Calvinism and the Love of God

[DrJamesAch]

The question was asked elsewhere about whether or not the sky is really blue as related to a debate about the love of God. So I will restate my answer for a primary post.

Is the Sky blue or not?

This depends on how one understands perceptions, actual reality, and the laws of contradiction.

If I said that the sky is blue and then said that the sky is NEVER blue, that is an explicit contradiction.

If I said that the sky is blue, and then said sky is not blue, that is an apparent contradiction but it can be explained because of surrounding circumstances like the sky turns black at night time, or turns red during bad weather (Matt 16:2).

An exception to the first analogy is for a person that is color blind or has a vision problem that confuses colors. THAT person can honestly say, "the sky is not blue" because he truly can not see the correct color of the sky. But the argument does not alter the truth about the sky, the problem isn't the sky, it's the physical ailment the person suffers from.

What the Calvinist does it load statements among explicit contradictions. The Calvinist view of the love of God is a perfect example where the Calvinists claim that God makes a "Bona Fide Offer" of salvation to all sinners, and that God offers Himself in good faith.

CORE CALVINISM:

1. Only those elected can actually accept the offer of salvation
2. Not all are elect
3. Not all persons can actually accept the offer of salvation and be saved.

[Bona Fide Offer]

4. God makes a bona fide offer to all persons
5. A bona fide effort is an offer that can actually be accepted by the person to whom it is offered
6. All persons can actually accept the offer of salvation and be saved.

The bona fide offer MUST conclude that all persons can accept the offer, which leads to the conclusion that all persons can (not will) accept the offer and be saved. Number 6 is a blatant and explicit contradiction with Number 3.

This in turn forces Calvinists to explain terms ambigously by flip flopping between compatibalist and libertarian views of freedom.

John Calvin:

"There is the general call, by which God invites all equally to Himself through the outward preaching of the word-even to those to whom He holds it out as a savor of death and as the occasion of severer condemnation. The other kind of call is special which he designs for the most part to give to the believer alone..yet sometimes he also causes those whom he illumines only for a time to partake of it; and then he justly forsakes them on account of their ungratefulness and strikes them with even greater blindness" -Institutes 3.24.8

God COULD HAVE determined those under the general call to have responded, but yet does not so that He may punish them MORE SEVERELY. So the Calvinist here ascribes LIBERTARIAN FREEDOM to the reprobate sinner in his rejection of the gospel, and compatibalist freedom when attempting to demonstrate that those whom receive the special call can not resist the grace of God.

CALVINISM MAINTAINS CREDIBILITY BY BIFURCATING BETWEEN TERMS OF THE UNIVERSAL LOVE OF GOD THAT THEIR THEOLOGY DOES NOT SUPPORT.

As Calvinist DA Carson points out,

"When I have preached in Reformed circles, I have often been asked the question, 'do you feel free to tell unbelievers that God loves them?' ...OF COURSE I tell them that God loves them"

No Calvinist can be honest to their theology, and tell any unconverted sinner that God loves them with a straight face, and that is THE biggest problem with Calvinism is their total distorted view of the nature of God. The Calvinist explains the universal love of God in terms of "the rain falls on the just and the unjust" as if MATERIAL BLESSINGS compared to ETERNAL DAMNATION proves the love of God.

"Hey sinner, God sends rain on your land and he says whosoever will may come even though you must be elect to be saved. If you want to come you can, but you won't want to come because you're not elect".

As Walls points out in his analogy:

"A scientist holds an experiment for 30 years where he gives them money, the best food, the best living arrangements, and then at the end of those 30 years gives them a chemical that kills them. Did he REALLY love them merely because he provided good things for them for all those years?"

Calvinists deceitfully tell sinners God loves them in a manner that they will understand, that is compatible with their view of love , when the Calvinist does not truly believe that God loves them.

Calvinism vacillates between things that God COULD do, but does not define the character of God in terms of what God WOULD do. Instead of asking "How would a God of perfect love express His sovereignty?" the Calvinist asks, "How does a sovereign God love?"

Calvinism views God in primary terms of sovereignty. However, sovereignty implies Kingship, and God was not ruling over anyone before He created anything. But before God created anything and was therefore sovereign over creation, there was love among the 3 persons of the Trinity. The nature of a perfect loving God can not WANT and DESIRE the damnation of sinners for eternity (2 Peter 3:9, Ezekiel 18:23). God must judge sin, but sin does not have to exist for God to prove He is God. God COULD HAVE made the "effectual" call to ALL, but according to Calvinism, He didn't WANT to, and God arbitrarily chose to WANT to save some, and DESIRE the damnation of the rest. The caricature that Calvinism has created of God is one that depends on evil to prove His sovereignty, and therefore evil is a necessary element in the demonstration of God's sovereignty.

That is a fundamentally gross caricature of the very nature of God and the love that existed within the Trinity before God was sovereign over creation.

 

[convicted1]

The question was asked elsewhere about whether or not the sky is really blue as related to a debate about the love of God. So I will restate my answer for a primary post.

Is the Sky blue or not?

This depends on how one understands perceptions, actual reality, and the laws of contradiction.

If I said that the sky is blue and then said that the sky is NEVER blue, that is an explicit contradiction.

If I said that the sky is blue, and then said sky is not blue, that is an apparent contradiction but it can be explained because of surrounding circumstances like the sky turns black at night time, or turns red during bad weather (Matt 16:2).

An exception to the first analogy is for a person that is color blind or has a vision problem that confuses colors. THAT person can honestly say, "the sky is not blue" because he truly can not see the correct color of the sky. But the argument does not alter the truth about the sky, the problem isn't the sky, it's the physical ailment the person suffers from.

What the Calvinist does it load statements among explicit contradictions. The Calvinist view of the love of God is a perfect example where the Calvinists claim that God makes a "Bona Fide Offer" of salvation to all sinners, and that God offers Himself in good faith.

CORE CALVINISM:

1. Only those elected can actually accept the offer of salvation
2. Not all are elect
3. Not all persons can actually accept the offer of salvation and be saved.

[Bona Fide Offer]

4. God makes a bona fide offer to all persons
5. A bona fide effort is an offer that can actually be accepted by the person to whom it is offered
6. All persons can actually accept the offer of salvation and be saved.

The bona fide offer MUST conclude that all persons can accept the offer, which leads to the conclusion that all persons can (not will) accept the offer and be saved. Number 6 is a blatant and explicit contradiction with Number 3.

This in turn forces Calvinists to explain terms ambigously by flip flopping between compatibalist and libertarian views of freedom.


As Calvinist DA Carson points out,

"When I have preached in Reformed circles, I have often been asked the question, 'do you feel free to tell unbelievers that God loves them?' ...OF COURSE I tell them that God loves them"

No Calvinist can be honest to their theology, and tell any unconverted sinner that God loves them with a straight face, and that is THE biggest problem with Calvinism is their total distorted view of the nature of God. The Calvinist explains the universal love of God in terms of "the rain falls on the just and the unjust" as if MATERIAL BLESSINGS compared to ETERNAL DAMNATION proves the love of God.

"Hey sinner, God sends rain on your land and he says whosoever will may come even though you must be elect to be saved. If you want to come you can, but you won't want to come because you're not elect".

As Walls points out in his analogy:

"A scientist holds an experiment for 30 years where he gives them money, the best food, the best living arrangements, and then at the end of those 30 years gives them a chemical that kills them. Did he REALLY love them merely because he provided good things for them for all those years?"

Calvinists deceitfully tell sinners God loves them in a manner that they will understand, that is compatible with their view of love , when the Calvinist does not truly believe that God loves them.

Calvinism vacillates between things that God COULD do, but does not define the character of God in terms of what God WOULD do. Instead of asking "How would a God of perfect love express His sovereignty?" the Calvinist asks, "How does a sovereign God love?"

Calvinism views God in primary terms of sovereignty. However, sovereignty implies Kingship, and God was not ruling over anyone before He created anything. But before God created anything and was therefore sovereign over creation, there was love among the 3 persons of the Trinity. The nature of a perfect loving God can not WANT and DESIRE the damnation of sinners for eternity (2 Peter 3:9, Ezekiel 18:23). God must judge sin, but sin does not have to exist for God to prove He is God. God COULD HAVE made the "effectual" call to ALL, but according to Calvinism, He didn't WANT to, and God arbitrarily chose to WANT to save some, and DESIRE the damnation of the rest. The caricature that Calvinism has created of God is one that depends on evil to prove His sovereignty, and therefore evil is a necessary element in the demonstration of God's sovereignty.

That is a fundamentally gross caricature of the very nature of God and the love that existed within the Trinity before God was sovereign over creation.

I had to shorten your post because mine and yours was too long, sorry about that


Look, you can beat Calvinism down all you like, and you still can't explain it away. Why? There are so many scriptures that "God is love"....and yes, that is true, but that's NOT His only attribute. More on that later on in this post. Look at these verses for instance:

Exodus 4:21 And the Lord said unto Moses, When thou goest to return into Egypt, see that thou do all those wonders before Pharaoh, which I have put in thine hand: but I will harden his heart, that he shall not let the people go.

Exodus 14:4 And I will harden Pharaoh's heart, that he shall follow after them; and I will be honoured upon Pharaoh, and upon all his host; that the Egyptians may know that I am the Lord. And they did so.

Exodus 14:17 And I, behold, I will harden the hearts of the Egyptians, and they shall follow them: and I will get me honour upon Pharaoh, and upon all his host, upon his chariots, and upon his horsemen.


Here are three verses that plainly state that God will harden Pharoah's heart, with the Egyptian en toto once. So we can see that God does harden hearts.

Concerning Pharaoh:

Exodus 9:14-17
14 For I will at this time send all my plagues upon thine heart, and upon thy servants, and upon thy people; that thou mayest know that there is none like me in all the earth.

15 For now I will stretch out my hand, that I may smite thee and thy people with pestilence; and thou shalt be cut off from the earth.

16 And in very deed for this cause have I raised thee up, for to shew in thee my power; and that my name may be declared throughout all the earth.

17 As yet exaltest thou thyself against my people, that thou wilt not let them go?


God raise Pharaoh up so that He could show what He could really do, and that no one can override His will.


Now, let's look at Joseph for a moment. Look at what happened to him. He was sold into slavery, to the Egyptians. Later on, after refusing to lay with Potipher's wife, he ended up in prison for 2-3 years. At the end of it all, he ended up right under the pharaoh. After he brought his family to Egypt to live through the famine, he stated that man did it for evil, but God did it for good. He realized that the perils he went through had a "greater good" to them.


Now, let us look at Jesus. God predestined/foreordained/predetermined, to send His Son to die for sinful man. He left the glories of heaven to take our infirmities upon Himself, and then let wicked, sinful men throttle and then slaughter Him. Is that not love right there? Yes. But, for whatever reason, no one sees the wickedness in that. Why? Because they/we reap the benefits of Jesus' throttling and subsequent slaughter. But they think it's cruel if God bypasses wicked people, but it's okay for Him, to not just allow it, but determine it, that Jesus would make Himself of no reputation, and take upon Himself the form of a servant, and die in our stead. It's okay for God to be please to bruise His Son, who never did anything amiss, who never sinned, who only healed the sick, raised the dead, walked on the water, made the deaf to hear, those who were paralyzed to walk, etc. It's okay for God to predetermine Him to die, but for a wicked sinner to be passed over, well that's just cruel right there. That was love, and everyone sees the love in that. Would you think it okay for a man to allow his son to go through what Jesus did to save people? Nope. But it's okay for God to, in essence, send His Son to the "slaughter house" and die for us.

What about when God chose Abram? He said through his seed(Jesus Christ), the nations would be blessed. What about the other nationalities at that time? Were they left out, when God chose Abram? How about the Philistines? Were they left out in the cold during the time when David, Samuel, et al were on the scene? God chose the Jews, and left everyone else out. Sure, they were a smattering of gentiles "let in", such as Rahab and Ruth, and probably others, but a VAST MAJORITY weren't in a covenant with God during the OT times. But no one wants to discuss that.

Now, God is also God of vengenance, wrath, mercy, anger, and also love. God's wrath is upon the children of disobedience. Why not harp on that a while.


Look, I am not in the Calvinist camp yet, and I may never be, but let's not harp on only one of God's attributes, okay? I am presenting you the other side of the debate, so that you can see that Calvinism can't be explained away.

 

[DrJamesAch]

I had to shorten your post because mine and yours was too long, sorry about that


Look, you can beat Calvinism down all you like, and you still can't explain it away. Why? There are so many scriptures that "God is love"....and yes, that is true, but that's NOT His only attribute. More on that later on in this post. Look at these verses for instance:

Exodus 4:21 And the Lord said unto Moses, When thou goest to return into Egypt, see that thou do all those wonders before Pharaoh, which I have put in thine hand: but I will harden his heart, that he shall not let the people go.

Exodus 14:4 And I will harden Pharaoh's heart, that he shall follow after them; and I will be honoured upon Pharaoh, and upon all his host; that the Egyptians may know that I am the Lord. And they did so.

Exodus 14:17 And I, behold, I will harden the hearts of the Egyptians, and they shall follow them: and I will get me honour upon Pharaoh, and upon all his host, upon his chariots, and upon his horsemen.


Here are three verses that plainly state that God will harden Pharoah's heart, with the Egyptian en toto once. So we can see that God does harden hearts.

Concerning Pharaoh:

Exodus 9:14-17
14 For I will at this time send all my plagues upon thine heart, and upon thy servants, and upon thy people; that thou mayest know that there is none like me in all the earth.

15 For now I will stretch out my hand, that I may smite thee and thy people with pestilence; and thou shalt be cut off from the earth.

16 And in very deed for this cause have I raised thee up, for to shew in thee my power; and that my name may be declared throughout all the earth.

17 As yet exaltest thou thyself against my people, that thou wilt not let them go?


God raise Pharaoh up so that He could show what He could really do, and that no one can override His will.


Now, let's look at Joseph for a moment. Look at what happened to him. He was sold into slavery, to the Egyptians. Later on, after refusing to lay with Potipher's wife, he ended up in prison for 2-3 years. At the end of it all, he ended up right under the pharaoh. After he brought his family to Egypt to live through the famine, he stated that man did it for evil, but God did it for good. He realized that the perils he went through had a "greater good" to them.


Now, let us look at Jesus. God predestined/foreordained/predetermined, to send His Son to die for sinful man. He left the glories of heaven to take our infirmities upon Himself, and then let wicked, sinful men throttle and then slaughter Him. Is that not love right there? Yes. But, for whatever reason, no one sees the wickedness in that. Why? Because they/we reap the benefits of Jesus' throttling and subsequent slaughter. But they think it's cruel if God bypasses wicked people, but it's okay for Him, to not just allow it, but determine it, that Jesus would make Himself of no reputation, and take upon Himself the form of a servant, and die in our stead. It's okay for God to be please to bruise His Son, who never did anything amiss, who never sinned, who only healed the sick, raised the dead, walked on the water, made the deaf to hear, those who were paralyzed to walk, etc. It's okay for God to predetermine Him to die, but for a wicked sinner to be passed over, well that's just cruel right there. That was love, and everyone sees the love in that. Would you think it okay for a man to allow his son to go through what Jesus did to save people? Nope. But it's okay for God to, in essence, send His Son to the "slaughter house" and die for us.

What about when God chose Abram? He said through his seed(Jesus Christ), the nations would be blessed. What about the other nationalities at that time? Were they left out, when God chose Abram? How about the Philistines? Were they left out in the cold during the time when David, Samuel, et al were on the scene? God chose the Jews, and left everyone else out. Sure, they were a smattering of gentiles "let in", such as Rahab and Ruth, and probably others, but a VAST MAJORITY weren't in a covenant with God during the OT times. But no one wants to discuss that.

Now, God is also God of vengenance, wrath, mercy, anger, and also love. God's wrath is upon the children of disobedience. Why not harp on that a while.


Look, I am not in the Calvinist camp yet, and I may never be, but let's not harp on only one of God's attributes, okay? I am presenting you the other side of the debate, so that you can see that Calvinism can't be explained away.

None of that addresses the core issue of Calvinism and the biggest problem within it's system-a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of God. I'm not going to go off on rabbit trails that do not directly address the OP because anyone can raise 50 different issues that were not covered when I am focusing on the MAIN PROBLEM in Calvinism. We can debate whether God hardened Pharoah's heart, or did Pharoah harden his own heart first and no matter where that goes, it will not address the main issue of the OP.

If I write about Fords do I have to write about Chevys, too? I don't have to include every possibility just because another possibility for a topic exists. I didn't say that love is God's only attribute, but if you fail to understand THAT attribute, you will get everything else wrong. All false doctrine is based on a misunderstanding of the nature of God. If one gets the nature of God wrong, particularly the love of God, he will never understand the death and resurrection of Christ, and will never understand John 3:16, nor will he properly understand the justice and sovereignty of God.

I appreciate that you want to present another side, but half the problem on this forum is that rarely does anyone ever address THE ISSUE of any given thread, and the debates run in circles.

 

[convicted1]

My previous post shot holes all through the OP. Look at a "hypothetical" Cal/Non-Cal discussion:

Cal: God had Joseph sold into slavery and had him in prison for at least two years.

Non-Cal: But God is a God of love. He wouldn't do that. Here merely allowed it to happen.

Cal: God hardened Pharaoh's hearton at least, three different occasions and said he had raised him up to show His power in him.

Non-Cal: God is a God of love and He wouldn't do that. Pharoah hardened his own heart through not listening to Moses(which is true in that Pharoah did harden his own heart, as well).

Cal: God sent an evil spirit to Saul.

Non-Cal: But God is a God of love. He wouldn't do that. That means something different than that.

Cal: God predetermined to send Jesus to die for us.

Non-Cal: As I said, God is God of love, and He showed it right there.


You are trying to say God is unjust to not call a wicked sinner, and yet, it was okay for Him to send His Son to a "slaughtering house". We know that is love because we know that God intended it for good. You can't have it both ways, and say that God passing over a wicked sinner is evil, and at the same time, say it's okay for Him to send Jesus to be slaughtered.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

My previous post shot holes all through the OP. Look at a "hypothetical" Cal/Non-Cal discussion:

Cal: God had Joseph sold into slavery and had him in prison for at least two years.

Non-Cal: But God is a God of love. He wouldn't do that. Here merely allowed it to happen.

Cal: God hardened Pharaoh's hearton at least, three different occasions and said he had raised him up to show His power in him.

Non-Cal: God is a God of love and He wouldn't do that. Pharoah hardened his own heart through not listening to Moses(which is true in that Pharoah did harden his own heart, as well).

Cal: God sent an evil spirit to Saul.

Non-Cal: But God is a God of love. He wouldn't do that. That means something different than that.

Cal: God predetermined to send Jesus to die for us.

Non-Cal: As I said, God is God of love, and He showed it right there.


You are trying to say God is unjust to not call a wicked sinner, and yet, it was okay for Him to send His Son to a "slaughtering house". We know that is love because we know that God intended it for good. You can't have it both ways, and say that God passing over a wicked sinner is evil, and at the same time, say it's okay for Him to send Jesus to be slaughtered.

And the light shows through...:godisgood:

 

[preacher4truth]

...and God sent Satan to wipe out Jobs family, health, wealth.

...and God set up the situation to have Absalom killed.

...and God set up the situation to have His Son slain.

 

[Bro. James]

This kibbitz is perhaps out of place: How do we explain that many souls have gone into eternity apparently never having heard the gospel?

Further: What of those who have followed a false gospel?

God has always had a remnant in every generation.

Even so, come Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

[convicted1]

What I am driving at is this. Where was the bona fide offer to all other inhabitants of the world when God chose Abram and his descendents? Where was God's bona fide offer to the Philistines, Edomites, and Babylonians as they were at war with Israel? Look, I am coming from the Non-Cal camp as one who doesn't have the answer(s)but I know THE One who does, and I am seeking His knowledge to understand, and His wisdom to rightly divide it.

I read where Jesus died for the ungodly, and also the church. I read where God doesn't delight in the death of the wicked, but many more die lost then saved. I read where God has dealt to man the measure of faith, and also not all men have faith. Things like this are what I am trying to get to the core meaning.

 

[DrJamesAch]

.

My previous post shot holes all through the OP. Look at a "hypothetical" Cal/Non-Cal discussion:

Your post did not shoot holes in anything because you are operating with a faulty view of the entire post. You are assuming quite presumptuously that because I am dealing with one subject, that I am by neglecting God's judgment and justice by default, and because of that, you have built an entire caricature of scenarios in which are based on THAT presumption. You act like I'm some liberal that preaches lovey dovey pink fluffy pancakes and thinks that God doesn't punish sin. Did you forget about the debate I had with HW about HELL?

Cal: God had Joseph sold into slavery and had him in prison for at least two years.

Non-Cal: But God is a God of love. He wouldn't do that. Here merely allowed it to happen.

1st. Show me anywhere in Genesis where God HAD Joseph sold into slavery. This is where your read theology into something the Bible doesn't say. In Gen 50:20, Joseph's brothers meant his captivity for evil, and then right there the Calvinists seizes on "but God meant it for good..SEE SEE>>right there God sold him into slavery". That's NOT what it says (and now it this point, all the Calvinist's are running to their commentaries for the latest Calvinistic support of this view).

What God meant for good, and how he turned an evil event towards His glory IN SPITE OF what Joseph's brothers did, was to bring to pass the saving of much people alive.

Permitting the temporary of suffering of Joseph is a far cry from WANTING and DESIRING that some arbitrary list of sinners be damned to an eternal lake of fire.

Cal response: God is not a perfect God of love so He can desire evil if He wants to.

Cal: God hardened Pharaoh's hearton at least, three different occasions and said he had raised him up to show His power in him.

Non-Cal: God is a God of love and He wouldn't do that. Pharoah hardened his own heart through not listening to Moses(which is true in that Pharoah did harden his own heart, as well).

Your counter-factual argument defeated itself in trying to be cute with the preemption. You admit that Pharoah hardened his own heart, and the fact that he hardened his own heart BEFORE GOD HARDENED IT defeats your Cal premise which means the false caricature of Non Cal response wasn't necessary.

Cal response: God is not a perfect God of love so He can desire evil if He wants to.

Cal: God sent an evil spirit to Saul.

Non-Cal: But God is a God of love. He wouldn't do that. That means something different than that.

Saul demonstrated a repeated and consistent pattern of rebellion against God (1 Samuel 13:13-14; 15:11,19) and God made it clear that it was due to Saul's rejection of Him, that he brought evil upon himself, "For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the Lord, he hath also rejected thee from being king." 1 Samuel 15:23

Cal Response: I agree with the atheists on this one that use it as an example that the God of Christianity is sadistic and evil. God is not a perfect God of love so He can desire evil if He wants to.

Cal: God predetermined to send Jesus to die for us.

Non-Cal: As I said, God is God of love, and He showed it right there.

So you disagree with John 3:16? God didn't do so because He loved us?

"Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father." John 10:17

Cal Response: The Father enjoyed every minute of watching His Son suffer. God was having a popcorn party with the angels whom all high-fived each other when Christ was beaten and tortured.

You are trying to say God is unjust to not call a wicked sinner, and yet, it was okay for Him to send His Son to a "slaughtering house". We know that is love because we know that God intended it for good. You can't have it both ways, and say that God passing over a wicked sinner is evil, and at the same time, say it's okay for Him to send Jesus to be slaughtered

YOU TOO were a wicked sinner before God saved you and you STILL ARE. I never said that it is unjust to call a wicked person a sinner, or to punish sin for those who reject Christ. You assumed by default that merely because I did not include a thesis on hell and punishment that I don't believe that God is just and judges sin. So to be fair, I listed your responses as someone who claims that God is NOT love, and enjoyed and desired the punishment and torture of sinners as well as His Son.

You have created your own caricature of this post and then threw rocks at your own caricature. You have failed to see the contradictions within the Calvinist system of thought that not only mis-characterizes the nature of God, but is dishonest in their presentation of the gospel to the lost. Your desire to want to emphasize the evil that exists and is permitted above the love of God proves my point. Your view and that of Calvinism as a whole results in God not only being the author of sin, but that God NEEDS EVIL to be sovereign, and that He WANTS AND DESIRES the presence of sin in order to punish it to prove His sovereignty.

 

[DrJamesAch]

What I am driving at is this. Where was the bona fide offer to all other inhabitants of the world when God chose Abram and his descendents? Where was God's bona fide offer to the Philistines, Edomites, and Babylonians as they were at war with Israel? Look, I am coming from the Non-Cal camp as one who doesn't have the answer(s)but I know THE One who does, and I am seeking His knowledge to understand, and His wisdom to rightly divide it.

I read where Jesus died for the ungodly, and also the church. I read where God doesn't delight in the death of the wicked, but many more die lost then saved. I read where God has dealt to man the measure of faith, and also not all men have faith. Things like this are what I am trying to get to the core meaning.

Did you not read that Enoch preached before the flood? Jude 1:14, Heb 11:5. Noah preached for 120 years before the flood warning the earth of the coming doom. 2 Peter 2:5, Heb 11:7. Furthermore there was a process that God went through before the gospel of Christ was sent out. Baffling that you are asking about "where was the offer" before the gospel of Christ was even an issue. Nevertheless, the future coming of Christ was not only preached throughout all of the OT, it was symbolized in the sacrifices and the passovers. Any Gentile could be proselytized by coming through Israel.

God didn't just arbitrarily choose Abraham either. Abraham demonstrated his faithfulness to God FIRST by offering up Isaac and by obeying God to sojourn in territory he'd never been. Heb 11:8-9, 17.

But we are dealing with the here and now, and the contradiction that Calvinism shows by claiming that God sends out a bona fide offer to the gospel to those their system says can not accept it. It is a flat out contradiction.

 

[convicted1]

Your post did not shoot holes in anything because you are operating with a faulty view of the entire post. You are assuming quite presumptuously that because I am dealing with one subject, that I am by neglecting God's judgment and justice by default, and because of that, you have built an entire caricature of scenarios in which are based on THAT presumption. You act like I'm some liberal that preaches lovey dovey pink fluffy pancakes and thinks that God doesn't punish sin. Did you forget about the debate I had with HW about HELL?

What I was pointing out is that by stressing one of God's attributes, love, you are neglecting the others, as well. I am not saying you think He doesn't punish sin. God is not obligated to man no more than what He has bound Himself to, via His Word. We, as sinners, were worthy or death, but He had mercy upon us. He didn't have to beforehand(before He created the world, and us, I mean), but since He has bound Himself to His Word(because He is Truth), He will save all that come to Him in faith believing.

1st. Show me anywhere in Genesis where God HAD Joseph sold into slavery. This is where your read theology into something the Bible doesn't say. In Gen 50:20, Joseph's brothers meant his captivity for evil, and then right there the Calvinists seizes on "but God meant it for good..SEE SEE>>right there God sold him into slavery". That's NOT what it says (and now it this point, all the Calvinist's are running to their commentaries for the latest Calvinistic support of this view).

What God meant for good, and how he turned an evil event towards His glory IN SPITE OF what Joseph's brothers did, was to bring to pass the saving of much people alive.

Permitting the temporary of suffering of Joseph is a far cry from WANTING and DESIRING that some arbitrary list of sinners be damned to an eternal lake of fire.

Okay, so that was a misquote, sorry about that. However, God knew beforehand what was going to happen. He used Joseph to preserve the Abrahamic lineage, by placing them in Egypt to have food while the drought took place.

Cal response: God is not a perfect God of love so He can desire evil if He wants to.

A mischaracterization of the Calvinst camp. You are thinking through a man's perspective, and our thoughts/ways, are not His ways. Again, He doesn't desire to see any lost, yet many more will die lost than saved.

Your counter-factual argument defeated itself in trying to be cute with the preemption. You admit that Pharoah hardened his own heart, and the fact that he hardened his own heart BEFORE GOD HARDENED IT defeats your Cal premise which means the false caricature of Non Cal response wasn't necessary.

Yet, He hardened Pharaoh's heart at least three times according to Exodus 9.

Cal response: God is not a perfect God of love so He can desire evil if He wants to.

Mischaracterization of the Calvinist camp.

Saul demonstrated a repeated and consistent pattern of rebellion against God (1 Samuel 13:13-14; 15:11,19) and God made it clear that it was due to Saul's rejection of Him, that he brought evil upon himself, "For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the Lord, he hath also rejected thee from being king." 1 Samuel 15:23

This whole ball of wax started after the Jews wanted to be like other nations and have a king over them, and not Samuel. God told Samuel they hadn't rejected him(Samuel), but Me. Subsequently, he gave them Saul. Why not give them David to begin with?

Cal Response: I agree with the atheists on this one that use it as an example that the God of Christianity is sadistic and evil. God is not a perfect God of love so He can desire evil if He wants to.

Blatant mischaracterization of the Cal camp.

So you disagree with John 3:16? God didn't do so because He loved us?

Nope.

"Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father." John 10:17

Cal Response: The Father enjoyed every minute of watching His Son suffer. God was having a popcorn party with the angels whom all high-fived each other when Christ was beaten and tortured.

Blatant mischaracterization of the Calvinist camp. Isaiah 53:10 states, "It pleased the Lord to bruise Him". To what context I do not know. Unless it was referring to those who would be saved via His sacrifice, and the joy of them being saved.

YOU TOO were a wicked sinner before God saved you and you STILL ARE. I never said that it is unjust to call a wicked person a sinner, or to punish sin for those who reject Christ. You assumed by default that merely because I did not include a thesis on hell and punishment that I don't believe that God is just and judges sin. So to be fair, I listed your responses as someone who claims that God is NOT love, and enjoyed and desired the punishment and torture of sinners as well as His Son.

Never stated you believed this.

You have created your own caricature of this post and then threw rocks at your own caricature. You have failed to see the contradictions within the Calvinist system of thought that not only mis-characterizes the nature of God, but is dishonest in their presentation of the gospel to the lost. Your desire to want to emphasize the evil that exists and is permitted above the love of God proves my point. Your view and that of Calvinism as a whole results in God not only being the author of sin, but that God NEEDS EVIL to be sovereign, and that He WANTS AND DESIRES the presence of sin in order to punish it to prove His sovereignty.

First off, God isn't the Author of sin, since He doesn't even have the capacity to sin. All I know is that God created Satan, and he rebelled. He knew he would rebel, and He made him anyways. He knew Adam and Eve would too, and He went ahead with His plan. We know that God sent the only Remedy for sin, Jesus Christ to atone for sin. And that whosever believes in Him, shall never perish, but have everlasting life. This much I know. I am searching out the "fine details" via prayer and study.

 

[agedman]

The non-cal claim that the cals always distort, twist, ignore, redefine, ...

It does seem that there is plenty of that claim to slather all over the toast of the non-cal argument.

God hardening isn't really God hardening.

God blinding isn't really God blinding.

God faith isn't really God faith.

and the list could go on.

Abraham wasn't chosen of God - Abraham chose God.

Joseph wasn't chosen of God - Joseph chose God.

Joshua wasn't chosen of God - Joshua chose God.

David wasn't chosen of God - David chose God.

And the list could go on.

David wasn't specifically made in his mother's womb - it was all chance and choice.

John the Baptizer didn't respond in the womb at the presence of Mary - it was all chance and choice.

Jesus didn't personally select the twelve - it must have been by chance and opportunity for two were to betray Him.

Saul wasn't personally struck down on the road to Damascus that only he understood what was spoken - it was all chance and choice.

John was the only one of them that died of old age - that was all chance and choice.

and the list could go on.

The point being, that all schemes have certain weakness and discomforting areas.


Not one scheme taught be either Joseph Arminian, John Calvin or any other scholar of the present or past has total claim on complete unbiased truth.

Even in the modern time you have personal history that sets the scene of the viewpoint.

The OP doesn't present anything that hasn't been refuted and soundly by folks with a different view.

That the author refuses to admit to that refutation is because it would mean being obliged to move to a different area to see the view differently.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

What I am driving at is this. Where was the bona fide offer to all other inhabitants of the world when God chose Abram and his descendents? Where was God's bona fide offer to the Philistines, Edomites, and Babylonians as they were at war with Israel? Look, I am coming from the Non-Cal camp as one who doesn't have the answer(s)but I know THE One who does, and I am seeking His knowledge to understand, and His wisdom to rightly divide it.

I read where Jesus died for the ungodly, and also the church. I read where God doesn't delight in the death of the wicked, but many more die lost then saved. I read where God has dealt to man the measure of faith, and also not all men have faith. Things like this are what I am trying to get to the core meaning.

Good luck with that Willis...we are all searching & you know what Fletcher, you are on the right path...instead of all this Calvinist / non Calvinist BS that is devisive, you are now thinking with an open mind & an open Bible. Praise God for that. :thumbs:

 

[convicted1]

The thing I am getting at is that there are things we read that kinda make us cringe, because none of can really grasp it, because a mortal being can not fully grasp THE Eternal sovereign God. I admit that I am ignorant of a lot of biblical passages, but I go to the One who has all the answers.

 

[convicted1]

Good luck with that Willis...we are all searching & you know what Fletcher, you are on the right path...instead of all this Calvinist / non Calvinist BS that is devisive, you are now thinking with an open mind & an open Bible. Praise God for that. :thumbs:

I have always been open to teaching. My recent endeavour has proven that. But, one can't discuss scriptures with those whose mind is closed/settled, and NOT willing to at least search the opposing view at least some.

 

[convicted1]

Good luck with that Willis...we are all searching & you know what Fletcher, you are on the right path...instead of all this Calvinist / non Calvinist BS that is devisive, you are now thinking with an open mind & an open Bible. Praise God for that. :thumbs:

We are commanded to study to show ourselves approved, to contend for the faith, to hear the conclusion of the WHOLE matter, etc. God won't impart His wisdom if you set the bible on top of your head, or leave it laying somewhere. We have to dig in His Word. This is part of man's responsibilty in their salvation. He didn't save us, just to have us ignore His Word, but rather, grow via studying it out.

 

[convicted1]

I have the feeling I am wearing "milkbone underwear" and thronged by a bunch of rabid dogs....:smilewinkgrin:

 

[DrJamesAch]

.

The non-cal claim that the cals always distort, twist, ignore, redefine, ...

It does seem that there is plenty of that claim to slather all over the toast of the non-cal argument.

God hardening isn't really God hardening.

God blinding isn't really God blinding.

God faith isn't really God faith.

and the list could go on.

Abraham wasn't chosen of God - Abraham chose God.

Joseph wasn't chosen of God - Joseph chose God.

Joshua wasn't chosen of God - Joshua chose God.

David wasn't chosen of God - David chose God.

And the list could go on.

David wasn't specifically made in his mother's womb - it was all chance and choice.

John the Baptizer didn't respond in the womb at the presence of Mary - it was all chance and choice.

Jesus didn't personally select the twelve - it must have been by chance and opportunity for two were to betray Him.

Saul wasn't personally struck down on the road to Damascus that only he understood what was spoken - it was all chance and choice.

John was the only one of them that died of old age - that was all chance and choice.

and the list could go on.

...and the list could be filed under Wikipedia's "Longest List of Straw Man Statements"

The point being, that all schemes have certain weakness and discomforting areas.


Not one scheme taught be either Joseph Arminian, John Calvin or any other scholar of the present or past has total claim on complete unbiased truth.

Even in the modern time you have personal history that sets the scene of the viewpoint.

The OP doesn't present anything that hasn't been refuted and soundly by folks with a different view.

That the author refuses to admit to that refutation is because it would mean being obliged to move to a different area to see the view differently.

AH yes, the "it's refuted because I said so argument". You can't even get Mr. Arminian's first name right let alone have an accurate grasp on the differences between Arminians, Calvinists, and Non Calvinists.

The list could go on and and on in using the same egotistical rhetoric you do, by explaining how many Calvinist positions I have DESTROYED on this forum to the point where I have been accused of being the number one instigator here, and of an "agenda" that has caused a reformation against Calvinists. I got a pig sent to me for my efforts, what did you get!

Now let's see if you can actually show how the post does NOT show a contradiction as stated, instead of resorting to the typical Calvinist fallacy of "I'm right, you're wrong. I win. See I told you were refuted". :sleep::sleep::sleep:

 

[12strings]

...and the list could be filed under Wikipedia's "Longest List of Straw Man Statements"

This from the man who wrote:

Cal Response: I agree with the atheists on this one that use it as an example that the God of Christianity is sadistic and evil.

That's Hilarious!!!:laugh: When you wrote that, you voluntarily relenquished your credibility in calling out other straw-man arguments...even valid ones.

 

[kyredneck]

...and the list could be filed under Wikipedia's "Longest List of Straw Man Statements"

You're so wearisome.

AH yes, the "it's refuted because I said so argument". You can't even get Mr. Arminian's first name right let alone have an accurate grasp on the differences between Arminians, Calvinists, and Non Calvinists.

You're so 'loving'.

The list could go on and and on in using the same egotistical rhetoric you do,

You're so hypocritical.

by explaining how many Calvinist positions I have DESTROYED on this forum

You're such a legend in your own mind. The 'Calvinist slayer' of all 'Calvinist slayers'

to the point where I have been accused

You're such a whiner and a pot calling the kettle black.

of being the number one instigator here,

You're so totally lacking for any concern for first impressions of visitors to this site.

and of an "agenda" that has caused a reformation against Calvinists. I got a pig sent to me for my efforts, what did you get!

You're such a victim. So persecuted, it's just awful.