Calvanism Application

[Me4Him]

Genesis 41:38 "And Pharaoh said to his servants, "Can we find a man like this, in whom is the Spirit of God?""

I should have included "Kings/Priest/Prophets", but the point was that the spirit came/went only upon "Leaders" of the people, these in turn spoke to the people for God.

Heb 1:1 God, spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,


The "common man" didn't have an indwelling "Comforter/Holy Ghost", God didn't speak "Directly" to individuals as the "comforter" does.

2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son,

Ec 4:1 So I returned, and considered all the oppressions that are done under the sun: and behold the tears of such as were oppressed, and they had no comforter; and on the side of their oppressors there was power; but they had no comforter.

 

[annsni]

I should have included "Kings/Priest/Prophets", but the point was that the spirit came/went only upon "Leaders" of the people, these in turn spoke to the people for God.

Heb 1:1 God, spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,


The "common man" didn't have an indwelling "Comforter/Holy Ghost", God didn't speak "Directly" to individuals as the "comforter" does.

2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son,

Ec 4:1 So I returned, and considered all the oppressions that are done under the sun: and behold the tears of such as were oppressed, and they had no comforter; and on the side of their oppressors there was power; but they had no comforter.

Young David was certainly not a leader. Samuel as a little boy was not a leader. God certainly did speak to "common man directly" and His Spirit was working greatly in the Old Testament.

 

[DreamSlayer]

Ezekiel 18: 23"Do I have any pleasure in the death of the wicked," declares the Lord GOD, "rather than that he should turn from his ways and live? (NASB)

23 Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Sovereign LORD. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live? (NIV)

But can man turn? or like a bird with a broken wing being asked to fly, is man truly crippled?

Mark 4:11 And He was saying to them, "To you has been given the mystery of the kingdom of God, but those who are outside get everything in parables,

12 so that WHILE SEEING, THEY MAY SEE AND NOT PERCEIVE, AND WHILE HEARING, THEY MAY HEAR AND NOT UNDERSTAND, OTHERWISE THEY MIGHT RETURN AND BE FORGIVEN." (NASB)

Jesus tought in parables, so that those on the outside would not return and be forgiven? Jesus here doesn't seem to be talking about an elect, more that man would be able to do this himself, so had to hide his message.

And I've always been confuse with these two passages:

Job 1: 18 The LORD said to Satan, "Have you considered My servant Job? For there is no one like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man, fearing God and turning away from evil."

9 Then Satan answered the LORD, "Does Job fear God for nothing?

Job 2: 3 The LORD said to Satan, "Have you considered My servant Job? For there is no one like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man fearing God and turning away from evil. And he still holds fast his integrity, although you incited Me against him to ruin him without cause."

4 Satan answered the LORD and said, "Skin for skin! Yes, all that a man has he will give for his life.
(NASB)
Why even have this conversation if Job doesn't even have the ability to choose? If Job is 'upright' simply because God has made him that way, why does God point out that - although you incited Me against him to ruin him without cause?

Orville Dewey wrote - "... it would follow that men are commanded, on peril and pain of future woes, to love a holiness and a moral perfection of God, which they are not merely unable to love, but of which, according to the supposition, they have no conception."

If God gives a command, and threatens to punish as responsible agents those who do not comply, it certainly does imply the ability to obey. - Steve Jones

George Burnap (regarding TI)
"If this doctrine is true, God did not tell man the true penalty, neither the truth, nor the whole truth, nor a hundredth part of the truth. To have told the whole truth, according to this hypothesis, He should have said, 'Because ye have done this, cursed be that moral nature which I have given you. Henceforth such is the change I make in your natures: that ye shall be, and your offspring, infinitely odious and hateful in my sight. The moment their souls shall go forth from my hand...if they are suffered to live, such shall be the diseased constitution of their moral natures: that they shall have no freedom to do one single good action, but everything they do shall be sin....What an awful blot would such a curse be on the first pages of Scripture"

 

[Thinkingstuff]

That God chose a person from before the foundations of the earth to be unsaved. Is that right?

No. Any other questions?

Actually, I would say that just because he (positive action) chose someone to be saved does not necissitate a negative action such as choosing someone to be unsaved for an opposing argument. The person's condition is unsaved. There requires no other action for this condition to remain in place. For a person to be saved a positive action must occur. God chooses someone to be saved. Now God has made available to all men the same method to which they are saved so those not availed of this opportunity no change in status occures.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

No. Calvin didn't come up with this idea. Its in the Bible

In relation to what? Man's creation, the universe's creation, or election? context.

You are free to think what you want, but you may want to read before guessing

Not really. If it is a guess (it is not) then it is an educated one. Have you read the institutes? Ask yourself this question what was his occupation in France before Geneva? How were they trained? His latin is good. They studied the classics. We can see with Anselm the inclusion of Greek philosophy influencing his writings and so the election does closely resemble stoicism in format. Certainly he backed it up with Scripture but regarding scripture in light of a conspet is still biasing scripture.

Which shows you have not read his books.

No it shows I read one book (Partially) with an accute understanding of history.

You can't say much that will run me off

What would be the fun in that? I'm not trying to run you off just not give the impression that I personally hold the argument I was putting forward.

Calvin shared Luther's doctrine of Necessity with the exception of allowing Adam free will he held to Melanchthon "the impious dogma of free will". And never forget though he modified his view latter Calvin signed the Ausburg Confession of 1540.

it is not easy to determine which of the two precedes and gives birth to the other. For, in the first place, no man can survey himself without forthwith turning his thoughts towards the God in whom he lives and moves; because it is perfectly obvious, that the endowments which we possess cannot possibly be from ourselves; nay, that our very being is nothing else than subsistence in God alone. In the second place, those blessings which unceasingly distil to us from heaven, are like streams conducting us to the fountain. Here, again, the infinitude of good which resides in God becomes more apparent from our poverty.

Clearly identifing God as the first cause.

 

[Me4Him]

Ezekiel 18: 23"Do I have any pleasure in the death of the wicked," declares the Lord GOD, "rather than that he should turn from his ways and live? (NASB)

23 Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Sovereign LORD. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live? (NIV)


If God gives a command, and threatens to punish as responsible agents those who do not comply, it certainly does imply the ability to obey. - Steve Jones

George Burnap (regarding TI)
"If this doctrine is true, God did not tell man the true penalty, neither the truth, nor the whole truth, nor a hundredth part of the truth. To have told the whole truth, according to this hypothesis, He should have said, 'Because ye have done this, cursed be that moral nature which I have given you. Henceforth such is the change I make in your natures: that ye shall be, and your offspring, infinitely odious and hateful in my sight. The moment their souls shall go forth from my hand...if they are suffered to live, such shall be the diseased constitution of their moral natures: that they shall have no freedom to do one single good action, but everything they do shall be sin....What an awful blot would such a curse be on the first pages of Scripture"

The "lust of the flesh" is the cause of sin, and "all flesh" is condemned to die, but this curse/condemnation does apply to the soul until it, with knowledge of Good/Evil, actually violates the law, commiting it's own sin.

The is why Baptist teach the doctrine of "Age of accountability".

Satan told Eve her eyes would be opened to "Know" good/Evil, Eve knew the law, don't eat, but to the eye of the flesh, it was good.

Ge 3:5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise,

Pr 27:20 Hell and destruction are never full; so the eyes of man are never satisfied.

Children who have no knowledge of good/evil, God doesn't hold accountable.

De 1:35 Surely there shall not one of these men of this evil generation see that good land, which I sware to give unto your fathers,

De 1:39 Moreover your little ones, which ye said should be a prey, and your children, which in that day had no knowledge between good and evil, they shall go in thither, and unto them will I give it, and they shall possess it.

Adam's sin condemned the "flesh" we're born in, but Adam's sin didn't condemn our soul, that condemnation occurs when the soul, knowingly transgresses the law.

1Jo 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

Eze 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

Just an evil thought is sin, (look/lust) somewhere along the way, we will commit that one sin that makes us as guilty as if we'd broke all the laws.

We are held accountable for:

1. our sin
2. repenting or not
3. belief, to be saved
4. unbelief, for not being saved


God said it wasn't his will for any to perish, but as Judge, he'll have to condemn people to hell even against his will,

The law won't allow him to rule otherwise.

 

[Pastor Larry]

The law won't allow him to rule otherwise.

So God is bound by something outside himslf?

This thread, moreso than the usual it seems to me, is revealing some very unorthodox views of God and the relevant issues.

 

[Me4Him]

So God is bound by something outside himslf?

This thread, moreso than the usual it seems to me, is revealing some very unorthodox views of God and the relevant issues.

It's revealing how the law function, something few people understand,

the reason many disagree with court ruling.

 

[Pastor Larry]

It's revealing how the law function, something few people understand,

The law doesn't function as a master to God that prevents him from doing something. The law is the outgrowth of God's character. God is limited only by his own character, not by the law.

He doesn't condemn people to hell against his will. It is God's will that the guilty be punished for their sin.

 

[Me4Him]

The law doesn't function as a master to God that prevents him from doing something. The law is the outgrowth of God's character. God is limited only by his own character, not by the law.

He doesn't condemn people to hell against his will. It is God's will that the guilty be punished for their sin.

It's also God' will that none perish and "ALL" come to repentance,

but for those who don't, God's will won't keep him from condemning them.

God isn't Judging according to his "predilection", but according to law,

The defendants are either guilt of unbelief, paying the wages of sin themselves,

Or Innocent, Jesus having paid for them.

Sin is the transgression of law, God won't transgress his law to save or condemn anyone.

 

[Tom Butler]

It's also God' will that none perish and "ALL" come to repentance,but for those who don't, God's will won't keep him from condemning them.

Of course, if "any" and "all" refer to those to whom he is writing ("them who have obtained like faith with us") and to whom he is long-suffering ("usward'), then one does not have to torture the language to arrive at an explanation as to why God will punish those whom it is not his will to punish.

 

[gb93433]

All three verses have nothing to do with Calvinism. All three verses speak of calamities which Calvinist and non-Calvinist alike believe come from the hand of God. All but the mystic crowd that is, who believes the devil does it all.

You do not think that those verses have anything to do with God's sovereignty?

 

[Jerome]

Of course, if "any" and "all" refer to those to whom he is writing ("them who have obtained like faith with us") and to whom he is long-suffering ("usward'), then one does not have to torture the language to arrive at an explanation as to why God will punish those whom it is not his will to punish.

""All men," say they,—"that is, some men": as if the Holy Ghost could not have said "some men" if he had meant some men. "All men," say they; "that is, some of all sorts of men": as if the Lord could not have said "all sorts of men" if he had meant that. The Holy Ghost by the apostle has written "all men," and unquestionably he means all men. . . . I do think it a great crime to be so inconsistent with the word of God that I should want to lop away a bough or even a twig from so much as a single tree of the forest of Scripture. God forbid that I should cut or shape, even in the least degree, any divine expression. So runs the text, and so we must read it," ---Charles Spurgeon

 

[Jarthur001]

In relation to what? Man's creation, the universe's creation, or election? context.

well...election is what we were talking about

Not really. If it is a guess (it is not) then it is an educated one. Have you read the institutes?

yes

Ask yourself this question what was his occupation in France before Geneva?

He pastored in Strasbourg before he went to Geneva

How were they trained?

University of Paris, and Orléans.

His latin is good.

It was great

They studied the classics.

Who are they? John Calvin was one man

We can see with Anselm the inclusion of Greek philosophy influencing his writings and so the election does closely resemble stoicism in format.

Lets say that is true, (some I would debate as wrong)...Anselm was not John Calvin

Certainly he backed it up with Scripture but regarding scripture in light of a conspet is still biasing scripture.

Rather then mae bold statements, give a quote that proves your point.

No it shows I read one book (Partially) with an accute understanding of history.

Your understanding of history must come from your statements of truth, not because you claim to know.

What would be the fun in that? I'm not trying to run you off just not give the impression that I personally hold the argument I was putting forward.

You said ..QUOTE: I don't want to run off reformers....or something like that.
I only replied that you will not.

Calvin shared Luther's doctrine of Necessity with the exception of allowing Adam free will he held to Melanchthon "the impious dogma of free will". And never forget though he modified his view latter Calvin signed the Ausburg Confession of 1540. Clearly identifing God as the first cause.

I fail to see a point. You make HUGE jumps in your logic here and in creation.

 

[Jarthur001]

""All men," say they,—"that is, some men": as if the Holy Ghost could not have said "some men" if he had meant some men. "All men," say they; "that is, some of all sorts of men": as if the Lord could not have said "all sorts of men" if he had meant that. The Holy Ghost by the apostle has written "all men," and unquestionably he means all men. . . . I do think it a great crime to be so inconsistent with the word of God that I should want to lop away a bough or even a twig from so much as a single tree of the forest of Scripture. God forbid that I should cut or shape, even in the least degree, any divine expression. So runs the text, and so we must read it," ---Charles Spurgeon

"We are often told that we limit the atonement of Christ, because we say that Christ has not made satisfaction for all men, or all men would be saved. Now, our reply to this is, that, on the other hand, our opponents limit it: we do not. The Arminians say, Christ died for all men. Ask them what they mean by it. Did Christ die so as to secure the salvation of all men. They say, "No, certainly not." We ask them the next question--Did Christ die so as to secure the salvation of any man in particular? They answer, "No." They are obliged to admit this, if they are consistent. They say, "No, Christ has died that any man may be saved if..." --and then follow certain conditions of salvation. Now, who is it that limits the death of Christ? Why, you. You say that Christ did not die so as to secure the salvation of anybody. We beg your pardon, when you say that we limits Christ's death; we say, "no my dear sir, it is you that do it." We say Christ so died that he infallibly secured the salvation of a multitude that no man can number, who through Christ's death not only may be saved, but are saved, must be saved and cannot by any possibility run the hazard of being anything but saved. You are welcome to your atonement; you may keep it. We will never renounce ours for the sake of it."
Charles Spurgeon

 

[Dale-c]

The only thing I see misquoted almost as much as the Bible by arminians is Charles Spurgeon.
It amazes me when people deny that Spurgeon was a 5 point calvinist.

It is not as if there is not sufficient documentation.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

well...election is what we were talking about


yes



He pastored in Strasbourg before he went to Geneva




University of Paris, and Orléans.


It was great


Who are they? John Calvin was one man


Lets say that is true, (some I would debate as wrong)...Anselm was not John Calvin


Rather then mae bold statements, give a quote that proves your point.


Your understanding of history must come from your statements of truth, not because you claim to know.



You said ..QUOTE: I don't want to run off reformers....or something like that.
I only replied that you will not.


I fail to see a point. You make HUGE jumps in your logic here and in creation.

First this thread is not a discussion about creation but Calvin and Calvinism and its applicability. I'm not discussion creation but John Calvin. I'm showing Calvins historical background. He studied philosophy at College Montaigu later he studied law at University at Orleans and then went to the University of Borgues to study under Andreas Alcaiti who was a humanist lawyer. A movement that emphasised Classical studies. My point was that he was a trained Lawyer and understood Classical Philosophy which is evident in his work. Thus I suggest the presence of God being the First Cause is the foundation from which all his work proceeds. You think I'm making jumps of logic but I'm not I've changed track here is the course of discussion:

1) creation on another thread. Totally irrelevant to this disucussion
2) discussion of Calvinism via my taking the role of an athiest from an example of a person at work.
3) Your request to make a new thread so we can emphasis on Calvinism and a discussion there.
4) I started the same motiff of arguing from a non-christian perspective.
5) you and others began to think that I was putting forward my own personal view of God which is not the Case.
6) You ask what I really personally believe and I respond
7) you ask that I speak from a christian perspective I change course and do
8) Now I'm putting forward actual history to regard Calvin in light of his works.

Now I'm stating Calvins theology is based in classic philosophy of the stoics and come dangerously close to a stoic belief of destiny with regard to his doctrine of election. Are you getting it now?

 

[Tom Butler]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Butler
Of course, if "any" and "all" refer to those to whom he is writing ("them who have obtained like faith with us") and to whom he is long-suffering ("usward'), then one does not have to torture the language to arrive at an explanation as to why God will punish those whom it is not his will to punish.

""All men," say they,—"that is, some men": as if the Holy Ghost could not have said "some men" if he had meant some men. "All men," say they; "that is, some of all sorts of men": as if the Lord could not have said "all sorts of men" if he had meant that. The Holy Ghost by the apostle has written "all men," and unquestionably he means all men. . . . I do think it a great crime to be so inconsistent with the word of God that I should want to lop away a bough or even a twig from so much as a single tree of the forest of Scripture. God forbid that I should cut or shape, even in the least degree, any divine expression. So runs the text, and so we must read it," ---Charles Spurgeon

The meaning of "any" and "all" in II Peter 3:9 has been hashed and rehashed. All I was doing was offering an interpretation that provides a reasonable answer to the dilemma articulated in earlier posts. That is, God is not willing that any should perish, but some perish. Did God fail? Is God powerless to enforce his will?

The Calvinist looks at the entire chapter. God is not willing than any (of those believers to whom Peter wrote) should perish, but is long-suffering to usward (we believers) that all (of those believers) should come to repentance.

God's promise to save those whom he purposed to save never fails.

Dilemma resolved without semantic gymnastics.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

""All men," say they,—"that is, some men": as if the Holy Ghost could not have said "some men" if he had meant some men. "All men," say they; "that is, some of all sorts of men": as if the Lord could not have said "all sorts of men" if he had meant that. The Holy Ghost by the apostle has written "all men," and unquestionably he means all men. . . . I do think it a great crime to be so inconsistent with the word of God that I should want to lop away a bough or even a twig from so much as a single tree of the forest of Scripture. God forbid that I should cut or shape, even in the least degree, any divine expression. So runs the text, and so we must read it," ---Charles Spurgeon

Spurgeon was a 5 point calvinist.

 

[Jerome]

"Be a Bible man, go so far as the Bible, but not an inch beyond it. Though Calvin should beckon you, and you esteem him, or Wesley should beckon, and you esteem him, keep to the Scripture, to the Scripture only." ---Charles Spurgeon