confused about Calvin

Not that I am supporting either camp but let me play the neutral "Devil's Advocate" if you will in order to prove my point:

Acts 17
30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:
31 Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.

A simple straight forward reading of this passage gives every indication that God expects "all men every where" to repent else we have a God who is going to punish folks for not doing (repenting) what they are not able to do.

In addition this passage indicates that God not only expects "all men every where" to repent but has also says that He has supplied them with an assurance which they are unable to receive being "infinitely depraved".

When I tell one of my children "clean your room" or else I will punish you" I expect it to be done because he is able and I'll do the discipline if he doesn't. If however he were a paraplegic confined to a wheelchair, I would never tell him in the first place.

I could see the calvinist point of view had this passage qualified those who are to repent as believers but it plainly says "all men every where".

HankD

 

Hank, Who has assurance because Christ was raised from the dead?

Spiritual death is a condition of the will- Separation from God and righteousness. The unregenerate can't repent because they "will" not- not because God has caused them to be unable. They have "free will" but it is a will that obeys sin because that is its nature.

No one has absolute freedom. God can't act against His own character or deny Himself. The most "free" human being to ever live... couldn't flap his arms and take to the sky. Freedom is always limited by the nature of the free.

Bottom line is that God didn't cause them to be unable... they did that to themselves. The child in your example might be able to physically hear you but still not hear you.

If you have ever told a kid to go clean their room while they were engrossed in a TV program only to have them later tell you they didn't hear you... then you get the picture. You are still justified in telling them to do it... and punishing them for ignoring you.

 

Great post HankD. But the problem here is that we need a Calvinist' to tell us when "all" means everyone, without exception, or when it means something else.

"For God so loved the elect, that He gave His only begotten Son, that when the elect believe in Him (and they will, irresistible grace you know)will have eternal life."

 

Ge 6:5 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.

I'd suggest a little more "Study".

 

Me4Him,

I'd suggest you read something besides the KJV and do some study yourself.

Are you suggesting that God was surprised that man sinned and that He needed to repent? What is your interpretation of Genesis 6?

 

Watchman,

Yet another myth perpetuated.

Challenge for you: Find a respectable Calvinist theologian or author who believes John 3:16 suggests that God only loves the elect.

Let us know what you find.

 

I am still waiting for some evidence that Spurgeon, Edwards, Whitfield, etc. were "lazy and proud" and lead mean astray.

 

Ge 6:5 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.

I'd suggest a little more "Study". </font>[/QUOTE]Why are you still evading my question?

This is pretty typical but also confusing. Supposedly we are the one's denying the truth but you all refuse to answer straight forward questions about the character and attributes of the God of the Bible.

BTW, Had you studied... you would know there is nothing in this passage that contradicts the foreknowledge or the sovereign will of God.

 

By the account of the angels that attended Christ's crucifixion, it seems quite apparent that both general grace (good will toward all of creation) and special grace (the eternal salvation of the elect) were won there.

 

This is the result of Limited Atonement, that the death on the cross was for the elect, and has no bearing on the non-elect whatsoever. It comes down to (in the Calvinist's view) that God chooses only certain ones and does not choose others (which is rejecting them, and please don't insult us by saying that not choosing is not the same as rejecting.) The result is the Lake of Fire. By your rendition, this is all of God and yet, to those so assigned to the lake of fire God loves!
There is, however, a school of "mixed-up" Calvinists, who think they also hold to a "LIMITED ATONEMENT" theory who teach that Christ's death was sufficient for the whole world, but efficient or effective only for those who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ as their Savior. This explanation of Christ's death is correct, and is Scripturally sound, but it is NOT the proper definition of "LIMITED ATONEMENT," and all who hold it, therefore, are NOT believers in "LIMITED ATONEMENT," but rather in "UNLIMITED ATONEMENT."

"But He was wounded for the elects trangressions, He was bruised for the elects iniquities; the chastisement of the elects peace was upon Hm and with His stripes the elect is healed. The elect have gone astray; the elect has turned to his own way; and the Lord laid on him the iniquity of the elect."

 

Proof please.

OK, still the truth, but no need to "insult" you ... however in the non-calvinist view it is somehow OK for God not to get the gospel to everyone in all times (which is rejecting them, and please don't insult us by saying that not sending a witness is not the same as not loving them enough to give them their rightful opportunity to exercise their own personal goodness and believe).

I love America... that love is not diminished because I believe it is right to execute a serial killer for his crimes.

No... that would be the school of calvinists that accept what the scripture says and conforms their system to it rather than conforming scripture to their view.

Only if you strip the "L" out from between the "U" and the "I".

 

Okay, I posted it before, and I will again.

Who then shall be saved? That is what His sovereign will decides and nothing else. It is purely a matter of the divine sovereign will which, doubtless for good reasons known to God Himself but none of them relative to anything distinguishing one man morally from another, chooses some and rejects the rest. God's election has nothing to do with foreknowledge except in so far as he foreknows who are to be members of the human race" (Calvin's Institutes III, xxiii, page 10).


"Who would have the elect to be saved, and come to the knowledge of the truth."

 

You will never understand Calvinism because it is an unbiblical philosophy.It would be easier for the Calvinists if God had inspired a commentary with the bible since their position is so compicated.

 

Why would God repent of making man, if his will was being done??

I can/will answer the question, but I'll give you the first "shot at it".

Maybe you need to study/use the KJV, I'm not the one "confused" about the "plan of salvation".

 

God did include a "commentary" with the Bible, it's called the "HOLY GHOST", sent to lead/guide in "ALL TRUTH", but men prefer to listen to men rather than God.

"Election" makes the preaching of the Gospel, giving of the law and requirement of "Belief", totally "irrevelvant" to a person's salvation, since "neither" is used as the bases for "selecting" the "elect".

God could have just written,

"I'll elect whom I chose, the rest can go to hell".

Under Calvin's plan, the bible could have been written/passed around on a "Business card".

Lu 2:10 And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.

 

I don't see what is so complicated about it at all. In fact I learned of the doctrines of grace simply from the Scriptures themselves. I did not read any commentary, but God convinced me from His Word.

 

Posted this in a similar thread, thought it would be relevant here.

I think there is a misconception that Calvinism denies man any choice. Man has a choice, a very real choice. The problem is man always makes the wrong choice. And apart from the quickening of the Spirit, we would never be able to turn to God.

God doesn't predestine man to hell, we chose hell with our whole hearts.

Or was God lying when He said "there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one."

Did you seek after God? Were you saved because the goodness in your heart brought you to make that right decision, or because the Holy Spirit of God quickened your stone cold dead heart and opened your eyes?

2 Cor 4:4, 6 "In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them... For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.

 

What can be complicated 4His_glory is the calvinistic response to the "free-will" verses such as the following (for instance) posted previously which indicates that all men every where have the ability to repent:

Acts 17
30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:
31 Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.

Especially in light of the fact that He now gives this commandment as a warning that He is going to judge the world with indication of retribution to those who do not repent (something which "all men" cannot do).

Now we all know that God does what He pleases without our advice. But to issue this commandment above to a race of beings which He created, most of whom (according to the TULIP acrostic} are unable to keep, that is for: "all men every where to repent"), seems unlikely considering the following question/statement by the "father of the faithful" :
"shall not the judge of all the earth do right?".

Now I am not siding with Arminius and his doctrine because it also has its problems.

Personally I prefer to say I don't understand how to reconcile this verse (and several others) with the Sovereignty of God of the TULIP acrostic.

While I lean strongly toward the acrostic, I can't fully commit to it without something from the Word of God to square it with His immpeccable character to "do right", realizing that He defines that which is "right", however from the whole counsel of God, the TULIP acrostic IMO is not exactly "right" when held up to the Acts 17 passage and other "free-will" verses and I find no way to make it "right".

To say that He is merciful in selecting "some" out of His sovereignty (rather than rejcting "all") IMO begs several questions, one of which is concerning His "doing right" (His righteousness as well as His mercy should be considered) of which Arminianism answers in a better fashion by putting the rejection of Christ as Savior squarely on the shoulders of those who "choose" out of their own "free-will" to make that rejection.

But because of other difficulties with the "free-will" approach, I can't commit to that scenario either.

Personally I don't care about this issue and usually don't post in these kinds of threads, although I wish that all were "altogether such as I am", saved.

HankD

 

Why would God repent of making man, if his will was being done??

I can/will answer the question, but I'll give you the first "shot at it".

Maybe you need to study/use the KJV, I'm not the one "confused" about the "plan of salvation". </font>[/QUOTE]Still waiting on you to answer my question.

 

HankD,
What a great post!

Karen