Freewill bites the dust

Hello mnw.

I don't know which question I missed. I had a quick look this morning and couldn't find it, ask me again man.

Feed my sheep Jesus told Peter. Go and make disciples is not only a command but it is a compulsion with me.

I'm here. My mission ground. Beats door to door I can tell you that.

john.

 

Johnp,

What do I think? I think (no, I know) we disagree. I don't think the issue between us is over reprobation or double predestination. I know of Calvinists who hold to double predestination who do not take it as far as you do and believe that God is active in making them evil and sinners. In fact, can you establish that Calvin himself believed such? Can you establish that any of the giants of Calvinism (Spurgeon, Edwards) believed that God is active in making them sinners? In fact, I believe Edwards wrote a little tome called "Freedom of the Will" that obliterates your false theology.

 

Hi Andy;

I've noticed that Calvinism it self has a problem with definitions. It seems there is English and then there is the separate Calvinist English. Which while similar, the redefinitions of the same words confuses the original language.
You take "foreknowledge" for instance, we no longer have a need for the words appointed or predestined. Foreknowledge covers them both. Regeneration doesn't mean saved any longer but, means an opening of the mind. Reprobation is no longer rejected but is just total depravity. Total depravity isn't total So the word total is no longer the complete amount. Very confusing before long good will be bad and bad will be good. Most of all it's no wonder there are so many Calvinist concerned about communication and understanding the gospel.
MB

 

Romans 1:20-32 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

 

No one said theology was easy. No matter what interpretive grid you are working under (Calvinist or non-Cal), definition of terms is crucial. I am an amatuer at this (never been to Seminary or Bible College), so I am sure you are bound to find sloppiness in some of my wording.

 

Hi Andy;

I'm sloppy myself no criticism intended but, I try to stick to how the word is defined in the dictionary and not according to theolgy. Theology is simple even to the most non-educated. The Bible wasn't written for the scholars but, for every day people just like you and me. The pharisee's were scholars and just like many scholars try to make it seem you need there interpretation to understand, which is absolute nonsense. Not that I disrespect those with an education because I really do respect education and I'm all for it. It's just that I don't need them to tell me what to believe. I believe in relying on Christ for everything, including the understanding of theology.
MB

 

I don't need teachers to tell me what to believe, either. But God does give the Church gifted teachers to build up the Body of Christ.

As we all do.

So I'm not sure who or what you are debating here?

 

The problem is that you are already once removed from the original when you read the Bible in English. You can't always look up the word in an English dictionary and get the meaning intended in the Greek. The word "foreknowledge" is one of many examples of how the original meaning is obscured by the English translation. This isn't a matter of speaking in "theology" but understanding the problems that arise due to the difficulty of translating Greek to English.

John 21:15-17 is a classic example. The part "Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, "Do you love me?" makes no sense in English, but it makes perfect sense in the Greek. You can't solve a problem like this by looking up the word "love" in an English dictionary.

 

I agree that the term "Hyper-Calvinist" is a loaded term just like your use of "authoritarian despots," "bigots" and "revialists". So that is why we should be careful to define what we mean when we use loaded terms like that. I thought I was pretty clear in what I meant by "Hyper-C", which was taking an extreme position of a Calvinistic doctrine, and by "extreme" I mean one that is not held by the vast majority of Biblical Calvinists. You can't deny that what Johnp believes is outside the orthodox Calvinist position. Now that doesn't make him wrong, per se, but it also means that we cannot fairly call him a Calvinist in the everyday use of the term, because his views do not represent historic mainstream Calvinism. I happen to think his view on this issue (i.e., that God actively makes men sinners) is deplorable false doctrine, so I do not apologize for applying to him the stigmatized label of "Hyper-Calvinist". However, I would also like to clarify that my use of that label towards Johnp is not intended to question his salvation or integrity.

 

Why not just call some of us supralapsarians? It may not be 100% accurate, but that way nobody will be offended and only a small number of people will have any idea of what you're talking about.

 

Here are the questions I posed earlier:

Does the Calvinist's God fear rejection? Is that why He does not allow choice?

Does He have an inferiority complex and so demands to be loved rather than allows His creation to choose to love Him?

This is the prime question for me: Would His Sovereignty be lessened if He gave His creation choice? If so, how?

Tell that to a church near me which is made up almost entirely of people who were reached by door-to-door ministry.

It is not the only method, but it is one.

 

But would that be fair to all supras? Do all supras believe that God actively makes men sinners? I don't think so. Supra vs. Infra has more to do with the ordering of decrees, so I don't think these are the right categories in dealing with the question at hand.

 

Straw man. Doesn't deserve a response.

It depends upon what you mean by giving His creation choice. There are primary causes, secondary causes, etc. If God gave man the ability to make a choice that overrides His will, then yes, it would lessen His sovereignty. It would also contradict the Bible.

 

I was just trying to lighten up the exchange.

 

mnw,

First off, your "question" isn't really a question - it is rhetorical, as you already have your mind made up. But if we are going to deal with this, you are going to have to define "choice". I'm sure your definition and mine will differ as to the nature of choice. I believe men are given a choice, and because of their sinfulness they will always choose hell unless God intervenes. Easy enough?

 

Thanks for the non-answer.

Strawman? Is there no answer to be given? Do you not know the answer? These are questions people raise and to avoid them or ignore them is not satisfactory.

Over ruling God's will? Does God's will that none should perish but all should come to repentance hold a problem then?

Sorry Andy, you posted as I was typing. It isn't rhetorical. I genuinely want to get a clearer idea of the Calvinist's view of God.

If there is no answer that is fine. I believe some areas do not have an answer. But so far the questions have been ignored and insulted. Come on guys, what is it?

 

You're welcome. As I said, it doesn't deserve an answer.

It sure does hold a problem. Either man is able to override God's will, or you're misinterpreting the verse.

 

mnw,

I did give you an answer. All men are given a choice, and they will always choose hell unless God intervenes. What part of the answer do you not understand?