Calvin: God is the Author of Sin

[Agent47]

No one can deny what is revealed to them as truth (otherwise it would be revealed as something less than true).

Irresistible grace however nicely framed still charges God with damning men

Those who don't believe and perish as a result have never received revelation 'as truth' else they'd receive it unto their salvation.

 

[Agent47]

Si Calvinism is a cult, and Calvin same as Pastor Russell?

Tell me

 

[Revmitchell]

In terms of possibility, yes. In fact, those who do believe at one time did not.

The issue is whether or not the Holy Spirit works in those who believe to reveal the truth of the gospel. If so, they believe. If not, then it is up to men to figure it out. I believe the former is true. If the Spirit reveals the gospel as true, and if the gospel is really the power to salvation, then men are saved. If men don't believe then it was not revealed by the Spirit to be true.

No one can deny what is revealed to them as truth (otherwise it would be revealed as something less than true).

The position you are presenting seems contrary to irresistible grace.

 

[Yeshua1]

Tell me

You seem to be putting all of us calvinists in with cults and thus not saved!

 

[Yeshua1]

Irresistible grace however nicely framed still charges God with damning men

Those who don't believe and perish as a result have never received revelation 'as truth' else they'd receive it unto their salvation.

All who are lot freely choose to stay in their sin condition, God could have damn all to Hell, bu tin His grace chose some to get saved...

 

[JonC]

The position you are presenting seems contrary to irresistible grace.

It is contrary to how some Calvinists and probably many non-Calvinists define irresistible grace. Others, like Spurgeon, viewed God as a God of means and the method of drawing a persuasion. When someone persuades you of a truth, I doubt you consider your will transgressed.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Regardless of how much you pretend to be independent, your devotion is guided by existing theological frameworks.

First of all, you know nothing about my theological background so stop making judgements without evidence. Secondly, you are not intelligent enough to read Hodge, any more than you are to read Calvin. All you are doing is pulling tiny portions of these men's works out of context, probably off some atheist or Pelagian website, and presenting them without proper understanding. Until you understand more of the Bible, you are only making a fool of yourself.

I'd like to take a moment to discuss 'Free Will.' Does it exist? If you offer me the choice between tea and coffee, do I have free will to choose either, or is my will in bondage to the fact that I prefer the taste of coffee? If the light of the Gospel comes to men, do they have free will to accept or reject it? Not according to the Lord Jesus Christ. "And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil" (John 3:19). The will of man is in bondage to the desire to do whatever he jolly well likes without God interfering. 'The natural man does not receive the things of God, for they are foolishness to him.......' (1 Corinthians 2:14). Why would he want to obey God when it's so much more fun (he thinks) to do one's own thing.

Now I'd like to look briefly at the question of the curse on the earth, which seems to worry you. Obviously it is God's righteous judgement that sinful men and women are not going to live on a perfect earth, but are you absolutely sure that it was not also for man's benefit? Genesis 3:17. 'Cursed is the ground for your sake.' Now several modern translations render this, '.........because of you' which is quite feasible, but perhaps the curse is actually for our good. There are certain virtues that we will not acquire in heaven; we must obtain them here. Who could show courage if there was nothing to fear? Or pity, if there was no misfortune? Or mercy, if no one was ever in trouble? Or kindness or generosity, if no one ever needed anything? We learn these virtues in this fallen world and take them with us to heaven.

You are very unwise to blame God for being God and ruling His universe. The arguments that you are putting forward are very similar to those I have read by atheists like Christopher Hitchens. No self-respecting Arminian would have anything to do with them. When (if) you get to heaven, you will find that God has done all things well. He is infinitely more intelligent than you are, so stop standing in judgement upon Him. You can beat your brains out (such as they are) for a month of Sundays and you will not discover the origin of evil, because God has not told us about it. 'The secret things belong to the LORD our God' (Deuteronomy 29:29), and that's one of them.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Irresistible grace however nicely framed still charges God with damning men

No. It actually charges God with saving men.

Those who don't believe and perish as a result have never received revelation 'as truth' else they'd receive it unto their salvation.

Those who don't believe are exercising their free will (John 5:40). You wouldn't want to take that away from them, would you?

 

[JonC]

Irresistible grace however nicely framed still charges God with damning men

Those who don't believe and perish as a result have never received revelation 'as truth' else they'd receive it unto their salvation.

Yes, the doctrine teaches that God saves out of men who have rejected both God and salvation some people but not all. And yes, Calvinists believe that God will judge those who rejected salvation. Men are responsible for their own condemnation, but it is God who judges.

Of course, having held that position yourself, you know that Calvinism teaches all men are already justly condemned (they take Paul literally here). Grace is extended to sinners...While were yet sinners...

This belief is not restricted to Calvinism, by the way.

However, it is curious that you view God as obligated to save out of these condemned men either all or none.

 

[Revmitchell]

It is contrary to how some Calvinists and probably many non-Calvinists define irresistible grace. Others, like Spurgeon, viewed God as a God of means and the method of drawing a persuasion. When someone persuades you of a truth, I doubt you consider your will transgressed.

Do you believe god refuses to pursuade the non elect as cals define it in the same way?

 

[JonC]

No. It actually charges God with saving men.

Those who don't believe are exercising their free will (John 5:40). You wouldn't want to take that away from them, would you?

I'm afraid we are well beyond honest discussion here (with Agent47). No one who has examined Calvinistic doctrine in earnest could with integrity claim their teachings include God as being responsible for the unbelief of the lost. An honest discussion would include calling into question Calvinistic interpretation and reasoning, but not what substantiates Calvinistic believe.

 

[Agent47]

Yes, the doctrine teaches that God saves out of men who have rejected both God and salvation some people but not all. And yes, Calvinists believe that God will judge those who rejected salvation. Men are responsible for their own condemnation, but it is God who judges.

Of course, having held that position yourself, you know that Calvinism teaches all men are already justly condemned (they take Paul literally here). Grace is extended to sinners...While were yet sinners...

This belief is not restricted to Calvinism, by the way.

However, it is curious that you view God as obligated to save out of these condemned men either all or none.

God is under no obligation to save nobody, and he does not even attempt to. What is dishonest is claiming that He died for everyone or he wants all saved. The double speak is nauseating.

What's more, even the sinners were ordained to Sin including Adam. There is no reasonable excuse for escaping the charge.that God authored Sin by which men are damned. He then struts across history saving a lucky few of those He damned.

 

[JonC]

Do you believe god refuses to pursuade the non elect as cals define it in the same way?

I believe God calls all and none responds. Out of this God draws some men but not all men in a saving way.

 

[Agent47]

I believe God calls all and none responds. Out of this God draws some men but not all men in a saving way.

God presumably calls men because He Wills not that any be lost. But He being sovereign knows too well the call is not sufficient to save any. So now he selectively irresistibly 'draws'(gives revelation as the truth, and as such they can't but receive it) whom to save.

God does not Will to save men. He issues a useless call that saves nobody. God is not love as far as Calvinism is concerned.

Like I said, fancy words don't change Calvinism into anything else. Rearrange words as you wish, the inevitable conclusions remains

 

[Revmitchell]

God draws some men but not all men in a saving way.

A very evil doctrine.

 

[utilyan]

Your quote from chapter 1 speaks of election, not salvation offered. Chapter 2 deals with the reason some are not saved. The reason is not in the sufficiency of the Sacrifice (Christ's death was sufficient even for those who don't believe, they could have been saved through that sacrifice had they believed).

To correct your lifejacket analogy:

The Captain told us not to push that button. Now, swimming ahead (always ahead) into the dark, I think that we can all sense the approaching shore. We swim in small groups, always striving forward for a time and then resting moments by linking arms and remaining close for warmth. Earlier one group had found a piece of floating debris, perhaps a table top or a small bench. They made a makeshift raft and continued ahead, but drifted either to the left or right so they are no longer visible. They are probably on the shore as we speak, warming themselves by a fire and awaiting our arrival.

The pain of our circumstance is not the constant work to push forward, always forward. The agony is that we are all keenly aware of this voice beckoning us to turn back. The sea plays tricks like that. Voices in the distance seems to carry a familiar tone. Perhaps they are the hauntings of tradition long past, the last vestige of things inherited from our seafaring fathers. Maybe they are just our hopes and fears. In the end they are but noise in the wind. So, apart from a few fools who turn back to illusion and death, we press forward to land.

The Captain told us not to push that button. So we swam. We swam in a group, always ahead into the dark, looking for a shore in the distance. But that voice was always present, calling out to us to turn back. We’ve gone too far now for that. So we continued swimming forward. But then, something happened. The voice changed. He called my name. The voice knew me, knew me and called me by name. And it was the voice of my Captain telling me to stop swimming. So I did.

Right so if 10 of your children swam in a direction they are not suppose to, Although I can call them all I decide to call 3 rather instead of all of them. Did I just let 7 die? That's not evil on my part is it?

 

[Agent47]

Right so if 10 of your children swam in a direction they are not suppose to, Although I can call them all I decide to call 3 rather instead of all of them. Did I just let 7 die? That's not evil on my part is it?

It gets worse; you purposefully ensured they would swim in the wrong direction. You efficacious determined this for your own 'glory' in saving some of them.

 

[Agent47]

No. It actually charges God with saving men.

Those who don't believe are exercising their free will (John 5:40). You wouldn't want to take that away from them, would you?

God determined beforehand that man would sin. He also determined to save some of those who he determined would sin.

It follows that He damns everyone, then blames them before saving some of these.

The sinner in hell is there because God predestined him to be there. Please interact with Calvin quotes I shared.

 

[Agent47]

First of all, you know nothing about my theological background so stop making judgements without evidence. Secondly, you are not intelligent enough to read Hodge, any more than you are to read Calvin. All you are doing is pulling tiny portions of these men's works out of context, probably off some atheist or Pelagian website, and presenting them without proper understanding. Until you understand more of the Bible, you are only making a fool of yourself.

I'd like to take a moment to discuss 'Free Will.' Does it exist? If you offer me the choice between tea and coffee, do I have free will to choose either, or is my will in bondage to the fact that I prefer the taste of coffee? If the light of the Gospel comes to men, do they have free will to accept or reject it? Not according to the Lord Jesus Christ. "And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil" (John 3:19). The will of man is in bondage to the desire to do whatever he jolly well likes without God interfering. 'The natural man does not receive the things of God, for they are foolishness to him.......' (1 Corinthians 2:14). Why would he want to obey God when it's so much more fun (he thinks) to do one's own thing.

Now I'd like to look briefly at the question of the curse on the earth, which seems to worry you. Obviously it is God's righteous judgement that sinful men and women are not going to live on a perfect earth, but are you absolutely sure that it was not also for man's benefit? Genesis 3:17. 'Cursed is the ground for your sake.' Now several modern translations render this, '.........because of you' which is quite feasible, but perhaps the curse is actually for our good. There are certain virtues that we will not acquire in heaven; we must obtain them here. Who could show courage if there was nothing to fear? Or pity, if there was no misfortune? Or mercy, if no one was ever in trouble? Or kindness or generosity, if no one ever needed anything? We learn these virtues in this fallen world and take them with us to heaven.

You are very unwise to blame God for being God and ruling His universe. The arguments that you are putting forward are very similar to those I have read by atheists like Christopher Hitchens. No self-respecting Arminian would have anything to do with them. When (if) you get to heaven, you will find that God has done all things well. He is infinitely more intelligent than you are, so stop standing in judgement upon Him. You can beat your brains out (such as they are) for a month of Sundays and you will not discover the origin of evil, because God has not told us about it. 'The secret things belong to the LORD our God' (Deuteronomy 29:29), and that's one of them.

Irrelevant verbiage.

This thread has specific scope; demonstrating that John Calvin charged God with authoring Sin. Quoting the entire bible is irrelevant and off topic. I don't need your verses, which are spam anyway. When I want to, I will invite them.

Back to the subject.
Who decreed the Adam's disobedience according to Calvin?

Let him, therefore, who would beware of such unbelief, always bear in mind, that there is no random power, or agency, or motion in the creatures, who are so governed by the secret counsel of God, that nothing happens but what he has knowingly and willingly decreed~Inst 16:3
https://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.iii.xvii.html

So either Adam did not disobey, or God willingly and knowingly decreed it. Which is it?

When I gave this quote to @JonC , he sidestepped it by claiming that Calvin was talking about 'events'. Now, look what Calvin says when he addresses the Fall of man

Nor ought it to seem absurd when I say, that God not only foresaw the fall of the first man, and in him the ruin of his posterity; but also at his own pleasure arranged it.~Inst 23:7
https://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.v.xxiv.html

God foresaw and arranged it. In short, God CAUSED it.

Someone here attempted to create another bogus distinction between Adam's disobedience and the Fall


PS
I'm from a third world black African country, probably semi-literate and underevolved so I'm not supposed to read some things. Happy now?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

PS
I'm from a third world black African country, probably semi-literate and underevolved so I'm not supposed to read some things. Happy now?

I'm not sure if this is supposed to be an excuse or an apology, but it works as neither. You are responsible for your own ignorance, and you should address it first by reading the Bible. Then you might go and read some of the writings of that great African Baptist preacher, Conrad Mbewe.
http://www.conradmbewe.com/