Does Calvinism ever really answer the major objection?

[preacher4truth]

Frankly, I know God is Just and believe any view that points otherwise is one that is a gravely mistaken and dangerous view because such reasoning denies His Holy Character for the sake of holding to a particular theological system. To me to do such is to do it in pride of a system and to deny an all-important truth in the process.

You have to look beyond your nose, which has those Calvinistic glasses sitting on it, before you can see the logical errors in your reasoning.

Rather, frankly, any Scripture that dismantles your premise and exposes your theology as deficient is cast aside, along with any Biblical portrayal of Sovereign God that disagrees with your logic and reason. He must fit into your finite reason, or it cannot be true or be God, and if such be the case, that is, He doesn't fit into your reason, He is then called unfair. That's the truth of the matter.

 

[plain_n_simple]

"What is it about the Calvinistic dogma that believers hate so much?" "And does the scripture really ever warn us about such things?"

God gave the issues of life and death to man. God gave man dominion over the earth. God gave man free will. The devil comes to kill, steal, and destroy.
A Calvin follower cannot accept these basic few statements from God. They tear them apart and rebuild to say what they need. They will continually exchange the cart and horse to fit John Calvin's teaching. From Genesis to Revelation, they strain at a knat and swallow a camel to be correct in mens eyes at the cost of truth.
There are many scriptures that warn us to stay away from this evil man's doctrine. A Calvin follower is puffed up in the mind with head knowledge instead of humble Godly wisdom that comes from true revelation of the Holy Spirit. Look at Calvins life, he murdered in the name of justice. That is bad fruit from a bad tree. The doctrine looks sweet and logical, but it is the work of demons.
Any time you complicate simple truths from God and find no absolutes, you are following Lucifer. God is not the author of confusion. It is of no use to go around in circles debating doctrine, the fruit of John Calvins life is proof enough that the Calvin followers have ears but cannot hear, and eyes but cannot see. "Will you really die if you eat the fruit?", same spirit.

 

[The Archangel]

Yet that doesn't tell us what it means for God to foreordain (another word for "control" to some). Do you not define free will as men doing what they desire? And is that desire not determined by the man's nature? And who determines men's nature to be such that it cannot choose otherwise?

The compatibilist indeed defines free will as men doing what they desire. Yes, the compatibilist indeed defines desire as rooted in man's nature. But, you are seeing God as the determiner of men's nature, where the compatibilist does not.

Man's nature--as originally created by God--was determined by God. In His establishing that unfallen nature, God gave man the ability to choose to sin or the ability to choose not to sin. That is true freedom--a nature that could have chosen contrary to Satan's temptation. Since Adam and Eve freely chose to sin and, as a result, man's nature became fallen and unable not to sin.

You claim that God determined man's nature. Our current fallen state is not because of God's active determination. Rather, it is because of the natural consequences of Adam and Eve's sin and because we are their progeny.

There is a reason that Genesis 5 states that Adam begat children in his image.

So, you are presupposing that the present fallen condition is a result of God's actively determining that human nature will be "fallen" and desire sin. But, that isn't the case. Your presupposition is skewing your vision of other things.

How is that NOT God being in 'ultimate control' over the choices of men? That is the very 'objection' I'm addressing in the OP, the very thing you concede is mysterious. The very objection many Calvinists admit is difficult to accept. How do you know I don't understand your views when all I've attempted to claim about your view is that it is objectionable to many due to the fact that they appear to make God 'in control over' (sovereign/ordaining or whatever term you choose) choices that he holds men responsible for. An objection Calvinists typically welcome because they feel Romans 9 answers it directly???

You don't understand my view because you continually mis-state it and mis-represent it. This is evidenced even in your above statement when you say: "I've attempted to claim about your view is that it is objectionable to many due to the fact that they appear to make God 'in control over' (sovereign/ordaining or whatever term you choose) choices that he holds men responsible for."

Again, the distinction is that you want to say that God is in "ultimate control" of people and their actions. We want to say that God is in ultimate control of all circumstances. Our position upholds the exceptions of the Westminster Confession; your position ignores the exceptions.

Yet, instead of dealing with that issue, you accuse me of not understanding that which you continue to defend as truth. Clearly you don't want to discuss Romans 9's intent. You'd rather accuse me of not understanding what I've spent hours discussing in detail with you and others. Whatever makes you feel better...

The issue you define cannot be dealt with because it is a no-thing. The issue you are creating is based on a misunderstanding of what we believe--an honest misunderstanding to be sure, but a misunderstanding nonetheless.

I haven't "accused" you of misunderstanding. You've been quite good at demonstrating that misunderstanding of our position.

It almost isn't worth discussing things with you. You insist on your definition of what we believe. We say that 2+2=4; you insist that 2+2=5. You never accept what we say we believe without attempting to redefine what we have to say according to your own definitions. You do not accept our arguments at face value.

There are people here on this board who bristle violently at the suggestion that they are Pelagians or semi-Pelagians. At some level, I don't see how they can't be. Yet they explain what they believe and I take what they say at face value and do not label them as Pelagians or semi-Pelagians. I don't try to tell them what they believe. I may not understand how what they say they believe goes together, but I do not tell them what they believe.

The Archangel

 

[Rippon]

The devil comes to kill, steal, and destroy.
A Calvin follower cannot accept these basic few statements from God. They tear them apart and rebuild to say what they need. They will continually exchange the cart and horse to fit John Calvin's teaching. From Genesis to Revelation, they strain at a knat [sic]and swallow a camel to be correct in mens [sic]eyes at the cost of truth.
There are many scriptures that warn us to stay away from this evil man's doctrine. A Calvin follower is puffed up in the mind with head knowledge instead of humble Godly wisdom that comes from true revelation of the Holy Spirit. Look at Calvins [sic]life, he murdered in the name of justice. That is bad fruit from a bad tree. The doctrine looks sweet and logical, but it is the work of demons.
Any time you complicate simple truths from God and find no absolutes, you are following Lucifer. God is not the author of confusion. It is of no use to go around in circles debating doctrine, the fruit of John Calvins[sic] life is proof enough that the Calvin followers have ears but cannot hear, and eyes but cannot see. "Will you really die if you eat the fruit?", same spirit.

You certainly need to do more reading before you post such drivel.

 

[Rippon]

Calvinists fail to incorporate all biblical teaching into their limited 5 point theory.

I have said this dozens of times if not a score: Calvinism is much more comprehensive than the response to the Remonstrance. You need to read more widely.

 

[marke]

You rather describe the deficient non-cal theologies here.

Say what? Non-cal deficiencies? I don't believe Calvinists have fully grasped the heart and mind of God and their dogma is scripture-deficient in the whole. Take God's sadness in the days of Noah, for example, at the widespread rejection of God in that day. Did not God know that sin would cause this almost total leavening of the lump? Why, then, did He allow sin to come into the world, if not for the necessity of providing an avenue by which to test man's willingness to choose?

Gen. 6:6 says, "And it repented the Lord that He had made man on the earth, and it grieved Him at His heart." Why would a sovereign God repent and why would He grieve, if not for some sadness beyond His control? Some say there is nothing beyond His control, but that is wrong. God cannot lie, for example, so He cannot go back on His word. Impossible.

The key to what the word 'repent' means can be found in the word "grieved" in the same verse. God CANNOT make anyone get saved, and it grieves Him when they refuse to turn to Him for salvation. In Judges 2:18, we read, "...for it repented the Lord because of their groanings by reason of them that oppressed them and vexed them."

I believe Calvinists generally fail to understand that the Lord is touched by the feelings of our infirmities and suffers with us in our griefs. God's repentance is related to His sympathy towards those who are suffering because of sin, and yet God has allowed sin to enter so that He can have the perfect condition to allow men to chose life or death of their own volition. If it was just up to God, He would have never allowed sin into the world or even have allowed the non-elect to be born, exposing Himself to unnecessary grief over their sin and suffering.

 

[Iconoclast]

That is the "objection" that EVERYONE admits to feeling when first confronted with the teaching of Calvinism, as explained in the OP. Even Calvinists admit it is a tough pill to swallow. So, you are right, it doesn't appear fair. That is the premise of my OP. Now, follow along.

Given this universal objection to Calvinism's teaching what is the response? How do Calvinists answer this question? They quote Romans 9, just like I said in the OP, and just like you did in you later post. Now, we all should be on the same page.

Let's go over it again:
1. Calvinism seems unfair.
2. Calvinists know it seems unfair but accept it because they believe it is biblical.
3. They base this upon their interpretation of Romans 9

I never felt this way as you describe here...never. When i saw everything in life was planned and predestined that made me want to understand exactly how this can be..... Without knowing any of the terms it was obvious that the True and living God has to be over all things . It should not even be a question.
I have come to understand that some struggle with the truth of God. This is an emotionally based irrational and natural arguement....based on carnal reasoning and false philosophical thought.
Some have sat under false teachers for so long, that they cannot even recognise the truth anymore.
The imaginary objector that Paul addresses constantly is those who have lived and held a worldly secular view....which he quickly dispatches.
Some seem to not be content with what the Spirit had paul write,and try to twist and parse words and expressions ...to get it to fit into a man centered secular view, rather than the scriptural truth as it has been revealed.

 

[Benjamin]

I have come to understand that some struggle with the truth of God. This is an emotionally based irrational and natural arguement....based on carnal reasoning and false philosophical thought.
Some have sat under false teachers for so long, that they cannot even recognise the truth anymore.
The imaginary objector that Paul addresses constantly is those who have lived and held a worldly secular view....which he quickly dispatches.
Some seem to not be content with what the Spirit had paul write,and try to twist and parse words and expressions ...to get it to fit into a man centered secular view, rather than the scriptural truth as it has been revealed.

I pray God helps you with your struggles of the truth soon...

 

[Iconoclast]

And persons of your theological persuasion fail to incorporate a proper understanding of the word "foreknowledge."

In the text most often referenced, Romans 8, "loving reception" is not what is foreknown; people are foreknown.

Paul's usage of the word "foreknew" occurs in only two places, Romans 8 and Romans 11, and it means "chose."

The Archangel

Marke,

This is exactly where you and others miss it.For WHOM he did foreknow.....not for WHAT he did foreknow.

I might be persuaded to agree to the possibility of such an interpretation if I didn't know the character and nature of God is that he is not willing that anyone should die and go to hell, if only they would be willing to turn from their sin to seek His face.

This is also just not so.....God is more than willing that many perish justly for sins done in the body....mt7:21-24....

 

[plain_n_simple]

If following Calvin is an admitted hard pill to swallow, throw it out and have child like faith.

 

[quantumfaith]

You rather describe the deficient non-cal theologies here.

Here we go AGAIN. You seem to enjoy and take every opportunity to "torque" fellow believers, simply because they do not adhere to your views and understanding.

 

[Iconoclast]

I pray God helps you with your struggles of the truth soon...

Thank you for the prayer and concern Benjamin:thumbs:

I have many areas of truth that I do struggle with as I seek by the grace of God to mortify remaining sin, and pursue holiness. In return for your prayers..I will be willing to help remove some of the obstacles that are in your way.....to understand the grace of God as it has been revealed and understood by the historic confessing church....when the time comes that you really want answers.....and are not just set to resist:thumbs:

 

[Iconoclast]

Rather, frankly, any Scripture that dismantles your premise and exposes your theology as deficient is cast aside, along with any Biblical portrayal of Sovereign God that disagrees with your logic and reason. He must fit into your finite reason, or it cannot be true or be God, and if such be the case, that is, He doesn't fit into your reason, He is then called unfair. That's the truth of the matter.

I think you have hit the proverbial bullseye....:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

 

[Iconoclast]

Say what? Non-cal deficiencies? I don't believe Calvinists have fully grasped the heart and mind of God and their dogma is scripture-deficient in the whole. Take God's sadness in the days of Noah, for example, at the widespread rejection of God in that day. Did not God know that sin would cause this almost total leavening of the lump? Why, then, did He allow sin to come into the world, if not for the necessity of providing an avenue by which to test man's willingness to choose?

Gen. 6:6 says, "And it repented the Lord that He had made man on the earth, and it grieved Him at His heart." Why would a sovereign God repent and why would He grieve, if not for some sadness beyond His control? Some say there is nothing beyond His control, but that is wrong. God cannot lie, for example, so He cannot go back on His word. Impossible.

The key to what the word 'repent' means can be found in the word "grieved" in the same verse. God CANNOT make anyone get saved, and it grieves Him when they refuse to turn to Him for salvation. In Judges 2:18, we read, "...for it repented the Lord because of their groanings by reason of them that oppressed them and vexed them."

I believe Calvinists generally fail to understand that the Lord is touched by the feelings of our infirmities and suffers with us in our griefs. God's repentance is related to His sympathy towards those who are suffering because of sin, and yet God has allowed sin to enter so that He can have the perfect condition to allow men to chose life or death of their own volition. If it was just up to God, He would have never allowed sin into the world or even have allowed the non-elect to be born, exposing Himself to unnecessary grief over their sin and suffering.

Marke
the god you describe is not the biblical God. This post as written is so off ...I would ask you to re-read and edit it before anyone else sees it
This is horrendous

 

[OldRegular]

I have said this dozens of times if not a score: Calvinism is much more comprehensive than the response to the Remonstrance. You need to read more widely.

Rippon

I don't call myself a Calvinist because there are some things to which Calvin ascribed that I cannot. However, I am a firm believer in the Biblical Doctrine of Sovereign Grace. I arrived at that position well after God performed His work of Grace in my life. Certainly a major role in my conversion to the Doctrine of Grace was Bible study. Certainly a large part was simply observing and wondering why some people are saved and others not. Finally I must believe that the determinative factor was the work of the Holy Spirit in my life.

I say all the above actually as the prelude to my comment on your post. It seems to me that many people, particularly Arminians, think that the Doctrine of Grace is totally defined by the acronym TULIP from the response to the Remonstrance. If I understand you correctly you are saying there is much more to Calvinism, I would say the Doctrines of Grace, than TULIP. To that I whole heartedly agree.

 

[Benjamin]

Thank you for the prayer and concern Benjamin:thumbs:

In return for your prayers..I will be willing to help remove some of the obstacles that are in your way.....

That's okay, I don't give prayers in the hope someone will pay me back, they're given in spirit of grace. I know you struggle with the truth of that concept, but I prefer to resist the proud and submit myself to God rather than the distorted philosophies of men, see I think it wise to resist the doctrines of the world that are emnity with God and the devil will flee from me. You should try that sometime.

 

[Iconoclast]

.

That's okay, I don't give prayers in the hope someone will pay me back, they're given in spirit of grace.

very humble of you

I know you struggle with the truth of that concept,

not at all Benjamin

but I prefer to resist the proud and submit myself to God rather than the distorted philosophies of men

Looks to me like you enjoy worldly philosophy.....from what i can see in your posts:thumbsup:

, see I think it wise to resist the doctrines of the world that are emnity with God and the devil will flee from me.

I did not know you were tormented by satan...interesting

You should try that sometime

If I took that advise I could no longer read some of the posts on the BB...
worldly philosophy,doctrines of the world at emnity with God,
I notice here that all of you who are on the anti-calvinist jihad...are the ones who post that you could not worship the God described by calvinism, who describe God in very degrading terms, rather than see Him as Isaiah did in chapter 6.....
You should try that sometime my friend:thumbs:

Like I said earlier ..if the time comes when you would like help, removing some obstacles to the truth...I will help you...but as long as you hold what you hold to, and consider calvinists as enemies......you will not progress at all. nice interacting with you as always benjamin.

 

[marke]

Marke
the god you describe is not the biblical God. This post as written is so off ...I would ask you to re-read and edit it before anyone else sees it
This is horrendous

Since I obviously believe what I posted or I would not have posted it, you must surely realize that I don't share your disagreements. You may be able to help me see the light, however, if you were to offer your insight as to what you find wrong with what I said and why.

 

[Aaron]

then why does he still blame us, for who resists his will?"

They actually believe that Paul is addressing this objection concerning responsiblity in salvation, but is Paul really answering this objection? Is Paul really intending to say that God holds people responsible for their choices even though He ultimately controls them?

You see? This is the pivotal question. Go ahead with your proofs, and then I will topple them with one little word. (Actually, Paul already did that, so it makes it rather easy.)

It will be shown that one who sins is not free.

 

[Iconoclast]

Marke
I see that you are new to the BB....welcome. I will try to show you what I reacted to in your post......maybe you have been misinformed about some things...we can discuss in more detail in times to come....but lets see what we have here.

Originally Posted by marke
Say what? Non-cal deficiencies? I don't believe Calvinists have fully grasped the heart and mind of God and their dogma is scripture-deficient in the whole.

I don't believe Calvinists have fully grasped the heart and mind of God and their dogma is scripture-deficient in the whole

here is a link for you...tell me how you think these men are scripture -deficient?
http://www.vor.org/truth/1689/1689bc00.html

Take God's sadness in the days of Noah, for example, at the widespread rejection of God in that day. Did not God know that sin would cause this almost total leavening of the lump? Why, then, did He allow sin to come into the world, if not for the necessity of providing an avenue by which to test man's willingness to choose?

You have several wrong presuppositions here. God does not have to test men to learn or see what man will do ever.
23Now when he was in Jerusalem at the passover, in the feast day, many believed in his name, when they saw the miracles which he did.

24But Jesus did not commit himself unto them, because he knew all men,

25And needed not that any should testify of man: for he knew what was in man.

Gen. 6:6 says, "And it repented the Lord that He had made man on the earth, and it grieved Him at His heart." Why would a sovereign God repent and why would He grieve, if not for some sadness beyond His control? Some say there is nothing beyond His control, but that is wrong.

No...you are wrong in your thinking about this verse...the scripture teaches that God is in control of whatsoever comes to pass.....

http://www.vor.org/truth/1689/1689bc03.html

God cannot lie, for example, so He cannot go back on His word. Impossible.

should not be confused as you are doing. yes he cannot lie or change, because of His Holy and perfect nature...He never needs to change, or lie......But He is never needing to learn or change as he alone is perfect .

The key to what the word 'repent' means can be found in the word "grieved" in the same verse.

No.... God has Moses write it in a way we can understand. He does not repent as a man would....

[QUOTEGod CANNOT make anyone get saved,]

This limiting of what God can do is a complete falsehood...Anyone who is ever saved, is saved because God does save sinners.
Marke.....do you believe God can save a retarded person, or a baby who dies in the womb??? or do you say God cannot???? Do you see what i am getting at? Why would you say that God cannot?

. God CANNOT make anyone get saved, and it grieves Him when they refuse to turn to Him for salvation.

God has purposed to save a multitude of sinners. He takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked. he wept over Jerusalem.....nevertheless at the white throne they will be cast away.

I believe Calvinists generally fail to understand that the Lord is touched by the feelings of our infirmities and suffers with us in our griefs.

Calvinists understand that this verse is speaking of our great high priest who intercedes for the elect....not the world of the ungodly....

God's repentance is related to His sympathy towards those who are suffering because of sin, and yet God has allowed sin to enter so that He can have the perfect condition to allow men to chose life or death of their own volition

This idea you express completely misses and denies the covenant working of God before time,and then in time....your idea puts man and mans volition in the place of God ..who in this scheme is only a spectator...hoping that somehow man will come through and choose God.

If it was just up to God, He would have never allowed sin into the world or even have allowed the non-elect to be born, exposing Himself to unnecessary grief over their sin and suffering

marke...what do you mean by this!
if it were just up to God who do you think it is up to....satan???man??

exposing himself to unneccesary grief???? He is not a victim...he is God of the whole universe.