A Biblicist Alternative To Calvin-Arminian

It amazes me how many folks will call Calvinists heretics! I have read the writings of some and heard the messages of othes who will spout such nonsense and at the same time embrace stuanch Calvinists such as Bunyan, and Spurgeon. Seems kind of inconsistent to me.

 

Bib,
That explanation really helps me understand your position. Thanks.

I think the first issue I would take up as a debate with your position is the meaning of the word "foreknowledge." I would be glad to discuss this here or in private discussion.

Let me know.


PS - To be completely honest, I do believe Arminianism is heresy. I also believe one cannot be an Arminian and a Baptist. Most non-Calvinist Baptists are actually semi-pelagians, probably.
Also, Calvinism has never been deemed heresy by any actual church council or creed. It may be rjected by some, but it was definitely not considered heresy through church history (as Pelagianims and Arminianism have). Heck, Baptists have been profoundly and undeniably impacted in their formation by Calvinism. Certainly it is not heresy.

 

What Calvinism means by decree is what God makes happen because He chooses it to happen. Either directly or through indirect/secondary causes.

Which is exactly what you said here:

You are using the term both ways.

You guys always twist the question around to get your result. I'm not saying God doesn't work all things according to the counsel of His will. I'm saying man's truly free choice is included and accounted for in the counsel of His will and that He does not make every single choice.

Then, why didn't Adam who had no sin nature cheerfully and willfully choose Him in the Garden?

We know 1 and 2 are true on the basis of scripture.</font>[/QUOTE]Number two is not true on the basis of scripture. Give me a verse that says God regenerates prior to conversion. Or that you recieve the new nature prior to belief.

Baloney. He sinned because he had a free will and he chose to sin despite having not yet fallen. My point is that the choice to sin is not only because of our sinful nature. Adam didn't have a sinful nature and still chose to sin.

God made Adam with a corrupt nature? That's not true.

None of those scriptures teaches Calvnism. What you have pointed to is the fact that God can and does intervene in human history and does use truly free choices of men to accomplish His will. That's biblical. That doesn't mean men are robots and God makes/decrees all choices.

[QUOTEOf course. Your only other option is to deny either one of these:
</font>

• God is not powerful enough to stop each individual sin.</font>
• God is does not know the future acts of free agents, so he can't stop each individual sin.</font>
• God just is not interested in what's going on down here on earth.</font>
• God is arbitrary.</font>

[/quote]

All four of the things you just listed are wrong.

Phillipians 2

1Therefore if there is any encouragement in Christ, if there is any consolation of love, if there is any fellowship of the Spirit, if any affection and compassion,

2make my joy complete by being of the same mind, maintaining the same love, united in spirit, intent on one purpose.


3Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind regard one another as more important than yourselves;


4do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others.


5Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus,


6who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,


7but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.


8Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.


9For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name,


10so that at the name of Jesus EVERY KNEE WILL BOW, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth,


11and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.


12So then, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your salvation with fear and trembling;


13for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure.


14Do all things without grumbling or disputing;


15so that you will prove yourselves to be blameless and innocent, children of God above reproach in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation, among whom you appear as lights in the world,


16holding fast the word of life, so that in the day of Christ I will have reason to glory because I did not run in vain nor toil in vain.


17But even if I am being poured out as a drink offering upon the sacrifice and service of your faith, I rejoice and share my joy with you all.


18You too, I urge you, rejoice in the same way and share your joy with me.

The verse you are quoting has absolutely nothing to do with what you are talking about. Paul is admonishing the Phillipians to be like Christ and is reminding them of the process of sanctification where God through the Holy Spirit and His word is at work in their lives making them more like Christ.

He even tells them to "work out their own salvation", or sanctification. Sanctification is a process we are involved in through our choices. The power is God's, however.

My point exactly. Calvinism cannot explain why God who makes all choices would put us through all of this. Biblically, however, it is understood that sin is a result of man's free choice to disobey and reject God. God knew it would happen, which is why He has graciously worked it into His plan before the foundation of the world. He will ultimately use it for His glory and the result will be truly free agents that choose to love Him.

Because God's got a good purpose in allowing sin. That's just about as far as I can go without speaking where scripture doesn't.

Because God's got a good purpose in not saving everyone.

Why would you say God didn't just save everyone? [/QB][/QUOTE]

Because God doesn't force people to love him. That is not love. Love is a choice that must be individually made. If God chose that I would love Him, it would not be true love. God wants us all to love him, but not all will.

He loves us and sent His Son to provide salvation, but not everyone will accept it.

 

Bib, Is there a particular reason why you insist on only debating straw men of your on invention? You don't answer the objections of others nor deal with what they actually assert.

Virtually every argument you make is preceded by your version of what Calvinsts believe, can believe, or don't believe.

You have obviously defined "calvinism" narrowly and rejected it. That's your prerogative... but it doesn't make either your definition nor conclusion "biblical".

I don't particularly care for or even accept all of the explanations given by "calvinists" to support the 5 basic points. Its adherents and theologians are not perfect. I think they often use unfortunate terms like "inability" that are easily stripped of context and attacked.

None the less, I have seen no other system nor explanation that allows the tensions in scripture regarding man's will and God's sovereignty to co-exist without denying one or the other.

 

Scott,

I keep hearing that term "straw men" but I have given you quotes, bible verses, etc. I have also specifically replied to everyone's objections so far as far as I know. How is that building a straw man? If your view is not represented, bring it on!

I've already said I can't claim to understand the many variations of Calvinism out there. I'm not making this stuff up. Its what Calvinism teaches as espoused by some of its greatest theologians.

My plain assertion is that that all five points of TULIP as historically set forth are wrong. How am I making a straw man by refuting those points?

By the way, there is no tension in scripture between man's will and God's sovereignty. The problem is when you define sovereignty in a manner that the Calvinists I've quoted have done, it creates tension with the truth of scripture.

Also, why not refute my bible commentary if I'm wrong? No one has done that.

Never mind what I'm saying about what Calvinism teaches. You tell me what Calvinism teaches and show me where my views on total depravity and Sovereignty are biblically wrong.

I know this is tedious, and boring. As soon as we are done with this thread I'm probably out of here. I just don't enjoy this. However, I'm sticking with it as I mentioned, in case someone out there needs to know that there is another position.

It bothers me that without restraint, they would be railroaded into one of two basically heretical positions by their fellow "christian" brothers.

[ February 24, 2005, 01:29 PM: Message edited by: Biblicist ]

 

I think most everyone would agree that the Westminster Confession is fairly representative of "classic" Calvinism. You may not agree with what it says, or even that it is "logical", but surely we all should agree that it is representative. Here is Chapter 3, Part 1:

Classic Calvinism does hold to "second causes", but not Deism.

BTW, I agree that Calvin was wrong in his role in the death of Servetus.

 

You have cited things that answer positions that as best as I can tell do not accurately represent the views of your opponents here.

Look back through the thread and you shouldn't be able to miss the near constant corrections of your misrepresentations of our beliefs. Even when quoting these famous theologians, you don't seem to be directly dealing with what they say in full context but rather with your convenient interpretations of what they say.

You have demonstrated this habit to such an extent that it doesn't appear worth the effort to actually discuss substance with you.

Actually you are making things up in a way. You are interpretting their views in a way that you can defeat them. You are also stripping their arguments of their whole context.

I will give you this one thing. Calvinism rises and falls with the first point. Either man is spiritually dead or he is just marred. Either he is wholly infected by his sinfulness and egocentric will or he is basically good but vulnerable.

Then let us represent our side rather than you telling us constantly what we believe.

Really? Please exegete Romans 8-9 and Ephesians 1 without taking liberties with the text and meaning of words.

Denial is not an answer to a problem. Scripture establishes that man has will. Scripture establishes that God elected the redeemed before the foundation of the world.

State your position succinctly and I will attempt to do that.

 

Biblicist,

I don't have much time today, so I'll just respond to your first statement about the decrees of God:

I said

And then you quote me again where I make this statement

You suggest that by making these two statements, I am trying to have it both ways, as if they are contradictory statements. They are not. They are equivalent statements. They mean exactly the same thing. Anything God foresees he could prevent if he decided to. If he says it's going to happen, then he's decided it's going to happen.

Calvinists do not mean by decrees that God "makes" all of his decrees happen if by that you mean that he forces people to act in certain ways. That's where one of your straw men is. If that's how you've understood Calvinistic statements about God's decrees, then you've misunderstood. In case you think I'm just confused, here's a definition of God's decrees from James Boyce (a thoroughgoing Calvinist):

From Samuel Willard (another historical Calvinist), speaking of the decree of God:

Thomas Watson (one of the Puritan theologians), on God's decrees:

Now can we please drop this straw man? Calvinists believe that God's decrees coexist with (and in fact, establish!) the free agency of men.

Please understand that I'm not trying to convince you to become Calvinist. I don't really care all that much what you believe on these things. But nothing annoys me more than seeing Calvinists misrepresented in what they believe. If you're going to try to argue against a postition, then step one is understanding what that postition is. Otherwise, all the work you spend refuting it is wasted. No one even has to engage your arguments, they only have to say--and rightfully--"that isn't what Calvinists believe".

 

I'm hearing you Russell.

The way they describe the relationship is EXACTLY as I would describe it with the exception of Watson's comments. I don't think it is consistent with the Calvinist view of Sovereignty or Salvation however.

Saying that God created a sinless man named Adam and saying that God chose, designed, planned, etc. for him to fall not because of what He knew that man would do, but because of His own good will, makes God responsible for Adam's fall.

I know you say it doesn't, but I think it does.

Consider:
If God does not make all choices

but rather

God manipulates the free choices of man in regards to salvation so that men willingly choose death and hell over Him.

and

God intentionally and willfully directly intervenes in the lives of some to regenerate them apart from any choice of theirs whereupon they freely chose salvation (which He already gave them so that they would choose salvation-a catch 22)

then

God is basically the puppet master that controls every single action. Choices by man are therefore not truly free choices. And don't give me that "free" but not "able" stuff. God made everything, its either His choice or it isn't.

Adam had no sin nature. God created him as God wanted him. Without totally independant free will Adam did exactly what God designed him to do.

That is the logical outworking of the system.

Scott,
As for Romans 8-9, if you are talking about the verse that says "whom he called", etc. Just consider 2 Thessalonians 2:14:

"It was for this He called you through our gospel, that you may gain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ."

God calls people through His word.

My summary exegesis is that Romans 8 is talking about the believer's relationship to the law. Romans 9 is talking about the role of Israel in God's plan. The point is that God has a right to use Israel or to not use Israel at that moment. It is not talking about individual salvation.

I'll have to get back to you on Ephesians 1 as soon as I have time. Gotta run for now!

 

That summary is not exegesis.

In context:

This has nothing to do with the law and everything to do with the divine exercise of grace toward us who God foreknew and predestined.

Ephesians 1 says God chose us before the foundation of the world.

If you have never dealt with these scriptures then I am wondering how you can claim to have refuted calvinism.

 

Romans 7:1 Know ye not bretheren (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth?

Romans 8:3 What the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh.

Romans 9:31-32 But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness. Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone.

Romans 10:4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

Romans 11:1 I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid, For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.

The context of these chapters and the book is absolutely related to the place of Israel in history now that the church is on the scene and the role of the law. It is present in every chapter before and after.

 

Come on Bib, even your own citation of Romans 8:3 disproves your contention. The subject is grace. The inability of the law is relevant to that subject.

References to the law in no way limit the implications of direct statements about grace. You are going to have to do much better than that.

You will note that I gave the scripture in its whole context. You plucked a few verses out of context and applied your own convenient meaning to them.

 

Can you name one city-state in Europe that wasn't modeled this way? Can you name one that wasn't oppressive? What about all the Roman Catholic cities? What about the Lutheran ones? What about Munster under the anabaptists?

I'm not arguing that this is right, just that this was the way it was in that time and place. This is not a useful argument against Calvinism, because in this area, Geneva was actually more moderate than most of the others cities. This particular hamper contains dirty laundry from almost every historical Christian group. It's not wise to go digging there for one's arguments. </font>[/QUOTE]You obviously know that Thomas Munzer was a heretic that changed his position every year from 1520-1525 and a man that used violence to further his agenda. He did not believe in adult baptism and there is no record of his own baptism. Why then would you bring him up to defend Calvin's view of a theocratic state?

Were you hoping I wouldn't know that?

I don't find my heritage in any of the "Christian" groups you mentioned.

 

JGrayhound

I started to ask where you consider Arminians to be in heresy, but I really don't care.

But, I must ask, which "church council" do you expect Baptists to submit to?

 

Scott,

You cut and paste a section of scripture brother!

That's not exactly exegesis either!

See Doug Moo's commentary p.22-30

1. The theological starting point is christology.
2. The theological framework is salvation-history
3. The theme is the gospel.

My view is not out of the mainstream. It is widely accepted that Romans is dealing with salvation history.

The gospel is the theme in the sense that Paul explains the role of the law and the beliver's relationship to it as well as the role of Israel in the outworking of God's plan of salvation.

That's what I said already.

 

Further, I dare to say that much of what has "profoundly and undeniably impacted" churches [including we Baptists] is the WORLD ...

If the world was not impacting the churches, we wouldn't have the terms, liberal, conservative, nor fundamentalist ...

 

Is this a good analogy of Sovereignty? Someone tell me. (I don't believe this but maybe you do)

Imagine a group of children playing in a room when they find some rat poison. The children freely and willingly eat the rat poison which will kill them. You could intervene and stop them all from eating it, but you don't.

Instead, you chose some children in the group to be saved and others to die. You do not kill the children that eat the poison, you simply allow them to continue on the path that they are on without interference.

The other children you pull aside and explain that the poison is bad or maybe you take the poison from them. Either way, they then freely chose because of your intervention they no longer desire the poison and they choose not to eat the poison.

The result is that the children you chose to life are saved. The children you did not choose die.

Because of your wisdom. You assert that you have every right to make that decision and that you have not done anything wrong. Furthermore, you assert that all the children COULD have been saved if they had sought you out but they didn't because it wasn't in their nature. You could have chosen to save them all, but you did not. Nevertheles, you believe that its not your fault they are dead.

Lastly, you hold them accountable for their stupid decision to eat the rat poison even though they were unable to make any other choice. You then say that you really wish none of them had died and that its such a shame, but at least it brings attention to the fact that you know what you are talking about, which results in some well deserved glory for you.


Is that how you guys view God?

 

so....?

 

NO.

First, that illustration uses children. The implication is innocent little children that should have been protected.

In reality, we are evil people who knew better but we only spit at God's face and mocked, while we willingly ate the poison.

Second, you use a human to compare to God. A faillible human, albeit you say they are extremely "wise". The biggest difference is that God CREATED us and has the right to do with us whatever He wants.

Now, you wanted to imply that the children didn't deserve to die, and the adult in the room was unloving.

We DESERVE our punishment. God is not obligated to save us. Salvation is Grace, damnation is justice. Both glorify God.

 

Let's see if I've got this right. I google "God's decrees". The first three links produced are from well-known Calvinists. I copy and paste pertinent portions of their works, and you tell me their views aren't consistent with the Calvinist view of sovereinty because they're not consistent with your a priori assumptions of what the Calvinist view of sovereignty is?

I could have gone on, you know, cutting and pasting more quotes from famous historical Calvinists, but it seemed unnecessary, because they all said the same thing. They gave the same explanation that you say is inconsistent with the Calvinist viewpoint. Believe me, that's exactly what the classic Calvinist view is. I ought to know. I've been one for more years than you've probably known Calvinists existed.

Which is why debating this with you is a useless exercise. You've misunderstood some key points in Calvinism, but when people who know better than you do correct you, you just keep on holding tenaciously to your old misunderstandings and spouting the same arguments based on those misunderstandings. Which means your arguments are irrelevant because you're arguing against a position no Calvinist I've ever met (or even read) holds to.

BTW, Thomas Watson's statement is perfectly consistent with the other two.