Belief in the Absolute Sovereignty of God and the Absolute Depravity of Man

[Rhetorician]

A Calvinist is typically used to describe anyone who holds to TULIP (Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, and Perseverance of the Saints). A Calvinist can be Baptist, Presbyterian, Plymouth Brethren, and even some Methodists.

Bro. Reformed,

What was said was for rhetorical effect that is all. Some use the terms and do not know what they mean. R.C. Sproul (I find myself quoting him a lot lately) said that theology had to be done on a razor blade's edge. So for those who do know the difference amongst the terms I am sure they will appreciate the help you and I have provided.

Thanks much for the clarification.

rd

 

[Reformed]

Thanks much for the clarification.

Brother, thank you for the clarification. I misread your post.

God is absolutely sovereign. As God, He is in control of even the most minute detail. God exists both within and outside of space and time. He created the physical universe and time-based system that we live in. We are mere specks on a line and can barely see the tip of our nose. God knows how every event fits into His grand design. Yet that does not stop us from speaking rashly, as though we know what resides in the mind of God. By earthly standards, Job was a righteous man, yet God took Him to task when He said, "Who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge? Now gird up your loins like a man, and I will ask you, and you instruct me! Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell Me, if you have understanding, Who set its measurements? Since you know." (Job 38:3-5a). At the end of God's rebuke, Job wisely said, "I know You can do all things, and no purpose of Yours can be thwarted. Who is this that hides counsel without knowledge?' "Therefore I have declared that which I do not understand, things too wonderful for me, which I do not know." (Job 42:2-3). We cannot speak about God beyond what scripture reveals of Him, and scripture reveals that God is completely sovereign. Jesus said that not even a sparrow falls from its nest without the knowledge of God (Mat. 10:29). How can the salvation of God's elect not be purposed by our thrice holy God?

 

[utilyan]

What if I say I am master of the universe, I told God the only thing he is allowed to do is TULIP.


You see the twist is, God does not have free will. He is limited to my prison I established. He doesn't have the power to do thing any other way.


Is it POSSIBLE, does God have the capacity to run existence in a different manner then you expect?

I don't agree with Arminianism but I would be fool to insist God could not run an Arminianism system if he wanted to.

I know a Calvinist believes God is running a Calvinist system, that aside I want to know does a Calvinist believe that God could run a different system if he wanted to, is it within his power?



Sovereignty, POWER. If these things were like guns and handed sovereignty and power to the devil. There is plenty of folks out there who would follow the devil.

Because their priority is POWER and Sovereignty and an idolatry to power and sovereignty.

1 John 4 God is love. I would stick with God no matter how helpless one counts love to be. I believe that kindness, love and compassion are the highest priorities.

 

[Reformed]

I know a Calvinist believes God is running a Calvinist system, that aside I want to know does a Calvinist believe that God could run a different system if he wanted to, is it within his power?

With all due respect, this is not an accurate statement. God is not running "a system". God is doing all things after the counsel of His own will (Eph. 1:11). The problem with some Calvinists is that they believe in God's sovereignty in predestination and election and stop there. God's sovereignty does not apply just to salvation. God has ordered the entire physical universe and He upholds it by the word of His power (Heb. 1:3).

If you go back to the time of the Reformers, you will find that their concern was not just about salvation as it is debated today in Calvinism vs. Arminianism threads. They were more concerned about the nature and character of God as revealed in scripture. They were concerned about God's holiness and how we, as His children, are* to walk in holiness. They would look at our debates and seeth with righteous indignation. I can imagine them collectively saying, "It's not just about predestination and election you knucklehead! It's about the whole of the Christian life!" And that is what it is really about. It is not a system. It is about God and His nature and character. It is about what He reveals to us in the pages of scripture.

*I am vacillating between past and present tense because what the Reformers wrote about applies to us today.

 

[agedman]

God is either Lord of all, or not Lord at all.

One cannot discern the basic Ten Commandments without coming to terms in understanding God is The Only God, there is none like or equal to Him.

Believers, because God first loved us, are compelled by His Spirit to Love others.

There are but two great commands.
1) Love God with all our heart, mind, soul (strength)
2) Love the neighbor

 

[thatbrian]

The problem with some Calvinists is that they believe in God's sovereignty in predestination and election and stop there. God's sovereignty does not apply just to salvation. God has ordered the entire physical universe and He upholds it by the word of His power (Heb. 1:3).

I think that you might be underestimating some Calvinists. Remember, we are debating a very specific topic here. We are debating questions of soteriology, and as you know, this is where our opponents take issue. They don't complain that God is sovereign in the rest of creation, so we are not clashing there.

This is an online debate forum which is about a specific topic, which is why it appears all Calvinists know regarding the Christian life is this topic. Of course, it appears that way, but that's only because that's the focus of this subforum.

"It's not just about predestination and election you knucklehead! It's about the whole of the Christian life!"

Lastly, it's not about the "whole Christian life", @Reformed. It's about the glory of God.

 

[David Kent]

A Calvinist is typically used to describe anyone who holds to TULIP (Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, and Perseverance of the Saints). A Calvinist can be Baptist, Presbyterian, Plymouth Brethren, and even some Methodists.

Presbyterians don't think so. I don't hold to any points, I just read what the bible says.

When I was in the Plymouth Brethren I never heard any reformed teaching, although the protestant founders of the Brethren were, they mostly came from the Anglican church. Many who came out of the Anglican Church at the time became Brethren or Baptists. At that time in Oxford there were the 'Churchmen' and the 'Evangelicals' who were also called 'Calvinists' The Churchmen included John Newman who led the back to Rome movement, who were called 'Tractarians' as they followed Newman's tracts.

Another was F W Newman, his brother, who seemed to be an Evangelical.
The Evangelicals included Bucer and B W Newton, Newton joined with the Brethren but after falling out with Darby joined the Baptists.

 

[David Kent]

Comparrisons of the 1596 True Confession and the First London Confession 1644 updated 1646

http://www.baptistcenter.net/confessions/Particular_Baptist_Statements_of_Faith.pdf

 

[thatbrian]

I don't hold to any points, I just read what the bible says.

The uninformed arrogance of his line never ceases to amaze me.

 

[Reformed]

I think that you might be underestimating some Calvinists. Remember, we are debating a very specific topic here. We are debating questions of soteriology, and as you know, this is where our opponents take issue. They don't complain that God is sovereign in the rest of creation, so we are not clashing there.

This is an online debate forum which is about a specific topic, which is why it appears all Calvinists know regarding the Christian life is this topic. Of course, it appears that way, but that's only because that's the focus of this subforum.



Lastly, it's not about the "whole Christian life", @Reformed. It's about the glory of God.

I was responding specifically to utilyan. I will consider taking up some of these matters in a different thread.

 

[Reformed]

Presbyterians don't think so. I don't hold to any points, I just read what the bible says.

When I was in the Plymouth Brethren I never heard any reformed teaching, although the protestant founders of the Brethren were, they mostly came from the Anglican church. Many who came out of the Anglican Church at the time became Brethren or Baptists. At that time in Oxford there were the 'Churchmen' and the 'Evangelicals' who were also called 'Calvinists' The Churchmen included John Newman who led the back to Rome movement, who were called 'Tractarians' as they followed Newman's tracts.

Another was F W Newman, his brother, who seemed to be an Evangelical.
The Evangelicals included Bucer and B W Newton, Newton joined with the Brethren but after falling out with Darby joined the Baptists.

Presbyterians do not think that Baptists can be Reformed, but they have no problem admitting that Baptists can be Calvinists.

John Nelson Darby was a Calvinist. He believed in the doctrines of grace, even though he is often called the "father of Dispensationalism". Darby was also an influential member of the Plymouth Brethren, So, I stand by my comments.

 

[Reynolds]

Dear Brother Reynolds,

Brother, then please give us (me) a good interpretation of Eph. 1:11:

Eph 1:11

In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will.

This was quoted from the Blue Letter Bible King James Version. In respect of R.C. Sproul who said, "There is not one rebel atom in any of God's universe."

But I am not sure the Apostle Paul meant all things here.

Now that is a Sovereign God. But I am sure that the "free will of man" can do what he wants when he pleases. Forgive me, sarcasm is so not nice. But then again that is a rhetorical tool.

rd

Sproul and his denial of a "rebel atom" might have problems harmonizing with the rebellion of Lucifer and his hosts. Lucifer rebelled. Of course, God allowed him the freedom to rebel, but nonetheless he rebelled.

 

[David Kent]

Presbyterians do not think that Baptists can be Reformed, but they have no problem admitting that Baptists can be Calvinists.

John Nelson Darby was a Calvinist. He believed in the doctrines of grace, even though he is often called the "father of Dispensationalism". Darby was also an influential member of the Plymouth Brethren, So, I stand by my comments.

I have been on a reformed board and told by a Presbyterian that only Presbyterians can be Calvinist

 

[Reformed]

I have been on a reformed board and told by a Presbyterian that only Presbyterians can be Calvinist

You were told wrong.

 

[thatbrian]

You were told wrong.

It all depends on if you use the term broadly or narrowly. Narrowly, a Baptist isn't a Calvinist. He may agree with Calvin of soteriology, but he certainly doesn't on baptism, and often, not on covenant theology.

If someone says he's a Calvinist, we generally understand that to mean he holds to TULIP. On that, I will agree, but @Rhetorician was 100% accurate in his post which distinguished these different theological positions.

If someone is a Lutheran, we know that his theology on all major doctrine aligns with Luther. If someone is a Calvinist, to be true to that term, he would need to be a pedobaptist and hold to Presbyterian polity, as well as a few more things. . .

***All of the above is given in an effort to be precise with terms, but if you say that you are a Calvinist, I know what you mean, and I use the term in the same manner regarding myself.

 

[David Kent]

Presbyterians do not think that Baptists can be Reformed, but they have no problem admitting that Baptists can be Calvinists.

John Nelson Darby was a Calvinist. He believed in the doctrines of grace, even though he is often called the "father of Dispensationalism". Darby was also an influential member of the Plymouth Brethren, So, I stand by my comments.

Perhaps he was a Calvinist or appeared to be. Benjamin Wills Newton said he had never read anything by Darby that a Papist wouldn't write. He also said that he thought Darby may have been sent by Papists to spy on the Evangelicals. In another document Newton is said to have thought that Darby was a secret Jesuit. (The Fry Letters) I knew my dad had studied Darby a lot and I asked him if that was true? He said "I have never heard that but it wouldn't surprise me as he certainly taught Jesuit doctrines."

In France the Huguenots were Calvinist and if you weren't a Catholic you were a Calvinist. Today the Catholics call the Baptists and Evangelicals 'Calvinists'. The Huguenots just called themselves "Reformé." It is strange that the Church of France is Lutheran.

 

[David Kent]

If someone says he's a Calvinist, we generally understand that to mean he holds to TULIP.

The Tulip teaching was not Calvin's. It was introduced after hid death.

I very much doubt if Calvin would have approved of any calling themselves after him. He insisted on being buried in an unmarked grave so no one could honour his remains.

 

[thatbrian]

The Tulip teaching was not Calvin's. It was introduced after hid death.

I very much doubt if Calvin would have approved of any calling themselves after him. He insisted on being buried in an unmarked grave so no one could honour his remains.

The acronym, TULIP, was not Calvin's, but he espoused the content.

People don't call themselves Calvinists because they follow John Calvin. They refer to themselves as Calvinists when discussing soteriology. There's a vast difference between those two things.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

I will miss RC. He has clarified a lot for me. However, I am not a Sproulian, nor a Sproulist. And I wonder if Calvin was really the Calvinist so many think?

This sovereignty business seems very confused by many, needlessly so in my view. Why could not an All-sovereign God self-limit by granting limited will and power to a part of his creation? Would this somehow make him the author of evil, just because he knows we will choose to do evil? Will you be shocked at this? What if you find that the Son chooses to self-limit by taking on human nature and live as man should, perfectly dependent on the Father? Will this shock you also?

In any case, Merry Christmas!

 

[thatbrian]

I will miss RC. He has clarified a lot for me. However, I am not a Sproulian, nor a Sproulist. And I wonder if Calvin was really the Calvinist so many think?

This sovereignty business seems very confused by many, needlessly so in my view. Why could not an All-sovereign God self-limit by granting limited will and power to a part of his creation? Would this somehow make him the author of evil, just because he knows we will choose to do evil? Will you be shocked at this? What if you find that the Son chooses to self-limit by taking on human nature and live as man should, perfectly dependent on the Father? Will this shock you also?

In any case, Merry Christmas!

That's Paul argument in Romans 9. God may do as He wishes.