souls " Chapter XIV. Of Saving Faith.
Those comment are exclusionary and disagree with scripture.

You continue to use the phrase "autonomous free will" as a pejorative but as has been pointed out to you more that once man responds to the various means that God uses to draw man to Himself. No one has an autonomous free will but we all have a God given free will with which to make the choice to trust in or reject God based on the information that we have and how we choose to view it.
Spurgeon and Wiersbe knew this.

Man either has a free will or all is determined by God. With a free will man is responsible for the choices he makes if all is determined then God is responsible for the determined choices man makes.

 

Spurgeon and Wiersbe absolutely did not believe this. They both believed in the direct action of the Holy Spirit on any person who gets saved as a prior action. All the Puritan Calvinists, Bonar, non-Calvinists like Wesley and Baxter, and Arminius believed the same thing.

This is why we have theology and commentaries - so that we won't make such statements. And as you see, those who claim that they only follow scripture in reality make absolute theological statements just like those who respect theology do.

I don't know what some of you guys think. I don't care if you reject the confessions and I have said repeatedly that I don't consider it an issue of orthodoxy. But do you really think that you are going to really come on and demolish documents like the WCF? At least have some respect for it if for nothing else, just for the historic significance.

 

That is just a foolish statement on your part. They believed what the bible says you are the one that requires a decisive action from the Holy Spirit. That is just another way of saying determinism.
Charles Spurgeon commented, “If the elect were marked with an X then I would not need to preach ‘whosoever will’ but since they are not then I continue to preach ‘whosoever will.'” God provides the information but He does not cram it down a persons throat as you seem to think. You are more of a hard calvinist than you let on.

Free will or determinism are the only two options available. Who makes the decision to believe, the man or God? Does God hold man responsible for the choices he makes? If you say YES then you have to agree that man has a free will as only via a free will can he make choices.
Theological statements are made based on the study of scripture which is the basis of ones' theology.

Pointing out the logical contradictions in a document is just that. What a person does with that information is up to them. If they are comfortable with the contradictions and can accept them then so be it but they should not expect everyone to just go along with their view.

The WCF and the LBCF were documents written by people that held to a particular view of scripture and it shows in the text of those documents.

 

Not only did Spurgeon say that but look at this:
"Wherefore, that which is now proposed unto consideration in answer hereunto, is the readiness of Christ to receive every sinner, be he who or what he will, that shall come unto him."
That from John Owen.
"Salvation is ready brought to your door; and the Savior stands, knocks, and calls that you would open to him, that he might bring it in to you. There remains nothing but your consent. All the difficulty remaining is with your own heart. If you perish now, it must be you would not come to Christ that you might have life, an because you virtually choose death rather than life." Jonathan Edwards

So do I seem to think that. Did Edwards, Spurgeon and Owen think that? That's why I keep saying that you (and the new Calvinists) need to really read these guys. If you do you eventually get a sense of where they were and you get a sense of why the great confessions are so brilliantly well done and thought out.

 

Nothing at all wrong with that.

 

I've wondered about that too. Recently I've been reading Arminius himself, rather than about Arminius, and his writings where he goes back and forth with the Puritan Perkins. He makes a lot of sense.

I agree with you there 100%.

 

Excellent!

 

You didn't read what I said.
Romans plainly tells us we are responsible.

 

As I have said a number of times on this board the Holy Spirit convicts men of their sin. But He does not cause or force men to believe. That is what @DaveXR650 is advocating when he says that a person cannot believe without the Holy Spirits' decisive action. So no decisive action by the Holy Spirit then no ability for the person to believe.

I can understand that Spurgen said what he said, he was a calvinist. While I respect Spurgeon as a good preacher he was still just a flawed man who happened to hold to the calvinist view so I would expect him to preach as he did.