An unanswered question for Calvinists

Yes, I would say so. I am no expert in Calvinism, but I've read enough books by those from the Reformed tradition (e.g., Packer, Sproul, Frame) to know that every responsible teacher of Calvinism always stresses freedom of choice and moral responsibility. The term "free will" is usually avoided because it is a misleading one. Philosophers would define free will as the power of absolute self-determination (or the ability to make uninfluenced choices), and this is something none of us possesses. Even if God did not exist, we could not truly say that our decisions are uninfluenced. But we do make real choices, and we are responsible for those choices. Every Calvinist I've ever read clearly asserts this. One thing we should not do is pass judgment on an idea without reading carefully the primary sources. I also believe strongly that as Christians we should never misrepresent the views of others (not saying you are). There are tons of books that explain Reformed doctrine fairly lucidly. I'd recommend to anyone interested that they read and study a few of those, especially since expounding it here is certainly beyond my capabilities.

 

God is sovereign. His providence embraces all things. Does this mean that God is the efficient cause of all things? No. The Scripture does teach that God permits and suffers some things to be so. Does this mean that God is not sovereign? No. According to some "Calvinists," it may mean that, but not according to the Scripture. God is in control of all things, even evil, but that does not mean He is the cause or influence of such. Sin proceeds from our own members and is never to be ascribed to God in any way. He sometimes directs, overrules, and overcomes evil with good for His glory, but never is He the cause of it. As far as your Arminianism is concerned, "This persuasion cometh not of him that calleth you." (Gal. 5:8)

In Hope of Eternal Life...

 

Yes, I would say so. I am no expert in Calvinism, but I've read enough books by those from the Reformed tradition (e.g., Packer, Sproul, Frame) to know that every responsible teacher of Calvinism always stresses freedom of choice and moral responsibility. The term "free will" is usually avoided because it is a misleading one. Philosophers would define free will as the power of absolute self-determination (or the ability to make uninfluenced choices), and this is something none of us possesses. Even if God did not exist, we could not truly say that our decisions are uninfluenced. But we do make real choices, and we are responsible for those choices. Every Calvinist I've ever read clearly asserts this. One thing we should not do is pass judgment on an idea without reading carefully the primary sources. I also believe strongly that as Christians we should never misrepresent the views of others (not saying you are). There are tons of books that explain Reformed doctrine fairly lucidly. I'd recommend to anyone interested that they read and study a few of those, especially since expounding it here is certainly beyond my capabilities. </font>[/QUOTE]Outstanding Post! Excellent Advice!

 

Which part of salvation?

I know that we are predestined to "be conformed to Christ's image" and "to be adopted as sons." But none of us have had these things accomplished in our lives at this point. We are still waiting for to be adopted as sons and conformed to Christ's image. Nothing is said about being predestined to believe. It only speaks of what believers are predestined to become. There is a difference. </font>[/QUOTE]Predestined to believe ? Wow ! That's a wild one. If God predestined me to believe, then it follows that God also predestined the unbeliever to not believe, which makes Him such a gross God because he will judge the unbeliever and find him guilty and without a doubt send him to an eternity of hell !

Radically different from grace and mercy.

 

Personally, I do believe that God is Sovereign over EVERYTHING. PERIOD!!!!
If there were even one single atom in the entire universe that was "free", and not governed by God, then the atom would be Sovereign, not God.
You can bring up unlimited "what ifs" and that is just spinning your wheels.
Like Martin Luther said, God has revealed some things and not others. Leave it at that. I rest in the COMPLETE, TOTAL, ABSOLUTE Sovereignity of God, and thank Him for it.
Bottom line is that He controls every thought, deed etc. Why? Because His word says so. Do I understand that? No. Are men responsible for their actions? Yes. Fun isn't it!!!!

God is Sovereign. That is Predestination. Man is Sovereign -- that is "free will."' That is man's natural, feeble attempt at man-made religon.
No point of arguing about it. You believe the revealed Word of God or you don't. I do!!

 

The main problem with Calvinism is that it is an apostolic teaching, without a named APOSTLE to back it up. Paul, Peter, James (and all the rest of scripture) do not teach Calvinism as it is defined today.

TULIP is not in any one scripture, or verse.
It is a conglomeration of interpretation of several or many scriptures.
That is fine. But there are not any supporters of Calvinism that claim to be APOSTLES, or PROPHETS. I don’t even think that Calvin claimed to be an APOSTLE or PROPHET.

What they claim is that their interpretation is just common sense, or it is “just what the Bible teaches”.

This is why there is such disagreement over just what Calvinism teaches. Calvinism is interpretative. But when you interpret the scripture, and add lots of words about what it means, you better be an APOSTLE or PROPHET, and claim to be an APOSTLE or PROPHET, and give the source of your revelation as coming from GOD HIMSELF.
That’s what the recognized people in the scriptures did. Those who write the doctrines of Calvinism don’t.

Calvin (and any of his followers or disciples or supporters) does not claim to be an APOSTLE or PROPHET. Calvin, etc., does not claim that they have received Divine Revelation about their teaching.
What they claim is that they have “just figured it out”, by using their knowledge of Hebrew, Greek, history, God, etc.
But they don’t claim to have heard their particular interpretation from GOD HIMSELF.

And they want others to believe them, and present their doctrine AS IF it had come from GOD HIMSELF.

I think this is a major issue, not just with Calvinism, but also with Dispensationalist teachings , Cessationist teachings, etc.
You have an interpretative teaching that sounds like scripture. It sounds like it came from an APOSTLE or PROPHET, but the writer claims no direct revelation from GOD HIMSELF.

I think these can be classified as FALSE APOSTOLIC TEACHINGS.
It if is not this, then just show where a recognized APOSTLE or PROPHET said all the things that your doctrine says.

 

Well stated QWERTY!

You've nailed the problem to the wall!

 

Hi dhfahrenkrug;
you said;

Would you mind showing me just where this is said as you have stated in the Bible. I really would like to see it.
May God Bless You.
Mike

 

Wow, where to begin. Firstly, it would be interesting to know where you stand on the issues, as you seem to be niether Calvinist nor Dispensational. Are you an Arminian Covanentalist? THat's a first.
You implied that Calvinists add alot of words to Scripture in order to support their interpretations- care to back that up with an example?
Anyways, of course Calvin didn't claim to be an Apostle. Though he was gravely mistaken in some matters of doctrine (such as the "scaraments"), his theology was not so unsound as to claim modern day Apostlship! By the way, we "Calvinists" are not disciples of John Calvin, but students of the Word who accept God's absolute sovereignty. Augustine adhered to the same doctrines in the 5th century...so let's just leave Calvin out of it- it confuses the issue and hinders us from dealing with the foundational exegesis of Scripture (something I've seen very little of here).
Now, the main argument presented is the lack of Apostolic authority backing up God's Sovereign choice in the salvation of His elect. Do you not accept the apostleship of Paul? Because He taught "calvinism" in Rom.9:18-23, and in Eph.1:4-11. Then there was Luke, under the apastolic authority of Paul, who taught it in Acts 13:48. And while we're at it, let's not forget Jesus Chirst Himself! Who taught it in John 6:37-44.
It is troubeling to see so much argumentation with so little Scripture presented. Let us forget the peripheral issues and get back to the Word!

 

Now, to get back to the primary purpose of this thread- why would a predestinating God predestinate that someone would reject His predestination? Well, in response to my fellow Calvinists who would claim that God's foreordination does not extend to such things, please look up Eph. 1:11...it certainly does.
But why? Well, why did God harden Pharow's heart in Exodus 7:3-5? Why did He raise up Assyria against Israel in Isaiah 10:5-12? Why did He actively determine beforehand that Herod and Pilate would murder His Son in Acts 4:27-28? The answer to all of these is this: God has two wills, His Prescribed and His Predestined; and His Prescribed is very often subbordinate to His Predestined, for the sake of His greater purpose. In other words, God commonly ordains those things that displease Him, such as you rejecting His absolute sovereignty, so that He will be glorified through it. How? often we won't know, this side of the grave- but it may be to glorify His mercy, His justice, His loving chastisment, etc. IF God should ordain your continued rejection of His all-encompassing predestination, it wouldn't be the first time. I look forward to seeing His purpose in it! But make no mistake, there will be a purpose; just as he had with Pharow, Assyria, Herod, etc.