confused about Calvin

[Kiffen]

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

Hank I appreciate your honest balanced position. I think all of us should understand that not all things can be explained by logic.

As a 5 point Calvinist myself I see no problems with Acts 17. God does command all to Repent though not all can. Even an orthodox Arminian in the John Wesley style would have to admit a fellow in Tibet who has never heard of Jesus, the Gospel or the Bible cannot repent for he has not even heard the Word of God. He is never the less lost, condemned by the Law of God not because he hasn't heard the command to Repent but because he is a Sinner and a enemy of God.

While I disagree with you I do appreciate your honesty and balance.

 

[Me4Him]

Originally posted by Scott J:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Me4Him:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by bjonson:
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?

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. </font>[/QUOTE]"IF" God "repented" (sorry) he made man because of the evil of man,

"WHY" would God "create" (predestinate) some "Vessels fit for destruction" (evil people) as Calvinist claim???

Ro 9:22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

God "hates" evil, but if man is to have the "FREE WILL" to "CHOSE", between "good/evil", as Adam/Eve, then the "CHOICE" of evil must exist.

Ge 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it:

Ge 3:5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

Jesus even referred to this "CHOICE" when he said:

Joh 9:41 Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; (your eyes shall be opened) therefore your sin remaineth.

God doesn't "create evil people", it's against his very nature, they create themselves by their sin, but God/Jesus offered to "redeem" as many as would believe, even the "whole world".

God would prefer to "shew his Grace" rather than "shew his wrath".

Eze 33:11 Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?

Calvin had a very "narrow" view of the scriptures.

 

[bjonson]

so, Me4Him, you are saying that God had no control over whether or not man fell? He was suprised by this?

 

[jw]

God doesn't "create evil people", it's against his very nature, they create themselves by their sin, but God/Jesus offered to "redeem" as many as would believe, even the "whole world".

No one here is saying God created evil people. Adam and Eve were not evil people. They sinned and chose evil, causing the fall. From that day forward, man's heart has been continually evil. We all still have a choice, but we always choose evil.

Man is hopelessly lost and dead in trespasses and sins. That does not excuse him from his sin. Thats like a gay person saying, "I can't help lusting after men, that is all my heart yearns for - and therefore it is not a sin." (Not a fully adequate illustration, but you should get the point.)

Calvinism isn't taking a narrow view of Scripture, it is accepting what Scripture says. You are taking a very broad view of man.

If we do err, we err on the side of grace. I would rather stand before God and have him say, "You trusted too much in Me, depending too fully in Me for your salvation. Part of it was your decision." Than stand before God and hear, "You trusted too much in yourself, thinking it was your good decision that brought My grace to you. I am the Author of your faith."

 

[EdSutton]

Definitely some interesting posts.

Especially informative?
Sometimes I myself am as to actually wrote what when where. Anywho---
For whomever originally wrote: "Still waiting on you to answer my question.", "May I Say" it could be awhile. So far my own brief comments that touch on "Calvinism" (in five different posts, BTW) have elicited a grand total of one response, consisting of "Huh?"

Ed

 

[4His_glory]

Originally posted by jw:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />God doesn't "create evil people", it's against his very nature, they create themselves by their sin, but God/Jesus offered to "redeem" as many as would believe, even the "whole world".

No one here is saying God created evil people. Adam and Eve were not evil people. They sinned and chose evil, causing the fall. From that day forward, man's heart has been continually evil. We all still have a choice, but we always choose evil.

Man is hopelessly lost and dead in trespasses and sins. That does not excuse him from his sin. Thats like a gay person saying, "I can't help lusting after men, that is all my heart yearns for - and therefore it is not a sin." (Not a fully adequate illustration, but you should get the point.)

Calvinism isn't taking a narrow view of Scripture, it is accepting what Scripture says. You are taking a very broad view of man.

If we do err, we err on the side of grace. I would rather stand before God and have him say, "You trusted too much in Me, depending too fully in Me for your salvation. Part of it was your decision." Than stand before God and hear, "You trusted too much in yourself, thinking it was your good decision that brought My grace to you. I am the Author of your faith." </font>[/QUOTE]My thoughts exactally.

 

[johnp.]

Hello Ed.

"Think about this, all! Calvinism in the final analysis is no different from Arminianism, and vice versa. When the smoke dies down, after I am, I am sure, thoroughly castigated, I will get back and explain why. So far, I have run into exactly four other people who see this. In His grace, Ed" (posted 11 January, 2006 03:36)

That's as far as I have read in the thread. I believe the answer lays in the way Calvinists have forsaken God's Sovereignty in their denial that God elects people to Heaven and also to Hell.


john.

 

[Scott J]

John did you mistype when you said... "in the way Calvinists have forsaken God's Sovereignty".

BTW, Calvinists do not teach that God elects people to hell because the Bible doesn't teach that. They teach that He does elect people to salvation because the Bible does teach that. Pretty simple really. Just let the Bible say what it says and adjust your thinking to its truths.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Me4Him:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Scott J:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Me4Him:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by bjonson:
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?

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. </font>[/QUOTE]"IF" God "repented" (sorry) he made man because of the evil of man,

"WHY" would God "create" (predestinate) some "Vessels fit for destruction" (evil people) as Calvinist claim???

Ro 9:22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

God "hates" evil, but if man is to have the "FREE WILL" to "CHOSE", between "good/evil", as Adam/Eve, then the "CHOICE" of evil must exist.

Ge 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it:

Ge 3:5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

Jesus even referred to this "CHOICE" when he said:

Joh 9:41 Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; (your eyes shall be opened) therefore your sin remaineth.

God doesn't "create evil people", it's against his very nature, they create themselves by their sin, but God/Jesus offered to "redeem" as many as would believe, even the "whole world".

God would prefer to "shew his Grace" rather than "shew his wrath".

Eze 33:11 Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?

Calvin had a very "narrow" view of the scriptures. </font>[/QUOTE]Please stop being evasive and answer the simple question: Do you believe that man can thwart the will of God?

BTW, I don't buy the interpretation of "repent" that says God was somehow surprised or had to change His divine plan because of man's sin. Genuine sorrow? Yes. But not a change because God did something wrong, was surprised, or somehow incompetent in achieving His perfect will.

 

[Benjamin]

John did you mistype when you said... "in the way Calvinists have forsaken God's Sovereignty".

BUSTED!

 

[webdog]

Originally posted by Scott J:
John did you mistype when you said... "in the way Calvinists have forsaken God's Sovereignty".

BTW, Calvinists do not teach that God elects people to hell because the Bible doesn't teach that. They teach that He does elect people to salvation because the Bible does teach that. Pretty simple really. Just let the Bible say what it says and adjust your thinking to its truths.

It is common sense that by default if God doesn't elect those to hell, He ultimately elects the rest to hell. There is no way of getting around that.

If I saw two cars about to run off a cliff, and I had the ability to save both...but choose only to save one, I have selected the destiny of both. I would be a monster to do such a thing (and probably charged with a crime in our society), and this is exactly what calvinism makes God out to be.

 

[Ransom]

Scott J said:

BTW, Calvinists do not teach that God elects people to hell because the Bible doesn't teach that.

Well, in all fairness, some Calvinists do teach double predestination. Amongst them are John Calvin himself. Probably the best known living example would be R. C. Sproul, who argues for double predestination in a chapter of Chosen by God.

While I wouldn't hold to double predestination myself, I see the logic of the position. (Also, double predestination is not, as it is often mischaracterized, a symptom of "hyper-Calvinism.")

 

[jw]

It is common sense that by default if God doesn't elect those to hell, He ultimately elects the rest to hell. There is no way of getting around that.

If I saw two cars about to run off a cliff, and I had the ability to save both...but choose only to save one, I have selected the destiny of both. I would be a monster to do such a thing (and probably charged with a crime in our society), and this is exactly what calvinism makes God out to be.

Do you have any sense of 1. The depravity of man and 2. Personal responsibility?

God isn't electing man to go to hell. Man has elected man to go to hell. Man is thoroughly and completely sinful and is therefore deserving of nothing but hell. If we get anything other than what we deserve (i.e. HELL) then that is the most amazing act of grace that has ever been bestowed.

Man is fully responsible for his sin. Even in your own biased illustration, if you look at it as two people purposefully and willfully trying to drive right off the cliff - and completely deserving of falling of that cliff by any and every account, then if you saved either one of them from their deserved, chosen, fate - then that would be an extraordinary act of grace. It would not make you a monster for saving one and not the other. Neither were worthy to be saved, neither deserved to be saved, both chose to drive off the cliff and die.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

What I can't figure is this....

Why call oneself a Calvinist?

I find no scripture to back up the title. Acts tells us they were 'first called Christians at Antioch'. They weren't called Arminian, Calvinist, or any other name but Christian.

The word Christian denotes a follower and believer in Jesus Christ, the Son of the living God.

Paul did say follow me, as I follow Christ, but I see nowhere in scripture where he was telling anyone to take on his name, but rather Christ's.

 

[4His_glory]

Originally posted by standingfirminChrist:
What I can't figure is this....

Why call oneself a Calvinist?

I find no scripture to back up the title. Acts tells us they were 'first called Christians at Antioch'. They weren't called Arminian, Calvinist, or any other name but Christian.

The word Christian denotes a follower and believer in Jesus Christ, the Son of the living God.

Paul did say follow me, as I follow Christ, but I see nowhere in scripture where he was telling anyone to take on his name, but rather Christ's.

Why call ones self a Baptist for that matter, or a dispensationalism, or a pre-millenialist or a amillenialist, etc.?

Titles are not bad things. Just because a person is a Calvinist or and Arminian doesn't mean that they are a follower of a man. The titles denote how one understands a theolgogical perspective. There is no harm in that.

 

[4His_glory]

Furthermore it is a false notion that Calvinists are followers of John Calvin, becaues the majority of them are not, especially if they itendtify themself as Baptist.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

If they are not followers of John Calvin, why call themselves by his name?

 

[4His_glory]

I thought was explained. It descirbes a theological postion, just like Baptist, dispensationalist etc.

 

[johnp.]

Hello the vultures are gathering.

BUSTED!

In your dreams man.

Well, in all fairness, some Calvinists do teach double predestination. Amongst them are John Calvin himself.

HaHa! Thanks Ransom. "hyper-Calvinism." should read to some, John Hyper-Calvin?

If I saw two cars about to run off a cliff...

No webdog not at all but you pushed both cars over the edge and stopped one of them continuing in a downward sort of direction.

God isn't electing man to go to hell. Man has elected man to go to hell.

Hello jw. If that were true then why does God take the credit for it? For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all. Rom 11:32.

Do you have any sense of 1. The depravity of man and 2. Personal responsibility?

I am depraved as many would testify to I'm sure. Personal responsibility is why we die God in Sovereignty dictated my circumstances.

Man has elected man to go to hell.

You err. RO 5:12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned--
It wasn't me guv I wasn't there.
RO 5:15 But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man...

Hello standingfirminChrist.

Why call oneself a Calvinist?

To a non-Christian I introduce myself as a Christian. To a Christian I introduce myself as a Calvinist. To a Calvinist I introduce myself as a supralapsarian. To a supralapsarian I don't introduce myself at all cause I ain't found any.

I believe and follow Jesus and I use my distinction for others to know where I stand in that faith. It's a label and convienient.

Busted john.

 

[johnp.]

Rejecting those who are already damned because of their own sin is not the same as damning them, since they are alerady cursed as a result of their sin. (posted 10 January, 2006 13:20)

Not so 4His_glory: Romans 9:11 Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad--in order that God's purpose in election might stand: 12 not by works but by him who calls--she was told, "The older will serve the younger." 13 Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."


john.