A question for calvinists

[The Archangel]

I guess I don't understand what is wrong with having an "incomplete theology", considering only God is "complete", and every theological position is incomplete. Are you saying calvinism is a "complete theology"?
Why should the passage in Exodus be filtered through this, and not vice versa?

*edited...brain cramp

Incomplete theology was meant to convey the idea of a theology which is not grounded in the whole of scripture; a "whole-bible" theology, if you will. I'm sure, though you'd probably disagree, you can see the inherent danger in theology which doesn't consult the whole council of scripture.

I would not say that Calvinism is complete. As I said on my blog, I am a Calvinist (unashamedly, I might add) but I am not a "Calviniser" (like the Judiasers of Paul's day). This is to say I don't think you have to be a Calvinist to be saved and I don't even think you need to be a Calvinist to be a good Christian. Calvinism has its conundrums too. I struggle with the "all" passages of the New Testament. Since, from the entirety of scripture, I know that not all will be saved, it must be there is a limit on salvation somewhere (and, yes, arminians limit the atonement too).

When one accepts that the cross was Christ dying in my place, for my sins--that He was my substitute in bearing God's punishing wrath and dying my death--one cannot help consider the atonement to be limited to those Christ intended to save--the Elect. If all sins were paid for on the cross, then all will be saved (universally) because Christ would have paid for all of those sins. We know from the rest of scripture that not all will be saved, so this cannot be the proper interpretation. Therefore, limited atonement is much more plausible, because, for one, it is not "double payment."

I am not filtering the events of Exodus 32 through Calvinism. Rather I am reading the events in light of the whole of scripture, which includes statements like God doesn't lie and God doesn't change His mind, and I come to the conclusion, since God doesn't change His mind, this event cannot (by scripture) be an example of God changing His mind, therefore it must be something different. A test is a much more likely explanation and it doesn't contradict other portions of scripture.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[Rubato 1]

Incomplete theology was meant to convey the idea of a theology which is not grounded in the whole of scripture; a "whole-bible" theology, if you will. I'm sure, though you'd probably disagree, you can see the inherent danger in theology which doesn't consult the whole council of scripture.

I would not say that Calvinism is complete. As I said on my blog, I am a Calvinist (unashamedly, I might add) but I am not a "Calviniser" (like the Judiasers of Paul's day). This is to say I don't think you have to be a Calvinist to be saved and I don't even think you need to be a Calvinist to be a good Christian. Calvinism has its conundrums too. I struggle with the "all" passages of the New Testament. Since, from the entirety of scripture, I know that not all will be saved, it must be there is a limit on salvation somewhere (and, yes, arminians limit the atonement too).

When one accepts that the cross was Christ dying in my place, for my sins--that He was my substitute in bearing God's punishing wrath and dying my death--one cannot help consider the atonement to be limited to those Christ intended to save--the Elect. If all sins were paid for on the cross, then all will be saved (universally) because Christ would have paid for all of those sins. We know from the rest of scripture that not all will be saved, so this cannot be the proper interpretation. Therefore, limited atonement is much more plausible, because, for one, it is not "double payment."

This is a good post, in fact, classic, IMO. Except that the whole limited atonement thing is misunderstood by many. God did not pay for a certain amount of sin, or number of sins. He died for sin, not sins.

I am not filtering the events of Exodus 32 through Calvinism. Rather I am reading the events in light of the whole of scripture, which includes statements like God doesn't lie and God doesn't change His mind, and I come to the conclusion, since God doesn't change His mind, this event cannot (by scripture) be an example of God changing His mind, therefore it must be something different. A test is a much more likely explanation and it doesn't contradict other portions of scripture.

Blessings,

The Archangel

The Bible does not say God cannot change his mind (as far as I can see). It does say that God does not change, but this means his attributes, not his actions. He will always be just, holy, loving, and the definitions of those things will not change; but this does not prevent him from changing his mind about a circumstance. He can change his mind and still be just and holy, etc. Just like you can change your mind about many things and this does not affect you, your core beliefs, or how people percieve you or are treated by you. You are still Archangel even if you sell your red car and but a green one (you just won't be as cool )

 

[The Archangel]

Rubato,

What do you mean?

This is a good post, in fact, classic, IMO. Except that the whole limited atonement thing is misunderstood by many. God did not pay for a certain amount of sin, or number of sins. He died for sin, not sins.

The Archangel

 

[Rubato 1]

Rubato,

What do you mean?



The Archangel

What I mean is this (I have explained it several times on this board and to friends. I am not sure why it makes so much sense to me and not to many others , although the man who shared this with me told me that I now understood something that very few people I would talk to in my life understood!?):
God did not pile Archangel's (quantity x) of sins, and then rubato's (y) and then webdog's (something exponential, I'm sure ), and so on to gether to achive a certain 'quota' of sin to lay on Jesus. Rather, he laid sin on Jesus. It doesn't matter how many people or how many times those people commit murder; that sin (that particular offense) was laid on Jesus. He became a murderer; he became sin. He did not take 348,615 murders on him, he took murder. He took stealing on him, not billions of thefts. He took blasphemy upon him, not the millions of replications that would take place in the course of human history. Go through the list. This is why God will always forgive when we confess; because there is no limit we must live up to or keep from exceeding, it is all covered. Sin is covered.

In addition, there really is only one sin: lack of love for God. All the others stem from that. Image how that made Christ feel on the cross.

Does this make any sense?

To me, this precludes the Calvinistic view that God had to know how many sins we would commit before we commit them.

 

[webdog]

I am not filtering the events of Exodus 32 through Calvinism. Rather I am reading the events in light of the whole of scripture, which includes statements like God doesn't lie and God doesn't change His mind, and I come to the conclusion, since God doesn't change His mind, this event cannot (by scripture) be an example of God changing His mind, therefore it must be something different. A test is a much more likely explanation and it doesn't contradict other portions of scripture.

I skipped past the atonement part of your post to deal with the above (I don't want it going off on a rabbit trail ...edited - oops, too late...rubato already did that one post back)
I haven't done a search of the Scriptures yet, but from memory it seems that there are more passages dealing with God relenting, repenting and changing His mind, and also responding to man's choices, actions and prayers. With this in mind, that one verse stating God doesn't change His mind or listen to man would seem to be the exception and not the norm scripturally. To run the majority of Scripture seemingly stating the opposite through that one verse doesn't make sense.

 

[pinoybaptist]

Why pray? If God has already decided it all, and everything will go as it will go, whay did God command us to pray?

Can you elaborate on what you mean about "God has already decided it all" ? You don't have to include the eternal salvation of man, I can understand that you already point to what Calvinists believe about that when you framed your question.

What else in the "it all" did God already decide ?

 

[Rubato 1]

Can you elaborate on what you mean about "God has already decided it all" ? You don't have to include the eternal salvation of man, I can understand that you already point to what Calvinists believe about that when you framed your question.

What else in the "it all" did God already decide ?

Well, my understanding is taht Calvinists believe that all future events are already known by God. They are already set in stone, unchangeable, etc, etc. Am I wrong?

 

[The Archangel]

What I mean is this (I have explained it several times on this board and to friends. I am not sure why it makes so much sense to me and not to many others , although the man who shared this with me told me that I now understood something that very few people I would talk to in my life understood!?):
God did not pile Archangel's (quantity x) of sins, and then rubato's (y) and then webdog's (something exponential, I'm sure ), and so on to gether to achive a certain 'quota' of sin to lay on Jesus. Rather, he laid sin on Jesus. It doesn't matter how many people or how many times those people commit murder; that sin (that particular offense) was laid on Jesus. He became a murderer; he became sin. He did not take 348,615 murders on him, he took murder. He took stealing on him, not billions of thefts. He took blasphemy upon him, not the millions of replications that would take place in the course of human history. Go through the list. This is why God will always forgive when we confess; because there is no limit we must live up to or keep from exceeding, it is all covered. Sin is covered.

In addition, there really is only one sin: lack of love for God. All the others stem from that. Image how that made Christ feel on the cross.

Does this make any sense?

To me, this precludes the Calvinistic view that God had to know how many sins we would commit before we commit them.

I see what you are saying, thanks for the explanation. No, it doesn't make sense especially when you read the rich theology of Isaiah's servant songs and you study the Old Testament practices of the Day of Atonement and the other sacrifices of the sacrificial system.

This "theory" you have put forward here would deny almost every aspect of penal-substitutionary atonement.

If you would, please give some scriptures to bolster your theory. I'll be thinking on this more.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[The Archangel]

Well, my understanding is taht Calvinists believe that all future events are already known by God. They are already set in stone, unchangeable, etc, etc. Am I wrong?

Yes and no. He declares the end from the beginning. But we still have freedom to choose (not a libertarian freedom, however).

I've heard someone describe this like this: God is the author of the screenplay and we're the actors. There is freedom in how we play the part, but it is ultimately God who writes the script.

This is by no means a perfect analogy...just FYI.

The Archangel

 

[The Archangel]

I skipped past the atonement part of your post to deal with the above (I don't want it going off on a rabbit trail ...edited - oops, too late...rubato already did that one post back)
I haven't done a search of the Scriptures yet, but from memory it seems that there are more passages dealing with God relenting, repenting and changing His mind, and also responding to man's choices, actions and prayers. With this in mind, that one verse stating God doesn't change His mind or listen to man would seem to be the exception and not the norm scripturally. To run the majority of Scripture seemingly stating the opposite through that one verse doesn't make sense.

So, then, you are discounting one part of scripture simply because...? The concept doesn't appear as often as another?

Dangerous. All scripture must be brought to the table...that is the whole-council of God.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[webdog]

So, then, you are discounting one part of scripture simply because...? The concept doesn't appear as often as another?

Dangerous. All scripture must be brought to the table...that is the whole-council of God.

Blessings,

The Archangel

I'm not...that is why I have maintained that finite beings cannot fathom nor clearly comprehend how an infinite God deals with His creation outside, and within time.

I never discounted that one verse, btw. I only pointed out that MANY more seemingly opposing Scripture state the contrary. Filtering the majority of these through one verse is discounting the plain meaning of many verses in Scripture. THAT is even more dangerous, IMO.

 

[Rubato 1]

I see what you are saying, thanks for the explanation. No, it doesn't make sense especially when you read the rich theology of Isaiah's servant songs and you study the Old Testament practices of the Day of Atonement and the other sacrifices of the sacrificial system.

This "theory" you have put forward here would deny almost every aspect of penal-substitutionary atonement.

If you would, please give some scriptures to bolster your theory. I'll be thinking on this more.

Blessings,

The Archangel

I would think the OT Day of Atonement the perfect picture of what I described. The whole camp did not come and name every sin they committed and how many times with their hands on the ram's head. The ram was sacrificed for sin. All of it. All at once.

This is not a theory, it is an explanation that makes sense, and (to me) is easily inferred from every passage concerning sacrifices I've read. Let us look at Isa 53 for a 'test.' From verse 6, 'All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned everyone to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all' we see that God took our way (not nessicaruly individual sins) and our iniquity (all of man's iniquity together, not a specific quatnity of sins). This is just as easy for me to point out as it would be to say that this verse says that God took the 480,000 times we would lie, and the 1,984,000 times we would be proud, etc, etc.

But what exactly do you mean by 'penal-substitutionary atonement'?

 

[psalms109:31]

No contradiction

...then you also have the contradiction it seems where God stated He wished that He would have never created man.

I praise God that Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord.

 

[pinoybaptist]

Well, my understanding is taht Calvinists believe that all future events are already known by God. They are already set in stone, unchangeable, etc, etc. Am I wrong?

Oh, okay, I see, so you're referring to the erroneous doctrine of Absolute Predestination.

Actually, that is an issue that is a bit thorny not only for Calvinists, but even among Primitive Baptists such as myself.

There are those among us PB's who believe that even the elect's sins are predestinated, and the smallest things that happen in the life of the elect are predestined.

Like, if I make a mistake in any of my answers to you, that has been predestinated to happen, or, if as a minister, I succumb to sexual or monetary temptation, that has been predestined.

If I fart while in a formal dinner in a formal restaurant and the fart goes unnoticed and unsmelled, that was predestinated, and if the reverse happens, well, even that is predestinated.

Do you see how ridiculous the doctrine is ? Not that those who hold to that doctrine teaches it in the way I illustrated, but, in so many words, that is what the doctrine means.

OTOH, there are many among Calvinists and PB's who do not hold to the doctrine of Absolute Predestination.

Calamities, tragedies, and the like that happen to mankind, including the elect, happen as a result of a fallen and sinful environment, as well as the sinful nature that remains in us.

God did not predestine these things to happen simply because He is sovereign and can do what He pleases to do, but He knows they will happen because these are consequences of an environment and nature of sin, and even His elect are not exempt from these, IF they do not heed His warning to avoid and shun deliberate, known sin.

That is what we are saved from in this plane called time, that is why the gospel is preached, to educate, teach, instruct, and guide His people as they walk the narrow way of obedience and submission while passing through this world as pilgrims.

So, how does prayer figure in ?

The pat reply is "because we are commanded to do so".

But I think a more rational reply would be because when proper prayer is done, it creates in us an attitude of submission, humility and surrender to God's sovereignty.

Many have been conditioned to think of prayer as an "I would like this to be done for me....will you please, for me, in Jesus' Name...I need this...I am in this situation and need your help....please turn your face towards me, Lord...", you know what I mean, like, it's a me, mine, my thing, and once the petition is sent up to God, answers and results are expected and ought to be forthcoming.

I think proper prayer should be one of worship, and an acknowledging that God is in no way obligated to act on one's petition, and nevertheless the petitioner is thankful for the things that he has and looks forward to.

It is a recognition of one's absolute dependence on the mercies and grace of God.

He knows what's beyond the bend of that river, we don't, and He knows what He will do, and He does what He wills in the armies of heaven and of earth, and whatever He does His people are completely submitted to His will.

Insufficient answer, I know, but that is what is in my heart, and what I share with you, dear brother.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Good explaination in this video...

http://youtube.com/watch?v=eBGIQ7ZuuiU

 

[JustChristian]

Good one:thumbs:
Then again, why do arminians pray? All they have to do is use their ultimate free will and decide it for themselves...

Because they realize that they are not all-powerful and they need God.

 

[Jarthur001]

God answers prayer, by changing the person hearts to that of Gods will.

Have you ever heard the phrase..."not my will, but your will be done"? All of our prayers should be with this in mind. A person that does not believe God will change a mans heart does not know what prayer is. Prayer changes man, not God.

If you pray that God will bring someone to the saving knowledge of Christ, but you do not believe God should over power a mans will to save the man, then I have no idea why you pray in the 1st place.

 

[Tom Butler]

James! It's you! Welcome back, brother. It's been six weeks. I would say that it's been pretty dull in your absence, but you know that's not true.

 

[Jarthur001]

James! It's you! Welcome back, brother. It's been six weeks. I would say that it's been pretty dull in your absence, but you know that's not true.

Thanks Tom,

Church planting has taken a lot of my time. God is really working in a great way in our area. Pray I and others keep faithful to Him and His calling.

The church we have started is the 1st Reformed Baptist Church in town in over 150 years. The response has been nothing short of complete joy to our hearts. I knew some longed for such a church, I just had no idea the numbers would be this great at an early stage.

May God have all the glory...

In Christ...James

 

[Rubato 1]

Thank you, Pinoy, That helps me understand a lot. :thumbs:

Now:

God answers prayer, by changing the person hearts to that of Gods will.

Have you ever heard the phrase..."not my will, but your will be done"? All of our prayers should be with this in mind. A person that does not believe God will change a mans heart does not know what prayer is. Prayer changes man, not God.

These are interesting thoughts...

If you pray that God will bring someone to the saving knowledge of Christ, but you do not believe God should over power a mans will to save the man, then I have no idea why you pray in the 1st place.

Well I always thought it was teamwork; not the saving, but the coming to the truth. God said 'If I be lifted up, I will draw all men unto myself,' but he also said 'I hold a place for those who search,' and 'they that seek me shall find me.' God will make his truth available, but man must also seek him. Like Noah, who 'found grace in the eyes of the Lord,' God was looking to show grace, true; but Noah was also looking for grace.