A Biblicist Alternative To Calvin-Arminian

I think his straw man scared away some crows though...

 

Hi Russell,

Read Lorraine Boetner's book, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination. You can also read Cornelius Van Til and others. All heroes of the Calvinist faith. You can also go back and read Calvin and Beza but you shouldn't have to. There are plenty of lauded Calvinist authors out there.

Boettner says (on page 119 if memory serves me, but I would have to check) something like "The murderer owes a debt of thanks to God for the time, place, manner and means by which he kills his victim". That's from memory, since I don't read that garbage very often....

There is lots more in there if you are interested.

As for the contradiction, here goes my attempt at simplicity.

The basic underlying theme to Calvinism is Sovereignty. Calvinism teaches that God in total complete control of the universe. He is so sovereign man can not make a choice. If someone other than God makes a choice, God would not be in control of that choice and He would not be the Sovereign God.

If this is true, than God must be in charge of sinful choices as well, because nothing can happen outside of His own choosing. Sin is choosing to disobey, but we have no free will so God ordained that we would disobey. No matter what you try and do with that, the bottom line is the same. If God ordains everything, then God ordained sin and is the author of sin.

Now watch how the Calvinists on here will go all around the issue and try to explain that. The result is the same. Sovereignty as described by Calvin, Beza, Boettner, and others means God makes all choices. The ones we make are just because He ordained us to make them.

I believe that Calvinism shows a LIMITED view of God's sovereignty. They portray a God that is UNABLE to make the choice that others can choose, because they feel this will take away His control somehow. I believe that God created us with free will, meaning the ability to make free choices. That is what differentiates us from angels. We are made in His image. I'm not saying we can save ourselves, so don't misquote me please. You have to read my other convaluted posts to understand how I see the spirit working through God's word to illuminate the sinner. (because faith comes from hearing, and hearing from the word of God.)

My point is that if you take away sovereignty as described by Calvinists, TULIP wilts away. Its unnecessary, but that is a separate post. This one is long enough.

 

"If someone other than God makes a choice, God would not be in control of that choice and He would not be the Sovereign God."

Ever heard the term, "Secondary causes"?

 

Scott,

You don't have to accuse me of making straw men. Look at mainstream Calvinist authors I've listed, including Calvin!

Also, look at how the wonderful John Calvin persecuted Anabaptists and had them drowned and murdered. He was not a nice guy. He was an ecclessiastical politician.

I'm sorry if there are people on here that have accepted some form of Calvinism and are happy with it. But what you call Hyper-Calvinism is simply classic 5 point Calvinism. I just don't think most people have the guts to stand by the logical outcome of their system. If I were a Calvinist, I would at least be a consistent 5 pointer. By the way, some of my best friends are consistent 5 pointers and I love them dearly. I would never let them in my church to preach though, I'll tell you that.

The question must be asked, "Is God totally and completely sovereign in that He ordains and controls every action?"

Secondary causes is similar to Deism where God winds up the universe like a clock and walks away, allowing what He set in motion to click away. That is not what Calvinism teaches.

 

God uses secondary causes to bring His will to pass. He uses primary causes too. He doesn't winde it up and walk away. He's intimately involved. And He uses our sinful desires and actions to bring Himself the most glory. Praise God for it!

If you want to straw men built par excellence, look no further than "Chosen but Free" by Norman Geisler. Some of the most ridiculous things I've ever read were in that book.

NOTE: Any of you that have a friend teetering between calvinism and non-calvinism, let them read Geisler's "definitive work on the relationship between divine election and human choice." His logical inconsistencies, fallacies, straw men, all of it will turn your friend into a die-hard calvinist! That's what happened to me.

For extra emphasis, give them a copy of Charles Finney's "systematic" theology...putting a perfectionist arminian's work side by side with Geisler's shows you how much Geisler ought to be a Methodist. Very telling.

 

Ok, here we go...you can't argue the position so you revert into ad hominem attacks.
Deal with what Scripture teaches on the issue.

But anyways, check your facts on this subject.

Simply not true. At least try and be academically honest.

OK...fine. But does that mean they are wrong?
Nope. But it does show me why you adopt the term "biblicist"...because you think you are better than everyone else.
Anyways, you are avoiding the issue.

Are you sure about that?

 

It all goes back to asking "what do you mean by that".

This is pathetic really. I am being told that I think I'm better than everyone because of my position. What does that say about how your mind works? Is it indicative of what I think or what you think? Who thinks they are better than who here? This is what I mean about the "christian community" being so petty and inwardly focused.

So, Ad hominem attacks are bad, huh? Does that go for Bill Clinton as well? Does his character matter? I guess not, eh? We should just stick to policy debates I guess. I guess if a man like Bill Clinton wrote a book on theology we shouldn't consider his character?

Also, I read a post on here about Jack Hyles and why his school gets so much flack. I'm no Jack Hyles fan, but the consensus was because of his adultery. I guess its wrong to bring that up when we are discussing his ministry, right? Don't want any of those ad hominem attacks.

I sense an inconsistancy and a hypocrisy that I can only imagine we are blind to, but that is another topic. (and by the way, I'm guilty as well, its called human nature!) You can use weak defenses like that but I hope no one here falls for it.

My five point Calvinist friends are ABSOLUTELY wrong.

Last thing, and again my same point.

Explain sovereignty to me. Is God in total and complete control? Can man make a free choice? Does God ordain every action? Is a lost sinner totally and completely spiritually dead as in non-existant?

You tell me. I'm not the one being vague.

 

Check out, "The Swan is Not Silent" by John Piper. He as a "re-baptizer" talks about Calvin's actions. He puts it in its proper light, IMO.

 

Daniel, this is where Calvinism sees a contradiction where there is none.

God has the final say and His say is that salvation is available to "Whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord".

God uses His Spirit to draw people to Himself through His Word. The plan is God's, the word is God's, the decision to offer salvation is God's. The decision to accept or reject God after being illuminated/convicted by God's spirit is man's because God decided He wanted it to be man's choice.

God making my choice to love Him for me is not love at all. Love is an individual choice and a God given one at that. Also, I might add, one given to all mankind. God is not willing that any should perish as the scripture clearly states.

I hope no one brings up that silly "Jacob have I loved, Esau have I hated" argument either. That is not what that verse means in context and it never refers to individual salvation. It talks about how God chose to work in history.

[ February 23, 2005, 03:35 PM: Message edited by: Biblicist ]

 

The attacks on Calvin are irrelevant. That's my point.

He is not the originator of any belief, nor is he the reason why reformed people believe what they do. His actions (which are not presented fairly by you or most anti-calvinist people) are really inconsequential to the debate at hand over God's sovereignty, man's responsibility, election, etc.

The fact that you think this is a debate over the personalities involved in the discussion shows how misguided your understanding of this is, and really betrays the name that you have dubbed yourself.

If you really cared about being a biblicist, then your discussion would center around the text of Scripture, not about attacking John Calvin.


Now, if Calvin was running for office or holding public office as a representative of the people (like Clinton) then his actions could be scrutinized more rightly. But to misrepresent and misunderstand certain events in his life, and then pass that off as a legitimate reason to reject the doctrines of grace is simply avoiding the issue.

 

Who does God call?
Everyone?

 

I've never read the book so forgive me.

All I will say therefore is that history speaks for itself and any attempt to change the historical facts regarding how the Anabaptists were martyred for their faith by the protestant reformers including Zwingli and Calvin is an insult to them and all that they stood for.

You don't have to write off someone's theology because they weren't very good people, but don't fail to hold them accountable for their actions to make yourself feel validated.

 

Please cite your source for claiming that Calvin was responsible for killing Anabaptists.

I know of only one instance where he repeatedly warned a man who was genuinely guilty of a number of heresies not to come to Geneva. The man was insistent on forcing the issue. He was executed.

I have heard of no others. Not that anyone should be executed for wrong religious beliefs- but then again this is according to our perspective today... not the transitional views of the reformers.

 

Yikes! I think its safe to say that God probably frowned on it regardless of what public opinion was at the time.

I need to check on some history books to give you specifics. These things were not done in a corner, however. Just read basic history on the subject and its all right there.

Calvin's geneva was modeled after OT Israel and was a Christian theocratic-type government. Not too unsimilar from what Catholocism tried with the Holy Roman Empire. Both reflect some of the potential problems inherent with a covenental view where no distinction is made between the distinctions between Israel and the Church. Anyway, he was a harsh disciplinarian and his rule was oppressive. Just go to a library and get some books on it.

I'd really rather not lose sight of the theology under discussion though.

What is Sovereignty? Is God in total and absolute control of the universe and does He or does He not make or ordain all choices? Is man totally and helplessly dead in the sense of spritually non-existant?

 

What do you mean by "call" and what verse are you referring to?

 

Please quote one that says that God is the author of sin. And can you please give me the exact quote from Lorraine Boettner with some of the context around it? I suspect that you are spinning this quote a bit. Can you show me that you aren't?

Yes. Are you arguing that he's not? Isn't he all-powerful? Isn't he all-knowing? All-present? Interested in what's going on? Purposeful in all his choices? Then how can he not be sovereign over it all? If he is all of those things that I listed above, then there's nothing that happens that he could not have stopped if he wanted to, is there? Therefore, if God is all of those things listed above, God is in total, complete control of the universe. A god who is not is less than the God of the Bible.

Nope, you've got this wrong. Calvinists believe that people make real choices, and that real choices are compatible with God's sovereign rule over those choices.

You've got this one wrong, too. Calvinists believe that no one ever makes a choice outside of the choices God has planned for them to make, but they still make choices. Their sinful choices are allowed by God for his good purpose, and their righteous choices are worked by the power of the Holy Spirit.

This is true, but God (in the calvinist system) is in charge of sinful choices in the sense that he purposefully chooses to allow them to happen. He is not the energizing power behing them.

Ordaining something and authoring it are not the same thing. Ordaining (in its specifically theological definition) is deciding beforehand that something is going to happen. So if God knew before he created Adam and Eve that if he created them the way he did, and put that tree in the garden and told them not eat it, and then let them do what they wanted, that they would sin; and knowing that, he decided to let things play out that way, then in the theological sense of the word, he ordained their sin. Ordained things can come about because a choice is made to allow them to happen.

Authored events however, require direct influence. God authors every righteous choice that any human being ever makes. He works every righteous action within them. He is the author of faith, because faith is worked by his own power. He never authors evil. He never authors unbelief. Evil choices, unbelieving choices, are energized (or authored) elsewhere. God does, however, ordain them.

You're laboring under a misunderstanding here. That God does make purposeful choices to allow men to choose is exactly the way that Calvinists say God is sovereign. Calvinists believe that God is constantly working his sovereignty through the choices of men. "You meant it for evil, but God meant it for good." God allowed Joseph's brothers to make a sinful choice because that sinful choice accomplished God's good purpose. They meant their choice for evil, but God made the choice to allowed it for good. Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel, assembled together in Jerusalem to go against Jesus, and to do as much as God's power and his plan had decided beforehand would happen. They made their choice from evil intentions, and God chose to allow their choice because it was part of his plan--it was what he had ordained beforehand.

If you take away sovereignty as described by Calvinists (not sovereignty as attributed to Calvinists by those who misrepresent them) then you are wandering away from the Biblical descriptions of God's sovereignty. Scripture shows us a God who numbers the hairs on our heads. Not even a sparrow falls apart from God's will. Every day of our life is formed while we are not even yet gleams in our father's eye. God does what he wishes with the inhabitants of the earth and the armies of heaven. He works all things according to the counsel of his will. No one stays his hand. He accomplishes what he desires. Every little thing is in his control.

 

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.

 

Biblicist, I am glad you took so many words to answer my question with MAN makes the final decision.

Btw, you are an arminian.

 

Yikes! I think its safe to say that God probably frowned on it regardless of what public opinion was at the time.</font>[/QUOTE] Obviously you know I wouldn't approve of such a thing.

That is what I am relying on- "basic history".

I am pretty sure you are right about Zwinglii. But I don't think it is fair to arbitrarily lump Calvin in with him... which actually has nothing to do with whether the 5 points are true or not. That is to be determined from scripture, not history.

You made the claims. It is your responsibility to back them up and prove their relevance to what we are talking about.

If you want to drop the "Calvin was a bad guy so calvinism is false" line then I won't object. We need to deal with this from scripture anyway.

The Bible declares man "spiritually dead". He is separated from God by a gulf that he has no ability to bridge. Only grace can bridge that gulf and God is fully in control of that.

Does God make all decisions? No. Is He completely sovereign over who is elect? Yes. Scripture teaches both things and the broad system known as calvinism does the best job of any I know of in explaining these two things.

 

Wow,

We are having a genuine Rodney King moment and I'm Rodney King!

Russell, you are talking total nonsense so now I know you are a true Calvinist.

Saying God is "behind the scenes" like a puppet master "purposely choosing" men's decisions but not being the "energizing power" behind them is total nonsense, but it does accurately reflect Calvinism so....good job.

This is a great example of "what do you mean by that". When I say "choice" I mean a decision that is made personally. Not a decision some one else plans for you to make that you make because they planned for you to make it like you have just described.

Your quote however, of "God meant it for good" simply is not a verse that you can base your soteriology on. This kind of misquoting scripture is typical of Calvinism. What you have just done is not only read an entirely unrelated OT passage into the New Testament, but you've taken a historical comment made by Joseph and transferred it into a theological context and attempted on that one verse to set a normative standard for salvation.

This verse has nothing to do with salvation at all. Its talking in context about how God was able to turn around man's sinful choices and use them in a way that the sinner didn't intend. What does that have to do with individual salvation?

I'm not saying God doesn't work in history. God does intervene in history. God also plays by the rules He put in place. In this case, we live in a sinful world because of Adam's sin. God gave Adam the choice to make and Adam made it. God knew what Adam would do and what He would do before creation.

You guys make it sound like if choices are made in history by man (apart from God's making them happen-whether you recognize this or not)then that would put God in a situation where He would have to think on the fly or something. That is not the case, God knows what we will freely independantly choose, but He doesn't make us do it. Show me in scripture where He does.