A strict 5-point Calvinist God is not worthy of worship...

[johnp.]

1. If God does not create us as individuals but merely created Adam and Eve, and our Original Sin/ total depravity is inherited from them, how can we be said to be personally responsible for our state of sin and therefore merit personal punishment?

Hello Matt. I've just come across this thread and have only read the last page. I say this because what I say may have been done to death already. I find that I have a peculiar slant on things so here goes.

I am a Calvinist. I believe that God is Sovereign. Any decision taken in His Kingdom, all of creation, must come from God. If any decision is taken that does not come from God then that makes God not Sovereign and therefore not God.
That is always where I start from. The idea of free will is a nonstarter. I do not believe Adam had a choice that was not controlled by God.

As Bro. James has said, "Faith is a work."
The scripture for this is: John 6:29 Jesus answered, "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent."

To believe is to have faith. To have faith is a work, yes? Yes or no?

Ray said, "The plan of salvation is perfect and forever complete. All God requires of sinners now is to believe in Jesus. [Acts 16:31] 'Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved . . . '
The first sentence is perfectly correct but the rest of it falls short of the whole counsel of God because he, (hope you don't mind me talking about you in this way Ray), preceded it with the Golden Calf of free will. Eph 2:8-9 denies free will along with Rom 8:6-8 The mind of sinful man is death, but the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace; 7 the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so. 8 Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God.

So God has created us as individuals without hope and subject to His will. Lump it mate.
To add to this insult, just in case we want to ride the fatted calf of free will, He says, "It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy." Rom 9:16.
That is just in case. It denies that free will has a chance if it pleases anyone to believe it exists at all.
And again He says, "... The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever." Gen 3:22.
Right from the beginning He tells us plainly that the way to life is hidden. Then He tells us to choose that which is not possible.

You say;
A G/g*od who deliberately creates some humans willing that they be damned and subject to eternal punishment is a cruel and wicked tyrannical deity who is not worthy of any worship but rather is to be feared. He cannot in any way we understand as being created in image of said deity be said to be good and therefore we should blaspheme rather than worship such a being.[/B]

I agree with the sentiment but I am a sinner. The despot of despots is He. I stand in awe of Him. Let every man be a liar but God is good. Rom 3:4 Let God be true, and every man a liar. As it is written: "So that you may be proved right when you speak and prevail when you judge."

You must reconcile the verses I have given with your beliefs. You must not put our view of right and wrong onto Him. He does as He pleases. What He does is not for us to decide, right or wrong, but accept. He will, if He is so pleased to explain, and we will be appalled at our judgement, but He wills not us.

A God that damns those He creates for being born, before they had done either good or bad, "Jacob I loved but Esau I hated" Is beyond belief! It is quite frankly disgusting and not worthy of worship. But I find that worship is a strange thing for a Person to desire anyway. If I was God I would not want people to bow down to me! Thank God that I am not God is all that I can say.

how can we be said to be personally responsible for our state of sin and therefore merit personal punishment?

I still do not believe I am responsible but He says I am. Therefore I am. Simple as that.
He makes the rules because the Sovereign makes the rules not us.
He tells us that we must decide to do something that we are not capable of and then damns us when we don't. A simple truth to be accepted.

I don't believe in making excuses for what I read in the scriptures.
I preach the whole counsel of God and predestination to salvation is part of that. That Election before the creation is part of that. That He will save His people from their sins, Matt 1:21, is part of that.
That not all are His people is also part of that and that stinks. I'd like to use swear words but I do not know what is acceptable on this forum.
So what it stinks, it's God's word and has to be accepted. Or rejected.
It is not as if He does not answer, He does, not our question, not our question but He answers with, "The clay" He says, "Has no say" He says, Rom 9:19.

'fair' Where? God is love, God is just, God is anything but what we think as fair!
We must, not should, but must, modify our thinking to His.

Peace I leave you with. He says He does not give as the world gives, John 14:27, there is nowt for us to do.

()ohn

 

[johnp.]

enabling e-mail

 

[johnp.]

and again
trying ain't it?

 

[Matt Black]

John, all I can say is I would be unable to worship such a being, simply because such a being would not be good. You say that even Adam did not have a choice that was not controlled ultimately by God, let alone the rest of us. That means that Adam and all of us are simply automatons, puppets on God's strings, His playthings. Now, an automaton is incapable of giving love, so straight away we all break the First Commandment. If there is absolutely no free will, there is no love.

You also contrast fairness with justice. I see no conflict between the two terms, they are equivalent in meaning.

Your view of God, gleaned from selective Scripture quotes, is wholly at odds with the view of God revealed consistently elsewhere in Scripture - His love, His justice, His mercy etc. That's why I can't accept it - because you're not describing God

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[johnp.]

Hello Matt.

Puppets on a string would be a correct reading of my beliefs.
I agree with you but I find I worship Him through that.
If I said other than what I understand then I would be a liar. I do understand why you say what you say, I have got the same response from many, but that is what I believe.

I would look again at my belief if I stood alone. Not that I do not try to continue to get a better understanding but my belief is very much the same as the reformers.

I do not believe free will is consistant with moral agency. God has no free will has He? He can't lie and can't tempt etc.
When we were first created we worked properly. After the fall we did not. What is so wrong with God repairing those He chooses to?

Free will has more headaches than predestination.

All the best.

johnp.

 

[Matt Black]

Originally posted by johnp.:
What is so wrong with God repairing those He chooses to?

All the best.

johnp.

Because it speaks volumes of negativity about His view of those He chooses not to repair. . That is why, in order to be consistent, if such a view is to embrace and encapsulate a God of love, it must also tend towards some form of universalism in its soteriology. You still have the problem of automatism and incapability to love though even then, mind...

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[ILUVLIGHT]

Hi John P

Free will has more headaches than predestination.

IMHO you must believe that predestination is unalterable, which just isn't so. First of all it assumes that God cannot change His plans. You see originally Salvation was of the Jews only, and still would be if they hadn't rejected Christ. That's right they the "elect" of God rejected Christ. This is clear evidence that man has a choice. Not to mention that election doesn't insure Salvation.

The word "Predestination" is no longer a good interpretation of the Ancient Greek word "proorizō". In the Ancient Greek this word was never interpreted as unalterable. This interpretation comes about through a translating of the modern Greek definition and the Modern English definition. We cannot apply a modern definition to a Ancient Greek word. English especially having so many meanings to one word that even we who speak it have a hard time understanding each other. Ancient Greek is still relatively pure in it's original form and it stays that way because no one is adding new meanings to it every year. This is why the oldest manuscripts are so valueable to us all. There not being retranslated properly to give us good renderings of what is actually said in scripture any more. English has so many meanings for one word, that words loose there original intent. We now have to guess at what is being said.
May God Bless You With Light;
Mike

 

[johnp.]

Hello Matt.

I'll get round to your reply as soon as I translate it into working class!

Hello ILUVLIGHT.

IMHO you must believe that predestination is unalterable, which just isn't so.

Me personally? I do. It is unalterable.
I don't normally introduce tradition into my argument but Augustine believed in it did he not? "Augustine, who lived from 354 to 430 a.d., was the most important theologian among the early church fathers. He consistently taught the Calvinistic concept of salvation by grace in contrast to a teacher named Pelagius, who was publicly denying the doctrine of predestination and the teaching that men are born with a sin nature."
Why did he do that if predestination has changed it's meaning?

Salvation was of the Jews only, and still would be if they hadn't rejected Christ.

Surely the Jews were blessed as a nation but they were never the only ones marked for salvation. Abraham as the father of the nation was not the first man saved was he? Noah was not a Jew and old Job was knocking around.
If we take it back to the beginning then we all stem from Adam and Eve. There is no distinction.
The Ninevites were saved as it was the job of the Israelites, as featured by Jonah, to go and take the message out to mankind in general. A job they must have done because there will be people from every tribe, nation and language sharing eternity with us.
But I can see that you are coming from a very different position. Let us find out what we believe and where the both of us are coming from first.
That last quote is either a mistake or wrong doctrine.
The scriptures are the only source of truth available to us. What authority have you for saying the scriptures are useless?

We now have to guess at what is being said.

I know the difficulty involved in speech. But there must be a way for us to communicate with each other and certainly a way for God to tell us what is on His mind.
I know the difficulty because I can take many hours in putting my thoughts down for a reply to a post.
Predestination on it's own maybe subject to discussion but Calvinism does not depend on one word but on many different passages that agree with each other.

Let's be less general and more focused. Jesus never suggested the scriptures could not be trusted.

johnp.

 

[johnp.]

Hello Matt.

Because it speaks volumes of negativity about His view of those He chooses not to repair. . That is why, in order to be consistent, if such a view is to embrace and encapsulate a God of love, it must also tend towards some form of universalism in its soteriology. You still have the problem of automatism and incapability to love though even then, mind...

You still have the problem of automatism... It is not a problem to me but I do spend a lot of time thinking about it. I take a step back and believe that God is Sovereign. That being so then all things must be His will. He is the first cause of all that happens. If anything happens that is not His will then He is not Sovereign and not God. He is proactive not reactive.

Because it speaks volumes of negativity about His view of those He chooses not to repair. It does indeed. Created to be destroyed. This I cannot apologise for. It is a dreadful thing and not to be taken lightly.

That is why, in order to be consistent, if such a view is to embrace and encapsulate a God of love, it must also tend towards some form of universalism in its soteriology. I think this is the problem. He is a God of love. Love never fails. That gives us confidence that we can rest assured in His love. If He loved all equally then we could not rest assured in Him, many under that love go to Hell. But love never fails.

You still have the problem of automatism and incapability to love though even then, mind... I may have misunderstood this. Do you mean even if I am wrong this is still the case?
If so: The problem I see with free will is that not all get the same chance to hear the gospel. Not all are capable of responding correctly. The person who has been through much might see God as a tyrant whereas another who has been through much might see Him as a Saviour. What determines the choice? Chance?

What determined His choice? Chance? None of us are different or worthy.
It is because of him that I am in Christ Jesus, who has become for me wisdom from God--that is, my righteousness, holiness and redemption. 31 Therefore, as it is written: "Let him who boasts boast in the Lord." 1 Cor 1:30. That is where I stand.

How's that?

johnp.

 

[Matt Black]

John, I meant that automatism is still a problem even of one adopts a universalist position - which neither you or I do. But by not being universalist, you have hit the nail on the head with the problem of extreme Calvinism - that God cannot love everyone equally. That statement strikes at the heart of Who God is - the apostle John tells us that He is love - I Jn 1. Once you destroy that concept, then you no longer have God, and instead you have an arbitrary and cruel deity, as your own post hints...

Oh, as a Baptist I don't place much store by Augustine - he was into baptismal regeneration after all

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[PaulwasaCalvinist]

that God cannot love everyone equally. That statement strikes at the heart of Who God is - the apostle John tells us that He is love - I Jn 1. Once you destroy that concept, then you no longer have God, and instead you have an arbitrary and cruel deity, as your own post hints...

John says God is love meaning God defines love it does not (especially our own definition) define HIm. ANd why is it not possible that there is a differenciation in God's love for some people?

 

[ILUVLIGHT]

Hi Paulwasacalvinist;
I agree with out Love there is no God Amen
May God bless You;
Mike

P.S. welcome to Baptist Board

 

[PaulwasaCalvinist]

My apologies the first paragraph in my post is a quote (although I did not correctly indicate that sorry) from Matt Black. My thoughts are the second paragraph I do not believe GOd is dependent upon love but rather it is dependant upon him. He defines it.

 

[rufus]

Matt Black said:

A G/g*od who deliberately creates some humans willing that they be damned and subject to eternal punishment is a cruel and wicked tyrannical deity who is not worthy of any worship but rather is to be feared.

That statement is utterly false and is not the 5 Point Calvinist Position!

Rufus

 

[ILUVLIGHT]

Hi Paulwasacalvinist;
I understand so you believe Love is dependant upon God. I'm courious how you would or could explain such a thing since God is Love. He is also spirit and power. But most importantly Love.

Love is said to be an act of the will and it is God's will that He is Love. His word says He is Love but you say that Love is dependant on God. I guess you could say that without God there is no Love but then with out Love there is no Loving God. The two cannot be seperated nor would any one in there right mind want to seperate them. They are the same. Since they are the same man is capable of Love as well. He Loves His Dog's, cat's, children, wives, mothers, Fathers, and so on He is also capable of Loving God. If he is willing man can Love anything he wants to. Love is a matter of the Will to do so. To prove this God commanded us to Love God. By reason of that command we are shown Choice other wise there would be no commandment simply because there would be no need. We would already Love God.

We really need to define Love. The Bible tells us what Love is;
1Co 13:2 If I have the gift of prophecy and can understand all secrets and every form of knowledge, and if I have absolute faith so as to move mountains but have no love, I am nothing.
1Co 13:3 Even if I give away all that I have and surrender my body so that I may boast but have no love, I get nothing out of it.
1Co 13:4 Love is always patient, Love is always kind, Love is never envious Or vaunted up with pride. Nor is she conceited,
1Co 13:5 And never is she rude, Never does she think of self Or ever get annoyed. She never is resentful,
1Co 13:6 Is never glad with sin, But always glad to side with truth, Whene'er the truth should win.
1Co 13:7 She bears up under everything, Believes the best in all, There is no limit to her hope, And never will she fall.

What Part of this scripture doesn't represent God?
May God Bless You;
Mike

 

[ILUVLIGHT]

Hi Rufus;
Did you really come to an Arminian and Calvinist debate forum and exspect to find only Calvinist?
May God bless You;
Mike

 

[rufus]

Originally posted by ILUVLIGHT:
Hi Rufus;
Did you really come to an Arminian and Calvinist debate forum and exspect to find only Calvinist?
May God bless You;
Mike

Nope! But thanks for asking!

Rufus

 

[PaulwasaCalvinist]

In response to you question of how I support that love is dependant upon God: God is love does not say that love is God. God is the antecedent and love is the consequent. I concur that God is spiirt and power (and love) but why is love most important (is there a verse that places love above GOd's other attributes?).

I again agree that without God there is no love but I do not believe that you can also flip that and say without love there is no GOD. I fyou are at all familiar with logic what that would be (if I am correct) is the fallacy of affirming the consequent. Just because you affirm the consequent (love) the antec3edent (God) does not necessarily follow. However if you affirm the antecedent you must affirm the consequent (in order for the statement to be valid. Therefore the consequent is dependant upon the antecedent but not vice versa. I am not exactly trying to separate God and love I simply want to make the point that God defines what love is not some abstract notion (independant of GOd) defining GOd. I do not believe man is capable (or even cares to ) of loving God apart for God first doing something (making man capable of loving GOd) John says we love God because He first loved us. Just because God commands something does not mean we have the capability to do it. God commands us to obey the 10 commandments that does not mean we are able to do so. (perphaps you hold that it is possible I donot however think the Bible affirms our ability to obey the 10 commandments). WE are shown choice, choice does not mean ability.

The Bible does define love for us, anmd I agree that that scriptutre acurately represents God, but God is still defining love. Where did you get you definition of love? the Bible. Who is responisble for the Bible? God. God is giving you the definition of love. It represents God because He defined it.

(I wrote this while reading your post so the things I say corralate to your statements I don't know how to quote but all my staements respond to one you your statements you just have to match them up, sorry)

 

[johnp.]

PaulwasaCalvinist PaulisaCalvinist.

Hello there!

God defines love it does not (especially our own definition) define HIm.

That is a very good answer.

We continually weigh God by our standards of fairness, love and justice. God is One. We can't divide Him.

God said love never fails. He went to Hell for those He loves.
God is One. He said, "Jacob I loved." And at best, "Esau I did not love." (Our best, not His. His best is, "Esau I hated.) Rom 9:13.

We must accept what He says about Himself or we will not mature and we need to press on. The days are shortening.

johnp.

 

[Southern]

Mike,
In Eph. 5 the Bible says that Christ loved the "Church" and gave Himself for her. This is an example of how we are to love our wives. We are to love all people and woman, but the way we love our wives is "different" then the way we love other ladies, at least I hope it is.

God can show love to all (Matt. 5:44-45) without loving all in the same exact way. If your view was correct, you cannot love your wife any different than you love other ladies. The Biblical example is that God has a special love for His people (Eph. 5;John 17:9) that He does not have for others. Christ had a "special" or "different" love in regard to giving Himself for the church. Arminians may not like this, but it's the Biblical pictures.

In Christ


In Christ