• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Calvinists: How is God NOT a sinner?

kyredneck

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
...Therefore in the end the final judgement is yours and yours alone.

Thank you sir. You are right on spot. Charles Hodge on 'The Right of Private Judgment' (emphasis mine):

http://www.worldwithoutend.info/start/books/charles_hidge/intro/intro_06.htm#05

5. Perspicuity of the Scriptures. The Right of Private Judgment.

The Bible is a plain book. It is intelligible by the people. And they have the right, and are bound to read and interpret it for themselves; so that their faith may rest on the testimony of the Scriptures, and not on that of the Church. Such is the doctrine of Protestants on this subject.

It is not denied that the Scriptures contain many things hard to be understood; that they require diligent study; that all men need the guidance of the Holy Spirit in order to right knowledge and true faith. But it is maintained that in all things necessary to salvation they are sufficiently plain to be understood even by the unlearned.

It is not denied that the people, learned and unlearned, in order to the proper understanding of the Scriptures, should not only compare Scripture with Scripture, and avail themselves of all the means in their power to aid them in their search after the truth, but they should also pay the greatest deference to the faith of the Church. If the Scriptures be a plain book, and the Spirit performs the functions of a teacher to all the children of God, it follows inevitably that they must agree in all essential matters in their interpretation of the Bible. And from that fact it follows that for an individual Christian to dissent from the faith of the universal Church (i. e., the body of true believers), is tantamount to dissenting from the Scriptures themselves.

What Protestants deny on this subject is, that Christ has appointed any officer, or class of officers, in his Church to whose interpretation of the Scriptures the people are bound to submit as of final authority. What they affirmn is that He has made it obligatory upon every man to search the Scriptures for himself, and determine on his own discretion what they require him to believe and to do.

The arguments in support of the former of these positions have already been presented in the discussion concerning the infallibility of the Church. The most obvious reasons in support of the right of private judgment are, --

1. That the obligations to faith and obedience are personal. Every man is responsible for his religious faith and his moral conduct. He cannot transfer that responsibility to others; nor can others assume it in his stead. He must answer for himself; and if he must answer for himself, he must judge for himself. It will not avail him in the day of judgment to say that his parents or his Church taught him wrong. He should have listened to God, and obeyed Him rather than men.

2. The Scriptures are everywhere addressed to the people, and not to the officers of the Church either exclusively, or specially. The prophets were sent to the people, and constantly said, "Hear, O Israel," "Hearken, O ye people." Thus, also, the discourses of Christ were addressed to the people, and the people heard him gladly. All the Epistles of the New Testament are addressed to the congregation, to the "called of Jesus Christ;" "to the beloved of God;" to those "called to be saints;" "to the sanctified in Christ Jesus;" "to all who call on the name of Jesus Christ our Lord;" "to the saints which are in (Ephesus), and to the faithful in Jesus Christ;" or "to the saints and faithful brethren which are in (Colosse);" and so in every instance. It is the people who are addressed. To them are directed these profound discussions of Christian doctrine, and these comprehensive expositions of Christian duty. They are everywhere assumed to be competent to understand what is written, and are everywhere required to believe and obey what thus came from the inspired messengers of Christ. They were not referred to any other authority from which they were to learn the true import of these inspired instructions. It is, therefore, not only to deprive the people of a divine right, to forbid the people to read and interpret the Scriptures for themselves; but it is also to interpose between them and God, and to prevent their hearing his voice, that they may listen to the words of men.

The People commanded to search the Scriptures.

3. The Scriptures are not only addressed to the people, but the people were called upon to study them, and to teach them unto their children. It was one of the most frequently recurring injunctions to parents under the old dispensation, to teach the Law unto their children, that they again might teach it unto theirs. The "holy oracles" were committed to the people, to be taught by the people; and taught immediately out of the Scriptures, that the truth might be retained in its purity. Thus our Lord commanded the people to search the Scriptures, saying, "They are they which testify of me." (John v. 39.) He assumed that they were able to understand what the Old Testament said of the Messiah, although its teachings had been misunderstood by the scribes and elders, and by the whole Sanhedrim. Paul rejoiced that Timothy had from his youth known the Holy Scriptures, which were able to make him wise unto salvation. He said to the Galatians (i. 8, 9), "Though we, or an angel from heaven, -- if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed." This implies two things, -- first, that the Galatian Christians, the people, had a right to sit in judgment on the teaching of an Apostle, or of an angel from heaven; and secondly, that they had an infallible rule by which that judgment was to be determined, namely, a previous authenticated revelation of God. If, then, the Bible recognizes the right of the people to judge of the teaching of Apostles and angels, they are not to be denied the right of judging of the doctrines of bishops and priests. The principle laid down by the Apostle is precisely that long before given by Moses (Deut. xiii. 1-3), who tells the people that if a prophet should arise, although he worked wonders, they were not to believe or obey him, if he taught them anything contrary to the Word of God. This again assumes right to judge, and that the people had the ability and the right to judge, and that they had an infallible rule of judgment. It implies, moreover, that their salvation depended upon their judging rightly. For if they allowed these false teachers, robed in sacred vestments, and surrounded by the insignia of authority, to lead them from the truth, they would inevitably perish.

4. It need hardly be remarked that this right of private judgment is the great safeguard of civil and religious liberty. If the Bible be admitted to be the infallible rule of faith and practice in accordance with which men are bound on the peril of their souls, to frame their creed and conduct; and if there be a set of men who have the exclusive right of interpreting the Scripture, and who are authorized to impose their interpretations on the people as of divine authority, then they may impose on them what conditions of salvation they see fit. And the men who have the salvation of the people in their hands are their absolute masters. Both reason and experience fully sustain the dictum of Chillingworth,31 when he says, "He that would usurp an absolute lordship and tyranny over any people, need not put himself to the trouble and difficulty of abrogating and disannulling the laws, made to maintain the common liberty; for he may frustrate their intent, and compass his own design as well, if he can get the power and authority to interpret them as he pleases, and add to them what he pleases, and to have his interpretations and additions stand for laws; if he can rule his by his lawyers." This is precisely what the Church of Rome has done, and thereby established a tyranny for which there is no parallel in the history of the world. What renders this tyranny the more intolerable, is, that, so far as the mass of the people is concerned, it resolves itself into the authority of the parish priest. He is the arbiter of the faith and morals of his people. No man can believe unless the ground of faith is present to his mind. If the people are to believe that the Scriptures teach certain doctrines, then they must have the evidence that such doctrines are really taught in the Bible. If that evidence be that the Church so interprets the sacred writings, then the people must know what is the Church, i. e., which of the bodies claiming to be the Church, is entitled to be so regarded. How are the people, the uneducated masses, to determine that question? The priest tells them. If they receive his testimony on that point, then how can they tell how the Church interprets the Scriptures? Here again they must take the word of the priest. Thus the authority of the Church as an interpreter, which appears so imposing, resolves itself into the testimony of the priest, who is often wicked, and still oftener ignorant. This cannot be the foundation of the faith of God's elect. That foundation is the testimony of God himself speaking his word, and authenticated as divine by the testimony of the Spirit with and by the truth in the heart of thc believer.
 

kyredneck

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
4. It need hardly be remarked that this right of private judgment is the great safeguard of civil and religious liberty......

Thank you Lord.
 

webdog

Active Member
Site Supporter
You must employ strange math. In the thread I started, faith being simultaneous or preceding regeneration is at 16, regeneration preceding faith is 12, other is 1 (Allen clarified his error in voting).

In the thread you started, it is so vague nothing can be determined. Salvation is completely of God (monegism), yet He requires faith on our part (synergism). You left off the TRUE answer...both.

At any rate, I was unaware the Baptist Board polling system was the true watermark for all believers :rolleyes:
 

kyredneck

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
You must employ strange math. In the thread I started, faith being simultaneous or preceding regeneration is at 16, regeneration preceding faith is 12, other is 1 (Allen clarified his error in voting).

In the thread you started, it is so vague nothing can be determined. Salvation is completely of God (monegism), yet He requires faith on our part (synergism). You left off the TRUE answer...both.

At any rate, I was unaware the Baptist Board polling system was the true watermark for all believers :rolleyes:

Again, you sound like a sore loser. :)
 

Trotter

<img src =/6412.jpg>
So, if God is truly omnipotent then isn't He the one doing everything? Including all the bad stuff?
Last time I checked, God was still God. That means we are not God and we are not in any position to judge Him. The bible tells us "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts. (Isa 55:8-9 ESV)"

Calvinists, and non-Calvinists, err in that they try to nail God down into human terms. God is God and He will not fit into any box we try to put Him in. God is holiness... He is not just a holy being, but He IS holiness. He is beyond righteous. Trying to distill God down to the things we know and understand is trying to rob Him of His deity and it just won't work.

We define evil by our own terms. I am not talking about relativism or "what's bad to you may not be bad to me" kind of stuff. That which is painful or causes loss we call evil. God uses these very things for His purposes. He prunes our lives, cutting (sometimes painfully) out that which is not desirable or unrighteous. God removes people and things from our lives for multiple purposes that we do not understand, but all of them are a part of the plan He has laid out. We are defining these things through our experiences and not through God's purposes. Until we are made perfection heaven and can talk openly with God face to face we will not fully comprehend Him or His actions.

So, what you call "bad" may be bad to us, but what are we not seeing? On what standing does anyone have to try to say that those things God does and brings about are "bad"? Even though we may not understand why God does something, or why He allowed it to happen, we have to realize that He is still God and that He is still on the throne. Calvinism, or whatever other school of thought you choose, does not change this fact.
 

gb93433

Active Member
Site Supporter
Full disclosure: not sure how/what I think about the issue of Calvinism. Many of my Southern Baptist friends have recently converted to Reformed Theology and are trying to persuade me to do the same. I've asked my friends the question in the OP and received nothing but "ummm...'s" as a response.
The older I get the less I listen to proposed theologies and the more I focus on the outcome.

Hebrews 13:7, "Remember those who led you, who spoke the word of God to you; and considering the result of their conduct, imitate their faith."

Look at the outcome of the faith of those you are looking at for the next 30 years. There is no new theology among them. Church history will show that.
 

saturneptune

New Member
The older I get the less I listen to proposed theologies and the more I focus on the outcome.

Hebrews 13:7, "Remember those who led you, who spoke the word of God to you; and considering the result of their conduct, imitate their faith."

Look at the outcome of the faith of those you are looking at for the next 30 years. There is no new theology among them. Church history will show that.
That is a good thought. As Solomon said many times, there is nothing new under the sun. If man can think it up, it was long ago considered by the Lord. I hear all the time, when I get to Heaven, the first thing I am going to ask the Lord is (fill in the blank). For all the debate over sovereignty and Bible versions, my guess is, once we get there, we will not care.
 

Skandelon

<b>Moderator</b>
If I arrange your circumstances, in such a way as to cause you to think something evil, you are fully responsible for it, yet that thought has been fully brought about by me.

So, let me make sure I understand your theological position by applying it to actual circumstances and see if I'm clear (a practice called "applied theology"):

You believe God arranged the circumstances of child molester, John Couey, in such a way so that he would certainly think of kidnapping, raping and burying little Jessica alive in a plastic bag? Further, you believe God fully brought about that heinous thought?

Is that correct? Where did the thought originate? With John or God?
 

Grasshopper

Active Member
Site Supporter
Full disclosure: not sure how/what I think about the issue of Calvinism. Many of my Southern Baptist friends have recently converted to Reformed Theology and are trying to persuade me to do the same. I've asked my friends the question in the OP and received nothing but "ummm...'s" as a response.

So, if God is truly omnipotent then isn't He the one doing everything? Including all the bad stuff?

FWIW, don't take this as an attack: I'm seriously considering 'converting' to Calvinism. Some of it seems to make sense. :wavey:


Get a piece of paper a pen and a Bible and go through these:

The Doctrines of Grace

What is the nature of God's grace in salvation? From the time of the Reformation forward, the answer to this question was simple: every single aspect of salvation, from election to glorification, is wholly by God's sovereign grace.

In the Netherlands of early 17th century, however, this unified voice for a biblical doctrine of salvation was challenged by the so-called Remonstrant Arminians with their five points of grievance with the orthodox teaching of the Heidelberg Catechism and the Belgic Confession. The response to their grievance is what has come to be known as the five points of Calvinism.
This five-part sermon series follows the traditional TULIP acrostic that outlines the church's response to Arminianism:
1.) Total Depravity
2.) Unconditional Election
3.) Limited Atonement
4.) Irresistable Grace
5.) Perseverance of the Saints



http://www.solidfoodmedia.com/messages/seriesview.php?id=12


The Hardening of Pharaoh's Heart: A Case Study in the Sovereignty of God

If you have ever had questions like:

"If God is all-powerful and all-loving, how can there be evil in the world?"

"Is God in control of all things, or only the good things that happen to us?"

"Did God choose me or did I choose him?"

Or questions like these, then this five-part series is for you. Taken from Pastor R. W. Glenn's expository sermons from the book of Exodus, this collection of messages looks at God's dealings with Pharaoh as a window for examining the difficult subject of the absolute sovereignty of God.


http://www.solidfoodmedia.com/messages/seriesview.php?id=11


Some of the best podcasts I've listened to in quite a while.
 

saturneptune

New Member
heck, we won't even remember what we were fighting about. :flower:
That is a good thing. Being as guilty as anyone on the board, I wonder what the Lord thinks about some of the exchanges back and forth I have read. Not that some of these threads have any excuse for their tone, but a few questions do come to mind. The main one is why do the subjects of Bible versions and Calvinism bring out the most heated debate over all others? Another thing that puzzles me is that it is one thing for laymen like me to go back and forth with someone just based on my experience and individual Bible study, but what I do not understand is the sharp words and differences of opinion expressed here by those called of God to be leaders, and have been to our highest instututions of learning Scripture.
 

pinoybaptist

Active Member
Site Supporter
That is a good thing. Being as guilty as anyone on the board, I wonder what the Lord thinks about some of the exchanges back and forth I have read. Not that some of these threads have any excuse for their tone, but a few questions do come to mind. The main one is why do the subjects of Bible versions and Calvinism bring out the most heated debate over all others? Another thing that puzzles me is that it is one thing for laymen like me to go back and forth with someone just based on my experience and individual Bible study, but what I do not understand is the sharp words and differences of opinion expressed here by those called of God to be leaders, and have been to our highest instututions of learning Scripture.

I don't know about the Bible versions but I think with regards to the C/A thing, the whole business begins when one side throws insinuations against the other, or subtly misrepresent one side and speak as if that were exactly what the other believed.
I confess to being a hothead and I do say things which I shouldn't have said, and believe it or not, it makes my whole day miserable when I do, but I love the Doctrine of Grace and all who adhere to it, which is not to say I don't care for those on the other side, but there is a stronger feeling of bonding for those who hold to the same doctrines, and I don't think they of the other side will deny that, as true for them, too.
Nevertheless, I have tried to extend my olive branches to two of those I have often quarreled with (if I may be allowed to use the word), and both have also responded in kind.
 

saturneptune

New Member
I don't know about the Bible versions but I think with regards to the C/A thing, the whole business begins when one side throws insinuations against the other, or subtly misrepresent one side and speak as if that were exactly what the other believed.
I confess to being a hothead and I do say things which I shouldn't have said, and believe it or not, it makes my whole day miserable when I do, but I love the Doctrine of Grace and all who adhere to it, which is not to say I don't care for those on the other side, but there is a stronger feeling of bonding for those who hold to the same doctrines, and I don't think they of the other side will deny that, as true for them, too.
Nevertheless, I have tried to extend my olive branches to two of those I have often quarreled with (if I may be allowed to use the word), and both have also responded in kind.

You have a very good point. The insults back and forth can get out of hand before one realizes how bad things have gotten. Personally, I think that edit button should be on posts much longer than it is. It is also perfectly understandable that you would feel a closer bond to those who believe in sovereignty and grace. While some people like you and me get caught up in the ferver back and forth if not kept in check, I strongly believe there are those lurking on this board who start things like this on purpose, and after they get it going, disappear and go to the next situation.
 

Havensdad

New Member
So, let me make sure I understand your theological position by applying it to actual circumstances and see if I'm clear (a practice called "applied theology"):

You believe God arranged the circumstances of child molester, John Couey, in such a way so that he would certainly think of kidnapping, raping and burying little Jessica alive in a plastic bag? Further, you believe God fully brought about that heinous thought?

Is that correct? Where did the thought originate? With John or God?

O.K. YOU tell ME. Is God unwilling to stop the act? Is He powerless to stop it? Because those are the only two other choices that you have.
 

Skandelon

<b>Moderator</b>
O.K. YOU tell ME. Is God unwilling to stop the act? Is He powerless to stop it? Because those are the only two other choices that you have.

He is unwilling, obviously, but that is a red herring because it fails to address the question of the discussion and attempts to refocus the debate on another point.

I'm asking about the origination of the thought. Was it God's or John Couey's?

Do you believe God arranged the circumstances of child molester, John Couey, in such a way so that he would certainly think of kidnapping, raping and burying little Jessica alive in a plastic bag?

Further, you believe God fully brought about that heinous thought?

Please answer the questions.
 

gb93433

Active Member
Site Supporter
When the farmer puts his cow out to pasture he lets the animal eat the grass within the boundaries he has created with a fence but he does not control if one animal decides to eat along the fence and another decides to lie down.

God controls the boundaries and within those boundaries we can choose. We have two natures which we can choose to feed. When God gives a command in scripture He realizes that we have the choice to obey or not obey. Spiritual growth occurs when we obey and start to become useless when we do not obey.
 

Grasshopper

Active Member
Site Supporter
I'm asking about the origination of the thought. Was it God's or John Couey's?

John Couey's

Do you believe God arranged the circumstances of child molester, John Couey, in such a way so that he would certainly think of kidnapping, raping and burying little Jessica alive in a plastic bag?

Ever read the Old Testament? Ever read how God sent evil Spirits to men so they would commit certain acts? Ever read

Pro 21:1
The king's heart is in the hand of Jehovah as the rivers of water; He turns it wherever He will.

God only need remove His grace and man will do the desires of his heart.

Further, you believe God fully brought about that heinous thought?

Please answer the questions.

No, it came straight from man's evil heart and is accountable to it.

I'm suprised you don't know these things being a former Calvinist.
 
Top