A question about Calvinisum

[Brother Bob]

Wonder why God was not there when they were building the wall, or was that part of His plan to let them build and inferior wall, so thousands could die and lose their homes and babies drown? You really believe that was part of God's plan?
Think about all those little babies when they were all alone, Mother and Father had been washed away and the water was rising up around their little necks and God causing it all to happen. I thought all our troubles came because Adam sinned in the beginning of time.

I thought that was the purpose of being "saved" is to escape a world of all these troubles and death?

 

[Brother Bob]

If you get hit by a Mack truck, would your family sob that God was taken by surprise and in His less than sovereignty could not prevent it, and no omnipotent God was in control? Or would they, after the time for mourning, trust that this sad event was part of God's perfect will and He may have used it for His glory (possibly the salvation of others)?

No, I suppose they would say "I wonder why in the world did he walk out in front of that Mack truck?"

 

[Jarthur001]

Freewill doesn't = pelagian, and I think you know that. The will is either free to respond to God, or it is enslaved in doing so. Pelagian has nothing to do with it whatsoever, and is a label you have attached to "free will".

I do not have much time today...so this will be short.

Yes and no. Pelagius has everything to do with free will. Pelagianism was based on mans will to choose good. This is the problem I have with so many on the BB over free will. It is said all the time that dead does not mean dead. This is the very point Pelagius tried to make years ago. He felt man was not dead, "well", and that there was a little good in everyone. The goodness in man was found in his will. If man sees good and sees evil, the goodness in his heart will make him choose good. Pelagius rejected the arguments of those who claimed that they sinned because of human weakness, and insisted that God made human beings free to choose between good and evil and that sin is voluntary. I have seen this very thing posted on the BB

Pelagius

the habit of doing good must be exercised and strengthened by the practice of constant meditation; only the best things must occupy the mind, and the practice of holy conduct must be implanted at a deeper level

Pelagius

We can never enter upon the path of virtue, unless we have hope as our guide and companion and if every effort expended in seeking something is nullified in effect by despair of ever finding it.

Moreover, the Lord of Justice wished man to be free to act and not under compulsion; it was for this reason that 'he left him free to make his own decisions' (Sir 15:14) and set before him life and death, good and evil, and he shall be given whatever pleases him

Pelagius

Whenever I have to speak on the subject of moral instruction and the conduct of a holy life, it is my practice first to demonstrate the power and quality of human nature and to show what it is capable of achieving

Posters on this very board have said that the death after the fall only means separation from God...so they were just kicked from the garden.

John Wesley even saw the scriptural death problem and dealt with it..

But, in the mean time, what must we do with our Bibles? -- for they will never agree with this. These accounts, however pleasing to flesh and blood, are utterly irreconcilable with the scriptural. The Scripture avers, that "by one man's disobedience all men were constituted sinners;" that "in Adam all died," spiritually died, lost the life and the image of God; that fallen, sinful Adam then "begat a son in his own likeness;" -- nor was it possible he should beget him in any other; for "who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean?" -- that consequently we, as well as other men, were by nature "dead in trespasses and sins," "without hope, without God in the world," and therefore "children of wrath;" that every man may say, "I was shapen in wickedness, and in sin did my mother conceive me;" that "there is no difference," in that "all have sinned and come short of the glory of God," of that glorious image of God wherein man was originally created. And hence, when "the Lord looked down from heaven upon the children of men, he saw they were all gone out of the way; they were altogether become abominable, there was none righteous, no, not one," none that truly sought after God: Just agreeable this, to what is declared by the Holy Ghost in the words above recited, "God saw," when he looked down from heaven before, "that the wickedness of man was great in the earth;" so great, that "every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually."

Jacobus Arminius saw this as well. Both Arminius and Wesley got around this though the work of Christ on the cross and their views of the atonement. I do not have my books at work, so i cannot address this in detail. My point is that that both mean say man did in fact die scriptural in the fall, and not just cast out of the garden. One of them...not sure which...held that in the OT before the cross, that man had a sin nature just as the Calvinist teach. This changed only after Christ death.

Now I do not agree with these men, but at least they within Bible range. These hyper-freewillism is off in left field.

I have posted.."In sin my mother did conceive me" and had others say this meant the mother was sinning. That is just not the case. This is speaking on our sin nature.

 

[Jarthur001]

This is a point calvinists don't like. They love to use the "Jacob I loved, Esau I hated" from before birth as proof text God hates some prior to them ever being born. If this is the case, there is a chance I could love my son more than God can...a God who IS love. Judas' mother loved her son...God didn't. Pharaoh's mother loved her son...God didn't. You get the picture, and it is not one of John 3:16.

This is a point you bring up...but it is always shown as no point at all.

 

[russell55]

Wonder why God was not there when they were building the wall,

Did God know they were building an inferior wall? Could he have prevented it? Did he have a reason for not preventing it?

You really believe that was part of God's plan?

If God knew it would happen and chose not to prevent it, then it was part of his plan.

Think about all those little babies when they were all alone, Mother and Father had been washed away and the water was rising up around their little necks and God causing it all to happen.

First of all, God planning for something to happen (or decreeing something to happen), and God causing something to happen (at least in the way I think you are using the word causing) are two different things. The drowning of the babies in the scenario you suggest was not immediately caused by God's action. That came about by God's permission--his decision not to prevent it.

I thought all our troubles came because Adam sinned in the beginning of time.

It does, and no Calvinist denies that. But sometimes God chooses to intervene to prevent trouble, and sometimes he choses not to intervene to prevent it. Sometimes he sends someone or something to rescue babies from floodwater, and sometimes he doesn't. And those choices to intervene or not intervene are not arbitrary ones. He has his good reasons, even though we may not understand them.

I thought that was the purpose of being "saved" is to escape a world of all these troubles and death?

It is. And God is working his plan to fully and finally redeem his creation through his choices concerning the history of creation.

 

[webdog]

This is a point you bring up...but it is always shown as no point at all.

Unfortunately, it's the c's who bring this up...with the non c's putting it into it's correct place.

 

[Jarthur001]

Second, you were talking about the weather. Sure God is soverign and in control of everything, but I do not think he decrees for every raindrop to fall and determines where it will fall. He created this universe and he also designed it. I think he designed things to operate in a certain way, like the rain/evaporation/cloud thing, and so long as man doesn't do something to screw that up all is well. When man starts messing around, like building faulty dams then problems arise. God did not cause Katrina to happen. He did not cause 9/11 to happen. He allowed both, yes, because man builds faulty dams and because evil does what evil does.

Third, you were talking about the woman that lost the baby. I have to wonder about the Calvinist. How do you feel about having children, believing that your child may not be among the "elect"?

Hanna,

I'm late for a meeting. I will address you good point on the loss of the baby tonight.

To the storm....
Walls are only faulty walls if something is stronger. If God meant for those walls to come down, there is nothing man can make that will hold them up. I live 6 hours from the ocean. 10 years ago, I show 2 foot thick metal beams bend as if they were clay from the wind. This was not a building. Just beams for a new building. I am sure when they placed those beams that they thought nothing would take them down. I saw it and said...wow God...man is nothing.

Remember a shipped called unsinkable? The Titanic went down the first time.

Those walls went down because the storm came. God sends the rain and winds. The wind is caused as you know by the rotation of the earth. Who placed the earth in a spin? Do you think God knew that the winds would be strong at times? I think so. Do you think God took into account that some times we would have a storm like Katrina that will kill people? Yes....I think so.

Now even if you take a very light view of Gods soverign, it is God that does all things. If you see God more in this ligher helded role, that is fine. But always see a King on a throne. God knows all things, allows all things, and rules over all things. God happens to be....GOD



In Christ...James

 

[Jarthur001]

Where is a link from who I think is an Arminian. I have not read it ....just a over view. But what I could see seems to be close. I could be WRONG..

http://www.jeremiahproject.com/culture/natureofman.html

But it SEEMS to give a time line of the debate. Maybe someone can read it and report back. I don't have time today.

 

[Hanna]

Jarthar, no I don't take a light view of God's sovereignty at all. I just think He doesn't micromanage all things. It rains, it snows, the wind blows. The purpose for this is to manage the environment. I believe God designed it to run itslef. He doesn't have to order every rain drop or summon each breeze.

However, that is not to say he can't. He can and perhaps does at times. He can and will do whatever he bloody wants to do and whenever he wants to do it.

He parted the red sea for the jews as they fled. Does he part the red sea every time a jew comes to the shore? No.

God can one day say for whatever reason, or no reason at all, that He wants to lift up a big chunk of ground in the ocean and the result is a tsunami that kills thousands of people. Sure, He can do that, but that doesn't necessarily mean He did. It could be just the natural way the earth works, as designed by its creator, God.

 

[Brother Bob]

If God knew it would happen and chose not to prevent it, then it was part of his plan.

That is great if you can't say God decreed it then you say He allowed it so therefore it was part of His plan. So, that way God is responsible for everything that takes place on this earth.

That is another way of saying God is the author of SIN!!!

We been talking about weather, now lets talk about a man who is running around on his wife. According to your reasoning even though God did not "decree" it, He allowed it, therefore it was part of His plan.

You can have your doctrine of God being the author of a man committing adultery on his wife.

Can't you see that your theology is warped?? God is not evil.

 

[russell55]

That is great if you can't say God decreed it then you say He allowed it so therefore it was part of His plan.

Actually, I do say God decreed it, but he decreed to permit it.

If God is omniscient and omnipotent, then there's no way you can get around it. He knows, and he could prevent it, but he chooses not to prevent it. Do you have an alternative to that, one that keeps God omniscient and omnipotent? If so, please tell me.

So, that way God is responsible for everything that takes place on this earth.

Here's the definition of responsible: being the agent or cause.

God is never the agent or immediate cause of sin. He never does the evil deed, therefore he is not responsible for it.

That is another way of saying God is the author of SIN!!!

What does it take to be the author of sin? I've already said he isn't the one doing any sinful deed, but that he simply permits it. Does permitting sin make him the author of it? If so, how do you get around that? Doesn't God know it is going to happen? Couldn't he prevent it?

We been talking about weather, now lets talk about a man who is running around on his wife. According to your reasoning even though God did not "decree" it, He allowed it, therefore it was part of His plan.

Do you think God didn't permit it? Give me your alternative scenario, then.

You can have your doctrine of God being the author of a man committing adultery on his wife.

How so? He doesn't approve of it. He doesn't move the man to do it. He commands against it. He doesn't cause the man to do it. In what way is he the author of it?

Can't you see that your theology is warped?? God is not evil.

And no one said he is. He is omnipotent and omniscient, though, and reasonable and interested in his creation. What he permits, he permits for righteous reasons.

If you disagree with this, then give me the alternative that still keeps God all-knowing, all-powerful, rational and involved in his creation. It's all fine and good to say things can't be this way, but can you give an alternative to it? How do you square the omnis of God with the specific bad things that happen in his creation? Does God know any specific bad thing will happen? Could he prevent it? Does he choose not to prevent it? Please answer these questions. If you can't then I daresay you have no grounds on which to object to what I've written here.

 

[Brother Bob]

One answer for all of them.

Just because God knows does not mean He decrees it to happen.

He knew Adam would sin but He did not decree it to happen.

I disagree if God allows means He decrees it to happen.

Decree
1 : an order usually having the force of law
2 a : a religious ordinance enacted by council or titular head b : a foreordaining will

It was not his will that any would perish.


2 Peter 3:9

The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

Because God foreknows or allows does not mean it is His will.

If because God foreknows sin will happen you think that means He decrees it then that is a foreordaining will and its not God's will that men sin.

 

[Hanna]

If your daughter goes out on a date. You have hopefully taught her how to behave and told her not to fornicate.

She goes and weather she does or doesn't is out of your hands. You gave her instruction and left her to her free will.

God doesn't cause or allow these things. He told us how to live, how to behave and leaves us to obey, or not and we get the consequences either way.

 

[Brother Bob]

Finally russell has put forth the truth of Calvinism.

God is the author of sin and decrees it to happen by allowing it.

We say because God knows something, such as who will believe or not believe, He does not take away the choice of that man, but in the Sovereignity of God, allows that man to choose to believe or not to believe.

As you can see, the Calvinist don't believe that, they according to russell, believe if you believe, it is because God decreed for you to believe. If you go to Hell, it is because God decreed for you to go to Hell. If there are babies in Hell, God decreed for them to be there, according to russell.

 

[russell55]

One answer for all of them.

Just because God knows does not mean He decrees it to happen.

Yes it does, if you define decree to include those things that God knowingly chooses to allow, and that's the way it's defined, theologically. And this isn't just a calvinist definition. Even noncalvinist systems have God decreeing the fall, for instance, by way of permission.

He knew Adam would sin but He did not decree it to happen.

You can't have it both ways, as long as God is omnipotent.

I disagree if God allows means He decrees it to happen

Then you are going against the accepted theological definition of decree. You can have your own little personal definition, of course, but if you are going to get into theological debates, then you need to use the terms as they are theologically defined.

Decree
1 : an order usually having the force of law
2 a : a religious ordinance enacted by council or titular head b : a foreordaining will

See? Foreordaining will. God's foreordaining will includes both things he actively works to bring about and things he chooses not to prevent.

It was not his will that any would perish.

If it were not his foreordaining will that any person who ever lived and ever will live would perish, then every person would be saved. Foreordaining will has a very specific definition; see above.

Because God foreknows or allows does not mean it is His will.

That depends on how you are using the word will. If you mean foreordaining will, then yes, if God allows something, it is his will in that sense.

If because God foreknows sin will happen you think that means He decrees it then that is a foreordaining will and its not God's will that men sin.

You are confusing terms. Foreordaining will and God's will in the sense that God doesn't will that men sin are not the same thing. They have different definitions. God's moral will includes all the righteous things that God desires that people do. God's foreordaining will includes everything that God has decided will happen in history. And history, as we know, includes all kinds of bad acts.

But you didn't really answer my question. You said what you don't think can be, but you haven't said what is. Take the man cheating on his wife. Does God know it will happen? Could he prevent it? If you answer yes to both of those, then answer this: Does God have a reason for not preventing it?

 

[russell55]

If your daughter goes out on a date. You have hopefully taught her how to behave and told her not to fornicate.

She goes and weather she does or doesn't is out of your hands.

But I'm not God. I don't have the power to see all and prevent all if I choose. If she were in my home and I were there, however, I can guarantee that she wouldn't because I wouldn't permit it, and if she did, it would have to be because I permitted it, since I have the power and knowledge to control what goes on in my home. The sort of power and knowledge I have in my own home is more similar to the sort of control God has over his creation than the example you give.

God doesn't cause or allow these things. He told us how to live, how to behave and leaves us to obey, or not and we get the consequences either way.

If God leaves us to obey or disobey, then he is allowing us to disobey when we disobey.

Question for you: Does God ever keep people from doing bad things? Does he ever restrain evil?

 

[Brother Bob]

But you didn't really answer my question. You said what you don't think can be, but you haven't said what is. Take the man cheating on his wife. Does God know it will happen? Could he prevent it? If you answer yes to both of those, then answer this: Does God have a reason for not preventing it?

Yes, He gave man a choice to serve God and live or serve the devil and die. If God gave him a choice to do good or evil its for sure He allowed it either way.
In His Sovereignity, He created man with a choice.
That is where you Calvinist fail to see the scriptures. That is why you have to change all the words, whosoever, not His will, all men etc. You name it.

It is not me confusing terms it is you having to change the meaning of a lot of words in the scripture to make your theory work of which it never will.

Yes, I believe God is omnipotent, its just that I believe in the omnipotent power He created man with a choice. He could of created man so he couldn't sin, but God chose to create man where he was subject to vanity. In other words "vanity" led him to sin, not God decreeing it.

 

[russell55]

Finally russell has put forth the truth of Calvinism.

God is the author of sin and decrees it to happen by allowing it.

No, God is not the author of sin, but he does decree to allow it to happen. BTW, even noncalvinist systems have God decreeing to allow the fall. Theissen does, Wesley does, every system but an open theistic one does.

Answer the questions please, or can't you? I double dare you to put forth a positive alternative rather than just criticism.

 

[Brother Bob]

I did answer the questions. If God gives man a choice then He is allowing him to do good or evil, of which he was cast out of the garden for. I believe God knew Adam would sin but he did not decree it.

You don't even know the difinition of decree. It is not to allow, but is to cause it to happen.

DECREE
1 : to command or enjoin by or as if by decree <decree an amnesty>
2 : to determine or order judicially <decree a punishment>

 

[russell55]

Yes, He gave man a choice to serve God and live or serve the devil and die.
In His Sovereignity, He created man with a choice.
That is where you Calvinist fail to see the scriptures.

No, Calvinists believe that.

That is why you have to change all the words, whosoever, not His will, all men etc. You name it.

It is not me confusing terms it is you having to change the meaning of a lot of words in the scripture to make your theory work of which it never will.

No one is changing the meaning of words, except you. They are just using them with specific theological definitions--definition, by the way, that have been around for at least several hundred years, and are agreed upon by noncalvinist theologians as well as calvinist ones.

Yes, I believe God is omnipotent, its just that I believe in the omnipotent power He created man with a choice.

No Calvinist disagrees.

He could of created man so he couldn't sin, but God chose to create man where he was subject to vanity.

Again, no Calvinist disagrees.

In other words "vanity" led him to sin, not God decreeing it.

And no calvinist believes that God decreeing that Adam would fall means that God led Adam to sin.