Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
What Calvinism means by decree is what God makes happen because He chooses it to happen. Either directly or through indirect/secondary causes.Originally posted by russell55:
Absolutely. Perhaps you don't understand what a decree is. God's decrees are what He has said will happen.
You are using the term both ways.The counsel of his will is what he has decided will happen.
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.You did not answer my questions about Isaiah 10. You quoted the questions, but didn't answer it. Here it is again: When the king of Assyria went up against Israel in Isaiah 10, was it his own personal choice? Did God send him?
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Please point me to the scripture that says God doesn't work all things according to the counsel of his will.
Then, why didn't Adam who had no sin nature cheerfully and willfully choose Him in the Garden?If:
#1-As sinners before salvation we sin willfully because of our sin nature. (which I agree with)
and
#2-God gives us a new nature before or immediately at the point of salvation that results in us cheefully and willfully choosing Him because of that new nature.
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.We don't know what the impetus was for Adam's sin because scripture doesn't tell us.
God made Adam with a corrupt nature? That's not true.Your question doesn't seem to be really about why Adam sinned, though, but about why he didn't look forward to the provision God would make for his sin for salvation (and I don't know that this is true, we're not told). If it's true, then it's because he did as his corrupt nature caused him to do.
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.However, the scripture I did give (Isaiah 10, Acts 4, Genesis 50) you either chose to ignore or dismissed out of hand.
Phillipians 2Scripture tells us God restrains evil, so we know he sometimes chooses to stop people from sinning. How about, "for it is God who works in you both to will and to do his good pleasure?"
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.When I'm appointed to God's privy counsel I'll give you the whole answer. I suppose part of it is that he wants to show his grace by redeeming men. Suggestions of that particular purpose are found in scripture. Whatever it is, it's a good purpose and he's got one.
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.Why couldn't we have just avoided this whole sin thing?
Because God's got a good purpose in not saving everyone.Why wouldn't God just save everyone.
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:Originally posted by Biblicist:
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.
Classic Calvinism does hold to "second causes", but not Deism.God from all eternity did by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin; nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.
You have cited things that answer positions that as best as I can tell do not accurately represent the views of your opponents here.Originally posted by Biblicist:
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!
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'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.
Then let us represent our side rather than you telling us constantly what we believe.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?
Really? Please exegete Romans 8-9 and Ephesians 1 without taking liberties with the text and meaning of words.By the way, there is no tension in scripture between man's will and God's sovereignty.
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.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.
State your position succinctly and I will attempt to do that.Also, why not refute my bible commentary if I'm wrong? No one has done that.
And then you quote me again where I make this statementGod's decrees are what He has said will happen.
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.The counsel of his will is what he has decided will 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):What Calvinism means by decree is what God makes happen because He chooses it to happen. Either directly or through indirect/secondary causes.
From Samuel Willard (another historical Calvinist), speaking of the decree of God:These decrees are properly defined to be God's purpose or plan.
The term "decree" is liable to some misapprehension and objection, because it conveys the idea of an edict, or of some compulsory determination. "Purpose" has been suggested as a better word. "Plan" will sometimes be still more suitable. The mere use of these words will remove from many some difficulties and prejudices which make them unwilling to accept this doctrine. [Emphasis mine]
Thomas Watson (one of the Puritan theologians), on God's decrees:Nevertheless this will of God does not lay any coercion on the creature, but only a certainty as to the outcome. Everything will happen as God's will has determined, but the freedom of people to choose their actions is not infringed. Indeed, the freedom of moral agents is ratified, because in His will he has determined that free agents will act freely. For example, in God's will it was impossible for the soldiers to break Christ's bones. But no coercion was laid upon them: they were free agents, who freely chose not to break them. (emphasis mine)
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.They are effectual; that is, whatsoever God decrees comes to pass infallibly, Isa. 46.10. 'My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure.' He cannot fall short of what he has determined. Yet the liberty of second causes is not hereby taken away; for the decree of God offers no violence to the creature's will; as appears from the free and unforced actings of Joseph's brethren, Pharaoh, the Jews that crucified Christ, &c.....
...That the decree of God is properly distinguished into that which is effective, and that which is permissive.
That summary is not exegesis.My summary exegesis is that Romans 8 is talking about the believer's relationship to the law.
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.26Likewise the Spirit also helps in our weaknesses. For we do not know what we should pray for as we ought, but the Spirit Himself makes intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.
27Now He who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is, because He makes intercession for the saints according to the will of God.
28And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose.
29For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren.
30Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.
31What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us?
32He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how shall He not with Him also freely give us all things?
33Who shall bring a charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies.
34Who is he who condemns? It is Christ who died, and furthermore is also risen, who is even at the right hand of God, who also makes intercession for us.
35Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?
36As it is written: "For Your sake we are killed all day long; We are accounted as sheep for the slaughter."
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?Originally posted by russell55:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />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.
I started to ask where you consider Arminians to be in heresy, but I really don't care.PS - To be completely honest, I do believe Arminianism is heresy. .... any actual church council or creed. It may be rjected [sic] 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.
so....?Originally posted by El_Guero:
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 ...
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?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.