Fruits of Calvanism

Well Bill that was what our arguement was about in part. It doesn't seem that you really believe or at least practice this?

 

We also know that John says:

In light of these two passages I pose a question: did God create sin? Did God create evil? Take pause before you answer too quickly. If you answer, "Yes. God did create evil and sin." then can it be said that God is not holy? Consequently, if God did not create evil and sin does that call into question God's omnipotence? How can something be created (evil or good) unless God created it?

I'm just posing the question. </font>[/QUOTE]Here's one way to look at it. We know that God created light, but did God create darkness? No, darkness is not a "thing" that was created, it is simply a word that we use to describe the lack of light. Perhaps in a similar way sin is a lack or a want of conformity to the will of God. If so, then it is improper to say that God 'created' sin, just as no one would say that God created darkness.

 

God created Adam with the ability to sin, but He did not create sin.

God created Satan to sin, but He did not create sin.

When Adam sinned by choice, he became fully responsible for sin, not God. And so sin has been passed upon all, and all bear the responsibility for it.

Sin came into the world in accordance with God's PLAN, but not by his ACT.

 

God didn't create Satan "TO" sin, like Adam, he too was given a "Free choice".

Eze 28:15 Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.

God doesn't create or tempt Angel/Man to/with sin,

Sin is the product of a "Free will" independent of God's will

And if you examine Calvins doctrine in the "light" of this,

Then God will become responsible for all righteousness and the sin of all unrighteousness,

Even the sin of Adam/Eve.

God's will can't elect one "HOLY" except it also elect the opposite unholy by "default",

therefore sin is the product of "God's will", not the will of Angel/Man.

The free will of man independent of God's will is taught throughout the scriptures.

God's will is that none perish, but they do.

God's will all come to repentance, but they don't.

God's will all serve him, but they don't.

God's will whole world be saved, but it isn't.

God's will is for "NO SIN", to exist, but it does.

De 11:26 Behold, I set before you this day a blessing and a curse;

27 A blessing, "IF" ye obey the commandments of the LORD your God, which I command you this day:

28 And a curse, "IF" ye will not obey the commandments of the LORD your God,

Ro 6:16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?

How can anyone read the scriptures and believe that the "Sovereign will" of God is responsible for even "ONE SIN/DEATH" of a man, when Jesus died for the sins of the whole world to fulfill God's will that none perish????

I really think most Calvinist don't understand the scripture sufficiently to recognize the error of Calvin's doctrine.

 

Well Bill that was what our arguement was about in part. It doesn't seem that you really believe or at least practice this? </font>[/QUOTE]Tim, I didn't even reply to you. Can't we just drop it? At least put some distance behind our previous interchanges. Come on man...can't both of us just let it go?

 

Me4Him, most Calvinist's I know aren't concerned about Calvin's doctrine beyond soteriology (unless they are Presbyterian and follow the W.C.F.). Most of us are not followers of Calvin. The Calvinism label is one that has been put on us, not one we have sought. In actuality Calvinist's (at least the ones I keep company with) believe in the doctrines of sovereign grace. These can be traced back to Augustine, and (without seeming arrogant) throughout the bible. In the end that is where our doctrine comes from, the scriptures. The only relevance Calvin has is to the extent that his teachings agree with scripture. When/if he departs from scriptural teaching our agreement with him ends.

 

I think the situation is exactly the reverse.

First of all, it's not Calvin's doctrine. He gets the "credit" by having his name attached to a doctrine, but he didn't create the doctrine. The doctrine comes straight from the Bible.

Calvin wasn't even the first person to elaborate on the doctrine at length. Luther stated the same things very eloquently in Bondage of the Will, and all of his arguments were based entirely on the Bible.

In fact, having read A.W. Pink, Sproul, Spurgeon, etc., I have yet to read a single work on the doctrine of election that wasn't filled with Biblical proof texts. More important, the proof texts are respected as is, taken at face value, nothing added, nothing speculated.

In sharp contrast, most everything I've read on free will has been based on opinion, tiny snippets of the Bible taken out of context, blanket theological statements based on their opinion of the character of God such as "a righteous God wouldn't do such-and-such", and logical arguments such as "God wouldn't command people to choose if He didn't give them the ability to do so".

 

Me4Him, most Calvinist's I know aren't concerned about Calvin's doctrine beyond soteriology (unless they are Presbyterian and follow the W.C.F.). Most of us are not followers of Calvin. The Calvinism label is one that has been put on us, not one we have sought. In actuality Calvinist's (at least the ones I keep company with) believe in the doctrines of sovereign grace. These can be traced back to Augustine, and (without seeming arrogant) throughout the bible. In the end that is where our doctrine comes from, the scriptures. The only relevance Calvin has is to the extent that his teachings agree with scripture. When/if he departs from scriptural teaching our agreement with him ends. </font>[/QUOTE]I've been associated with a Presbyterian Group for the last 20 years or so through VBS, and I'm personal friends with many of their Pastors/leaders/Directors.


Some within the ranks are "hard core" Calvinist, but over the years I've noticed many of the leaders/directors have "soften" their stand on Calvinism, while we different on this doctrine, it doesn't take precedence over seeing kids saved.

God only reveals scripture in the "time/season" of it's application, and today we know more about the scriptures than any generation before us, and as this knowledge increases many previously held doctrines are going to fall, At the present, the reasons for a pre trib rapture are becoming clearer, so mid trib, post trib are going to fall.

Since the 1950's many minds/doctrine have changed as the book of revelations has been revealed, and I think it's going to continue right on through the Trib until Jesus steps out on the clouds.

But, Thank God, we're not saved according to our knowledge/intelligences, if that were the case, I wouldn't have a "prayer".

Personally, I think calvin would be mad if he knew the extremes to which his doctrine has been taken.

 

2Pe 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that ALL should come to repentance.

Mt 7: and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:

Would you care to explain how God's sovereign will is that not any perish, yet "many" do???

IF God's will is the "Sovereign Will", then God contradict himself.

You do understand "sovereign", don't ya???

 

That's an excellent illustration, IMO.

 

2Pe 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that ALL should come to repentance.

Mt 7: and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:

Would you care to explain how God's sovereign will is that not any perish, yet "many" do???

IF God's will is the "Sovereign Will", then God contradict himself.

You do understand "sovereign", don't ya??? </font>[/QUOTE]This one is easy, thanks!

As I explained in another thread, the context of 2 Peter 3:9 is determined by his audience, who he names as the elect. This is further specified when he says to-usward (toward US, the elect). So when you need to know to whom "any" and "all" refer, you take that from the obvious context.

This is also reflected in John, when Jesus says, "All the Father gives me WILL come to me" -- not "MAY come to me IF THEY DECIDE" but "WILL come to me". It is a done deal. Not a single one of God's elect will be lost. Every one of the elect will be saved. And God will not allow the end of the world to occur until He has finished bringing in every one of the elect. God's sovereign will is accomplished.

 

Well Bill that was what our arguement was about in part. It doesn't seem that you really believe or at least practice this? </font>[/QUOTE]Tim, I didn't even reply to you. Can't we just drop it? At least put some distance behind our previous interchanges. Come on man...can't both of us just let it go? </font>[/QUOTE]Not a problem Bill. Just wanted to pt out your inconsistancy. I'am done.

 

Well Bill that was what our arguement was about in part. It doesn't seem that you really believe or at least practice this? </font>[/QUOTE]Tim, I didn't even reply to you. Can't we just drop it? At least put some distance behind our previous interchanges. Come on man...can't both of us just let it go? </font>[/QUOTE]Not a problem Bill. Just wanted to pt out your inconsistancy. I'am done. </font>[/QUOTE]And you can't even be gracious and just drop it? No. You have to get a jab in with the "inconsistency" comment. I'll let you have that comment and accept it as true just to be done with our conversation.

 

Well Bill that was what our arguement was about in part. It doesn't seem that you really believe or at least practice this? </font>[/QUOTE]Tim, I didn't even reply to you. Can't we just drop it? At least put some distance behind our previous interchanges. Come on man...can't both of us just let it go? </font>[/QUOTE]Not a problem Bill. Just wanted to pt out your inconsistancy. I'am done. </font>[/QUOTE]And you can't even be gracious and just drop it? No. You have to get a jab in with the "inconsistency" comment. I'll let you have that comment and accept it as true just to be done with our conversation. </font>[/QUOTE]

Thank you Bill, when I am right I'm right. It doesn't happen often but when it does don't try and take it from me.

 

That's an excellent illustration, IMO. </font>[/QUOTE]I believe that God himself states that in fact He did create darkness!!!!!!!

Isa 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

But I also know that some will have a reason to say that this verse doesn't mean what it says.....

 

Shouldn't you guys start a thread on God and His Relationship To Evil ? The original theme of this thread was different .

 

That's an excellent illustration, IMO. </font>[/QUOTE]I believe that God himself states that in fact He did create darkness!!!!!!!

Isa 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

But I also know that some will have a reason to say that this verse doesn't mean what it says..... </font>[/QUOTE]I had a feelin they were gonna get snagged on that! Shows they're human after all.

 

That's an excellent illustration, IMO. </font>[/QUOTE]I believe that God himself states that in fact He did create darkness!!!!!!!

Isa 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

But I also know that some will have a reason to say that this verse doesn't mean what it says..... </font>[/QUOTE]Satan brought "iniquity" into the world, but where does scripture say that iniquity originate, in Satan or God??

As I said, when a choice is given, "opposites must exist" by default, or there can't be a "Choice" between the two opposites.

"Free will" is the opposite of "Sovereign will" which doesn't allow an opposite or "choice".

God created the "light" but by giving Adam/Eve a choice, "darkness" was necessarily created by default as the opposite, making a choice possible.

It's not that God "created" the darkness/iniquity, but that he allowed it to exist since nothing can except he allows it.

Satan presented the darkness/iniquity to man, as the opposite of God's light/righteousness, God wasn't the one who "tempted Adam/Eve".

 

With all this debate over Calvanism and *Arminism

*Note the above maybe spelled wrong


I take it both side believe

Ephesians 2:8-10
John 3:16-18

All this fuss over nothing. IMHO

If you believe in Jesus you go to Heaven if not then you go to Hell..Its that simple!