Calvinism in a White Ford Van

[webdog]

Originally posted by npetreley:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by webdog:
Concerning this salvation, the prophets, who spoke of the grace that was to come to you
Did the prophets speak that grace was for the gentiles or jews? Hmmmmm.....

They spoke of both. Read your Bible. </font>[/QUOTE]I'll give you that, I should have stated that. The prophets were sent to the jews, however. This text was for the jews. Read the parable of the owner of the vineyard.

BTW...don't belittle me, or talk down to me with "read your Bible". Some of you calvinist's act like your knowledge supercedes everyone elses, which is the problem with calvinism in general...based on human knowledge.

 

[webdog]

Originally posted by Bill Brown:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Bill Brown:
Gentlemen, gentlemen, gentlemen...ever if Peter's two epistles were written to Jews and even if he referred to Jews as elect, it does invaldiate election. God has always had one people of God that are elected and predestined by Him. Jewish believers are elected and predestined and Gentile believers are elected and predestined.

Typo in my own post. It does NOT invalidate election. Election still stands. </font>[/QUOTE]Jews "in Christ" and Gentiles "in Christ" are God's elect. Unconditional election is false.

 

[webdog]

Originally posted by Bill Brown:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by npetreley:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Bill Brown:
Gentlemen, gentlemen, gentlemen...ever if Peter's two epistles were written to Jews and even if he referred to Jews as elect, it does invaldiate election. God has always had one people of God that are elected and predestined by Him. Jewish believers are elected and predestined and Gentile believers are elected and predestined.

This is true, because it is specifically talking about election with respect to salvation -- NOT the other ways the Jews were elected (to be the bloodline of the Messiah, to preserve the written law, etc.).

I guess I'm just irritated by the lame attempt at derailing the point by making outrageous claims like this based on so little knowledge of what the Bible (OT and NT) actually says. </font>[/QUOTE]Brother, all we can do is faithfully proclaim the word of God and allow it to effect it's changing work. It takes time. I was an Arminian for 20 years! I believe us Calvinists become too impatient. We believe in God's sovereignty, right? Let's allow Him to work out His plan. </font>[/QUOTE]--I was an Arminian for 20 years!--

So did God predestine you to be arminian for 20 years...and then suddenly predestined you to be a calvinist by revealing this "hidden truth" that the majority of believers agree is false doctrine? Your testimony is more an argument for free will in motion.

When I found out that a good friend is a calvinist (after a year of praying together for peoples' salvation and acting like man has free will), I really wanted to believe calvinism was true, and I was so special to God that He unconditionally chose me. I prayed and asked God to reveal calvinism for what it is....truth or lies, but I was hoping it were true. Nothing I read from Macarthur, Spurgeon, Piper sat right with me when comparing the "proof text" to the Bible as a whole and the numerous verses proclaiming man to "choose". If calvinism is true, why has God not answered my prayer and revealed this "mystery" and "hidden truth" to me? Are calvinists' more special in God's eye than me? I doubt it. The conclusion, then, has to be that God has given me a choice (as with all men) and I am free to choose what I believe, as are calvinists'. Either that, or God is deliberately blinding me to the truth. Why would He do that, since I am "elect"? He wouldn't, and doesn't. The "god of this age" blinds men, not God. Otherwise God predestines even believers to believe false doctrine (considering the numerous theological positions), which goes against His very nature since God's sovereignty and grace are never "false doctrine."

[ April 12, 2006, 02:11 PM: Message edited by: webdog ]

 

[jw]

And free willism view leaks into every other aspect of a free willer's theology and world view, too.

&lt;nod&gt; We both agreed on that as well, should have stated it in my OP.

JW

 

[Timtoolman]

Originally posted by StraightAndNarrow:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Bill Brown:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by StraightAndNarrow:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Bill Brown:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />

Good job as dispelling those false assertions that people make about Calvinists. There certainly are false assertions and misconceptions about Calvinism. What I have found is that most of these misconceptions are based on hearsay. It is the bandwagon approach. It is easy to go with the crowd and attack Calvinism. Calvinism appeals to the quest for truth. Arminiansim appeals to human logic and the perception of fair-play and equity. It is based on human reasoning and not biblical reasoning. Now that sounds like a prideful statement, doesn't it? "It is based on human reasoning and not biblical reasoning." I suppose some would take this comment and label it as imflamatory. But just look at the facts. Allow me to parallel the Arminian belief that man is not completely fallen (total depravity)with scripture.

Arminianism vs. Scripture

ARMINIANISM: Man is not completely fallen. He is able to understand the gospel and can accept or reject it by free will.
SCRIPTURE:

Genesis 6:5 5 Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

</font>[/QUOTE]This passage, of course, is talking about the wickedness of almost all mankind right before the flood. God chose to save Noah's family who He counted as righteous. It is NOT a general statement about man. Otherwise none of us would be here today. </font>[/QUOTE]Yes, I agree that it was a general statement about mankind pre-flood. But it is necessary to note that no one else except Noah and his immediate family were saved. It is therefore not a leap of faith to conclude (from the text) that Noah (and possibly members of his family) was the only righteous man (by faith) on the earth. If that is accurate than the general statement becomes more specific. Of course, as always...imho. </font>[/QUOTE]Your premise was that all men are completely depraved (fallen). The way to refute that statement is to identify one or more men who were not. That's what I did. </font>[/QUOTE]I believe it flew righ over their heads. I would say that passage supports depravity but denies total inability. I see both sides twisting and trying to make scripture fit their theology but the pride is what kills me. Keep on Straight. I follow ya.

 

[Bill Brown]

Your premise was that all men are completely depraved (fallen). The way to refute that statement is to identify one or more men who were not. That's what I did.

I believe it flew righ over their heads. I would say that passage supports depravity but denies total inability. I see both sides twisting and trying to make scripture fit their theology but the pride is what kills me. Keep on Straight. I follow ya.

Tim, Straights comments did not fly over my head. I understood them and responded. Straight is correct, not everyone was depraved. He made his point but not in a manner in which he expected. Noah (and possibly memembers of his family with him on the ark) were not depraved because they were saved. But they weren't always saved. They were once in their depravity too, just like all of us who are now saved. Paul echos this when he writes:

Ephesians 2:1-3 And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, 2 in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience. 3 Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest.

Paul was once unregenerate and depraved. So was Noah and so were we. That is the point I was making to Straight.

 

[Timtoolman]

Bill I was refering to the pt that it was right before the flood. These people had rejected and harden their hearts for a long time. What I am trying to say is that they came too that state. They were not that from the beginning and it has not reached that state yet. If men were born with thougths that are continuely evil then why did God wait so long to destroy the earth with a flood? I am haveing a hard time forging my question. So if you don't understand what I am driving at then give me another shot.

 

[Bill Brown]

If men were born with thougths that are continuely evil then why did God wait so long to destroy the earth with a flood?

Tim, because:

Romans 9:18-24 18 So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires. 19 You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?" 20 On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, "Why did you make me like this," will it? 21 Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use, and another for common use? 22 What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? 23 And He did so in order that He might make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, 24 even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles.

Tim, so God's reason for not destroying the earth with the flood sooner than he did and the reason why He displays patience today is not for the sake of those who are in their sins but for the elect. See the passage above.

 

[Bill Brown]

Originally posted by Bill Brown:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />If men were born with thougths that are continuely evil then why did God wait so long to destroy the earth with a flood?

Tim, because:

Romans 9:18-24 18 So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires. 19 You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?" 20 On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, "Why did you make me like this," will it? 21 Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use, and another for common use? 22 What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? 23 And He did so in order that He might make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, 24 even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles.

Tim, so God's reason for not destroying the earth with the flood sooner than he did and the reason why He displays patience today is not for the sake of those who are in their sins but for the elect. See the passage above. </font>[/QUOTE]Tim, I was rushed in my last post. My wife and I had to run to Home Depot. Let me continue my response.

According to what Paul said in Romans, God withheld (witholds) His wrath in order that He might make known the riches of His glory for vessels prepared for mercy. Who are those vessels prepared for mercy? The elect. Notice that Paul even says that they were PREPARED for mercy. It actually means they were made ready for mercy. Such were the conditions in the time of Noah. The whole civilization at that time was godless. God determined to destroy the whole of mankind but leave a remnant in Noah and his family. Why didn't God destroy the civilization earlier? Because of His forbearance towards those who would be saved. Those who would never come to faith continued to live, not because of God's great love for them but because of His mercy towards those who would become His children. That is EXACTLY the type of forbearance Paul writes about in the Romans passage.

Tim, I am not some evil monster who takes joy in people going to hell. On the contary. If left up to me I would want all to go to heaven. Can you imagine being separated from God for eternity? I can't fathom the reality.

I have read the writings of some of the Reformers and the early Puritans. Tim, have you ever read anything from Jonathan Edwards? These men were all Reformed theologians. They believed in the doctrines of sovereign grace. Their hearts BROKE over those who were in their sins. When they preached they hit their audience right smack dab in the forehead with their sin. No easy believism here. They all knew that God called only His sheep. But mark this well: THEY DID NOT KNOW WHO THE SHEEP WERE! They were not omniscient. They preached the gospel as though their lives depended on it. That is the soul and heart of Reformed theology. God calls His sheep through the proclamation of the gospel. You notice I have adopted the term "Reformed" instead of "Calvinist"? There is a reason for this. Reformed theology is much greater than Calvin's personal theology. Calvin just happens to be an easy person to pick on.

Tim, would you agree that there are extremists on both sides of the debate? I have found that our opponents usually paint with an extremist view. Reformed Christians may paint Arminians as "free willies" that advocate open theism. That would be a biased comment that would prove to be inaccurate. Arminians would accuse Reformed christians of rejoicing that some are predestined for hell. Both are extremist views that only throw fire on the debate. Neither are true.

Anyway...those are my thoughts for now.

 

[Timtoolman]

Sorry it took so long for me to respond. I just found this. Wife and I took a trip up north to Traverse City. What a beautiful place. Stayed on the beach which was 74 on sat. but very cool after that.
Anyways I agree that we do tend to paint with an extremist veiw. And I usually remark to those who do that quite often on here. However it seems that when we get to the heart of the matter things are closer then they appear. I mean rather you believe God choose from looking through time at man's reaction to His word or if you believe God picked because of foreknowledge it is very close. I mean those that God picked will be saved. Time will not change what has been laid out and what God has declared will happen.
There is a hard factor in calvinism that does make man a puppet and God a person who does indeed delite in sending people to hell. It is said it is His plan, His desire to show forth His glory. Which seems kind of warped. But let me add in my heart and others on both sides here know that God can do whatever He wants with man. We look for things in God character to say it ain't so and with good cause. Arguements are good on both sides. I know calvinist seem to think they have a lock on the truth but in reality there are many reaches in both.

 

[Calvibaptist]

Originally posted by Timtoolman:
There is a hard factor in calvinism that does make man a puppet and God a person who does indeed delite in sending people to hell. It is said it is His plan, His desire to show forth His glory. Which seems kind of warped.

But the hard factor of free-willism is that is makes God helpless. I have heard preachers say that God sent His Son to die and then stepped back hoping that someone would take Him up on His offer. He made Himself vunerable like a Jr. High boy at the dance standing against the wall hoping a girl will ask him out.

The problem we have with this is that God is NEVER pictured as dependant on man in the Scripture. He is NEVER said to be at the whim of man in the Scripture. He is ALWAYS described as the sovereign God who wrote the end from the beginning, determines when a sparrow falls, determines the outcome of the cast lot, turns a king's heart like He turns a river, shuts the mouths of lions, and does whatever He pleases.

Put simply, the description of God offered by free-willers is offensive to me.

 

[webdog]

But the hard factor of free-willism is that is makes God helpless.

How so? If I allow my son a choice to either play basketball or play football, how am I rendered "helpless" based on his decision?

 

[Calvibaptist]

If you planned in eternity past to kill your son in order to give the game of basketball to someone who was your sworn enemy and only liked football, then when your son reached his prime, killed him and then could do nothing to make sure that your enemy actually got the game of basketball except wait and hope, then you are helpless and a fool. This is not how the Bible describes God.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by webdog:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />But the hard factor of free-willism is that is makes God helpless.

How so? If I allow my son a choice to either play basketball or play football, how am I rendered "helpless" based on his decision? </font>[/QUOTE]Bad analogy. According to the free willer, God desires all men without exception to be saved. So what does He do? He knocks on a door and stands there hoping someone will answer. Beyond that, God is helpless in the outcome, because after knocking, it's all up to the person whether or not to answer.

So (according to the free willer) it's God will that everyone without exception be saved. But the most God is willing to do for His part is knock. If that isn't the definition of an incompetent or underachiever, I don't know what is.

 

[Timtoolman]

npet, your play with words and mock people but what you speak is really out of ignorance or spite. You see YOU have painted God in this light above and it is so far removed from what other non-calvinist believe I doubt you even know what anyone else believes.
God did a lot more then stand at the door and knock. He sent His son, He gave us His inspired word, sent the HS to convict and guide, and shows His glory and splendor in nature. He has given man a concious that maintians God in it. Oh He has done so much more. And yet I don't look at it as being weak but showing (thats action not fuzzy feelings!) His character of Love.
God has set the rules, choose life or death, who will you worship. THose are the rules there are not other chances. He did not consult the will of man (esp. calvin) to see if that suite them as far as His soveriegnty goes. Nope, He is and if you don't like the way He sets things up then go ahead and call him incompetent or underachiever. He has beeen called worse, I wouldn't go that route though.

 

[Bill Brown]

Originally posted by Timtoolman:
Sorry it took so long for me to respond. I just found this. Wife and I took a trip up north to Traverse City. What a beautiful place. Stayed on the beach which was 74 on sat. but very cool after that.
Anyways I agree that we do tend to paint with an extremist veiw. And I usually remark to those who do that quite often on here. However it seems that when we get to the heart of the matter things are closer then they appear. I mean rather you believe God choose from looking through time at man's reaction to His word or if you believe God picked because of foreknowledge it is very close. I mean those that God picked will be saved. Time will not change what has been laid out and what God has declared will happen.
There is a hard factor in calvinism that does make man a puppet and God a person who does indeed delite in sending people to hell. It is said it is His plan, His desire to show forth His glory. Which seems kind of warped. But let me add in my heart and others on both sides here know that God can do whatever He wants with man. We look for things in God character to say it ain't so and with good cause. Arguements are good on both sides. I know calvinist seem to think they have a lock on the truth but in reality there are many reaches in both.

Tim, I've never been to Traverse City although I did business with a company located there on a weekly basis. I've heard Michigan is a beautiful state. I would like to see that first hand one day.

It is said it is His plan, His desire to show forth His glory. Which seems kind of warped.

Tim, I know. In fact I shared your view for many years. On face value it does look as though God has rigged the rules and man is nothing more than a puppet. I had a difficult time with that. Now Tim, I am not superimposing this on you. God forbid that I should do that. I am only commenting on my experience(s). For me...Bill Brown, my resistance to the doctrines of sovereign grace had more to do with my view of equity and fair play than it did with God's word. I had to admit to myself that the biblical support for sovereign grace was all over the bible. Some passages (such as Romans 9) didn't even hedge on the matter. They came right out and said that God choses. But I still held to the foreknowledge view. Why? Well mostly because that is what I was taught. It also appealed to that sense of fair play again. It didn't matter that, at best, the foreknowledge view is alluded to by inference only (imho). I used to think, "God is fair. He will not force anyone to choose Him." But then I found the fairness doctrine creeping in to other parts of my theology. I started to think, "Well the pygmay in New Guinea must be exempt from the gospel. There is no one to tell him about Jesus. Surely God will not send him to hell." What I didn't realize was that I was advocating forgiveness of sins without the cross. But still I believed in the free will of man and the foreknowledge view. I was a hard nut to crack.

Tim, why am I boring you with all of this? Just to tell you where I once was is similar (in some ways) to where you are. Yes, I would love you to embrace the doctrines of sovereign grace. Would it be that every person would. All I can do is prayerfully, studiously and considerately share with you what I have experienced. I leave the rest in the hands of God. I do appreciate the different tone that has been apparent in our last few posts. I believe that honors the Lord. It is far better than the caustic tone we had earlier. I apologize that I allowed my Italian side of me to rear its ugly head.

To God be the glory!

Bill

 

[Timtoolman]

I know all of that Bill and I admitt your right I am allowing my sense of fair play or equity to be part of my thinking, but I also think there is scriptural reason for believing so. And on the other hand I admitt that it is a scarey thing that I may be telling God how to be God. I ask Him to show though and someday He will.
As too the tone, Hey I am German and lose my temper too. Its more out of frustration on both sides I am seeing.

 

[Bill Brown]

Originally posted by Timtoolman:
I know all of that Bill and I admitt your right I am allowing my sense of fair play or equity to be part of my thinking, but I also think there is scriptural reason for believing so. And on the other hand I admitt that it is a scarey thing that I may be telling God how to be God. I ask Him to show though and someday He will.
As too the tone, Hey I am German and lose my temper too. Its more out of frustration on both sides I am seeing.

Mai bruderhalt zusammen in der einheit.

 

[epistemaniac]

Tim, you said

It is said it is His plan, His desire to show forth His glory. Which seems kind of warped.

If this is kinda warped, then the Bible is kinda warped....

Rom 9:15-24 ESV For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." (16) So then it depends not on human will or exertion,[2] but on God, who has mercy. (17) For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." (18) So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills. (19) You will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?" (20) But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?" (21) Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honored use and another for dishonorable use? (22) What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, (23) in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory-- (24) even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?"

blessings,
Ken

 

[epistemaniac]

some of the personal testimonies re God's absolute sovereignty reminded me of Jonathan Edwards recounting of his movement from a semi-Pelagian perspective to more of an Augustinian view....

From my childhood up, my mind had been full of objections against the doctrine of God's sovereignty.... It used to appear like a horrible doctrine to me. But I remember the time very well, when I seemed to be convinced, and fully satisfied, as to this sovereignty of God....

But never could I give an account, how, or by what means, I was thus convinced, not in the least imagining at the time, nor a long time after, that there was any extraordinary influence of God's Spirit in it; but only that now I saw further, and my reason apprehended the justice and reasonableness of it. However, my mind rested in it; and it put an end to all those cavils and objections.

And there has been a wonderful alteration in my mind, in respect to the doctrine of God's sovereignty, from that day to this; so that I scarce ever have found so much as the rising of an objection against it, in the most absolute sense.... I have often since had not only a conviction but a delightful conviction. The doctrine has very often appeared exceeding pleasant, bright, and sweet. Absolute sovereignty is what I love to ascribe to God. But my first conviction was not so.

blessings,
Ken