A question about Calvinisum

Russell,

Let me just say, as a non-Cal, I am in full agreement with you on your last couple of posts. Believe it or not, as a non-Cal, I do believe in the sovereignty of God. I do not see how anyone could believe anything that happens would be out of God's control. That is not to say that God causes everything that happens. But, if something happens contrary to the will of God, He did allow to happen. He could have prevented it, but chose not to. God does not lie, God does not change, and God's word is truth. So there are going to be times when God allows something that is not perfect to occur.

You have given me much to ponder. Thank you for the civil manner in which you present your views.

Edited to add: It wasn't actually your last couple of posts (you posted a couple more times by the time I posted this) but I still agree. (So far)

 

Brother Bob,

You didn't deal with the scenario you yourself made up--a specific man cheating on his wife. Could God prevent it? Does he ever prevent similar things?

Not Webster's definition, which doesn't define things as they are used in anything other than casual usage; but the theological one, which is more specific, and has to do with an authoritative person making a decision. If God, as the supreme authourity, makes a decision to allow a specific act to occur, then that's called a decree, under the theological definition. And remember, it's not only calvinists who define the term this way, theologically.

 

Sure you are, but we don't have to change any of them. Ironic isn't it?

Again, if God decreed Adam to fall, then God caused him to fall.

Here is the Bible for it:
20: For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,
21: Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.

But you must believe, have a good evening russell

 

“You speak as one of the foolish women would speak. Shall we receive good from God, and shall we not receive evil?”

 

Now russell;
Can you see why the fight between me and James always?

I only repeated what was said Jamie boy.

 

Hi Hanna;

I agree; It seems the only natural thing there is, is an unsaved, non-elect man. The Particularity elect seem to be saved in their election with out faith and hope.
:godisgood:
The Bible says;
Act 16:31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

Salvation is not with out condition. being made new is what we call born again. Once we are, we always are. Man cannot be born again, or regenerated unless he believes first. The Bible tells us so and I believe it.
Rom 5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:
Rom 5:2 By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.

Simply put, there is no saving grace, with out faith first. We must have faith, to stand in grace...
MB

 

dabar
daw-bar' which is Decree in Hebrew according to Strong's
a primitive root; perhaps properly, to arrange; but used figuratively (of words), to speak; rarely (in a destructive sense) to subdue:--answer, appoint, bid, command, commune, declare, destroy, give, name, promise, pronounce, rehearse, say, speak, be spokesman, subdue, talk, teach, tell, think, use (entreaties), utter, X well, X work.

I can't find "allow" no where in the difinition.

 

In Daniel, when it came to chapter 4, Daniel handed the pen to Nebuchadnezzar for he had something to say. And this is it....

 

MB, do you think that belief is an exercise of the will?

 

I agree with you wholeheartly MB!

They always and always have to run to the under the Law and the Ordainances and decrees before the coming of Christ as Jauthor is cheif of them to do that to try and prove Calvinism.

I ask you, do you see one scripture by Jauthor from the NT????? He wants to get back there where all them concubines are.

 

Blammo,

Thank you. I really appreciate your remarks.

I'll answer the rest of the posts directed at me tomorrow.

 

PINK.......

‘Free moral agency’ is an expression of human invention and, as we have said before, to talk of the freedom of the natural man is to flatly repudiate his spiritual ruin. Nowhere does Scripture speak of the freedom or moral ability of the sinner, on the contrary, it insists on his moral and spiritual inability.
This is, admittedly, the most difficult branch of our subject. Those who have ever devoted much study to this theme have uniformly recognized that the harmonizing of God’s Sovereignty with Man’s Responsibility is the gordian knot[1] of theology.
The main difficulty encountered is to define the relationship between God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility. Many have summarily disposed of the difficulty by denying its existence. A certain class of theologians, in their anxiety to maintain man’s responsibility, have magnified it beyond all due proportions, until God’s sovereignty has been lost sight of, and in not a few instances flatly denied. Others have acknowledged that the Scriptures present both the sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man, but affirm that in our present finite condition and with our limited knowledge it is impossible to reconcile the two truths, though it is the bounden duty of the believer to receive both. The present writer believes that it has been too readily assumed that the Scriptures themselves do not reveal the several points which show the conciliation of God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility. While perhaps the Word of God does not clear up all the mystery (and this is said with reserve), it does throw much light upon the problem, and it seems to us more honoring to God and His Word to prayerfully search the Scriptures for the complete solution of the difficulty, and even though others have thus far searched in vain, that ought only to drive us more and more to our knees. God has been pleased to reveal many things out of His Word during the last century which were hidden from earlier students. Who then dare affirm that there is not much to be learned yet respecting our present inquiry!
As we have said above, our chief difficulty is to determine the meeting-point of God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility. To many it has seemed that for God to assert His sovereignty, for Him to put forth His power and exert a direct influence upon man, for Him to do anything more than warn or invite, would be to interfere with man’s freedom, destroy his responsibility, and reduce him to a machine. It is sad indeed to find one like the late Dr. Pierson—whose writings are generally so scriptural and helpful—saying, "It is a tremendous thought that even God Himself cannot control my moral frame, or constrain my moral choice. He cannot prevent me defying and denying Him, and would not exercise His power in such directions if He could, and could not if He would" (A Spiritual Clinique). It is sadder still to discover that many other respected and loved brethren are giving expression to the same sentiments. Sad, because directly at variance with the Holy Scriptures.
It is our desire to face honestly the difficulties involved, and to examine them carefully in what light God has been pleased to grant us. The chief difficulties might be expressed thus: first, How is it possible for God to so bring His power to bear upon men that they are prevented from doing what they desire to do, and impelled to do other things they do not desire to do, and yet to preserve their responsibility? Second, How can the sinner be held responsible for the doing of what he is unable to do? And how can he be justly condemned for not doing what he could not do? Third, How is it possible for God to decree that men shall commit certain sins, hold them responsible in the committal of them, and adjudge them guilty because they committed them? Fourth, How can the sinner be held responsible to receive Christ, and be damned for rejecting Him, when God had foreordained him to condemnation? We shall now deal with these several problems in the above order. May the Holy Spirit Himself be our Teacher, so that in His light we may see light.
I. How is it possible for God to so bring His power to bear upon men that they are PREVENTED from doing what they desire to do, and IMPELL to do other things they do not desire to do, and yet to preserve their responsibility?

It would seem that if God put forth His power and exerted a direct influence upon men their freedom would be interfered with. It would appear that if God did anything wore than warn and invite men their responsibility would be infringed upon. We are told that God must not coerce man, still less compel him, or otherwise he would be reduced to a machine. This sounds very plausible; it appears to be good philosophy, and based upon sound reasoning; it has been almost universally accepted as an axiom in ethics; nevertheless, it is refuted by Scripture!
Let us turn first to Genesis 20:6—"And God said unto him in a dream, Yea, I know that thou didst this in the integrity of thy heart; for I also withheld thee from sinning against Me: therefore suffered I thee not to touch her." It is argued, almost universally, that God must not interfere with man’s liberty, that he must not coerce or compel him, lest he be reduced to a machine. But the above scripture proves, unmistakably proves, that it is not impossible for God to exert His power upon man without destroying his responsibility. Here is a case where God did exert His power, restrict man’s freedom, and prevent him from doing that which he otherwise would have done.
Ere turning from this scripture, let us note how it throws light upon the case of the first man. Would-be philosophers, who sought to be wise above that which was written, have argued that God could not have prevented Adam’s fall without reducing him to a mere automaton. They tell us, constantly, that God must not coerce or compel His creatures, otherwise He would destroy their accountability. But the answer to all such philosophizing is, that Scripture records a number of instances where we are expressly told God did prevent certain of His creatures from sinning both against Himself and against His people, in view of which all men’s reasonings are utterly worthless. If God could "withhold" Abimelech from sinning against Him, then why was He unable to do the same with Adam? Should someone ask, Then why did not God do so? we might return the question by asking, Why did not God "withhold" Satan from falling? or, Why did not God "withhold" the Kaiser from starting the recent War? The usual reply is, as we have said, God could not without interfering with man’s "freedom" and reducing him to a machine. But the case of Abimelech proves conclusively that such a reply is untenable and erroneous—we might add wicked and blasphemous, for who are we to limit the Most High! How dare any finite creature take it upon him to say what the Almighty can and cannot do? Should we be pressed further as to why God refused to exercise His power and prevent Adam’s fall, we should say, Because Adam’s fall better served His own wise and blessed purpose—among other things, it provided an opportunity to demonstrate that where sin had abounded grace could much more abound. But we might ask further; Why did God place in the garden the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, when He foresaw that man would disobey His prohibition and eat of it; for mark, it was God and not Satan who made that tree. Should someone respond, Then is God the Author of Sin? We would have to ask, in turn, What is meant by "Author"? Plainly it was God’s will that sin should enter this world, otherwise it would not have entered, for nothing happens save as God has eternally decreed. Moreover, there was more than a bare permission, for God only permits that which He has purposed. But we leave now the origin of sin, insisting once more, however, that God could have "withheld" Adam from sinning without destroying his responsibility.
The case of Abimelech does not stand alone. Another illustration of the same principle is seen in the history of Balaam, already noticed in the last chapter, but concerning which a further word is in place. Balak the Moabite sent for this heathen prophet to "curse" Israel. A handsome reward was offered for his services, and a careful reading of Numbers 22-24 will show that Balaam was willing, yea, anxious, to accept Balak’s offer and thus sin against God and His people. But Divine power "withheld" him. Mark his own admission, "And Balaam said unto Balak, Lo, I am come unto thee: have I now any power at all to say anything? the word that God putteth in my mouth, that shall I speak" (Num. 22:38). Again, after Balak had remonstrated with Balaam, we read, "He answered and said, Must I not take heed to speak that which the Lord hath put in my mouth? . . . Behold, I have received commandment to bless: and He hath blessed; and I cannot reverse it" (23:12, 20). Surely these verses show us God’s power, and Balaam’s powerlessness: man’s will frustrated, and God’s will performed. But was Balaam’s "freedom" or responsibility destroyed? Certainly not, as we shall yet seek to show.

 

I am glad you Calvinist are posting all this stuff for now no one has to guess what you believe that God created a majority of men and women just to destroy them without even giving them a chance. Now I know you will say that is not what you believe but it is what you say.

 

How about you Bob. Do you think belief is an exercise of the will? Lets see if you will answer directly... seeing as how you would not answer Russell's questions earlier.

 

whose will?????

Do you believe that the vast majority of God's creation will not have their hearts regenerated by God because He chooses not to regenerate them?? Now step up to the plate.

 

It seems like it was you that said the church started in the OT. Are you now changing your mind?

It seems like it was you that has on your web site how we should follow the OT law. Do you now change your mind?

 

Let me make this as clear as possible for you. If a man exercises saving faith in Jesus Christ, is that an exercise of his (the man's) will?

 

Well I guess Bro. Bob does not agree wholeheartedly with MB. MB said that one has to believe before regeneration. I asked both if they thought belief is an exercise of the will. Is that a simple question?

 

The woman with the issue of blood did.

Case after case did.

John 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

John 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Romans 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

Romans 4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

1 John 5:1 Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him.

Romans 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

I believe also so my answer would yes, I believe a man must believe or he will die in his sins and where Jesus is he cannot go.

You did not answer my question?

Do you believe that the vast majority of God's creation will not have their hearts regenerated by God because He chooses not to regenerate them?? Now step up to the plate.

No, I still believe the same James. You misunderstand most of what I believe but I am still the same. You haven't moved me one inch.