Hyper-Calvinism

[percho]

It is written;

because of this, even as through one man the sin did enter into the world, and through the sin the death; and thus to all men the death did pass through, for that all did sin; Romans 5:12 YLT

It is also written:

he who is doing the sin, of the devil he is, because from the beginning the devil doth sin; for this was the Son of God manifested, that he may break up the works of the devil; 1 John 3:8 YLT

@Van and all From whence was sin authored?

When did the man author, "the," sin into the world [Kosmos] System, Configuration ?
When did the devil, sin?

Why did I quote from the YLT?

I have asked many times over the years of posting, I know no Greek and have asked several times, without it being answered fully; Does the in the Greek mean the? The what?

Does 1 John 3:8 in the Greek imply the sin of who does the sin come from the one who first did sin?

Did GOD create the man subject to, the sin and the death, for the purpose of destroying the one who did sin before the foundation of the world through the Son of Man the Son of God?

Resulting in Eph 1:10 YLT in regard to the dispensation of the fulness of the times, to bring into one the whole in the Christ, both the things in the heavens, and the things upon the earth -- in him; -----------??????????????????????

Was it necessary for the first man to do, the sin, and bring, the death, into the newly laid down configuration, system, world to bring about the plan?

 

[percho]

for to vanity was the creation made subject -- not of its will, but because of Him who did subject it -- in hope, Rom 8:20
for the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world, by the things made being understood, are plainly seen, both His eternal power and Godhead -- to their being inexcusable; Rom 1:20 YLT

The creation of the configuration, the system, the world, a thing of order that was subject to vanity by God? Why? For something even greater, something without, the sin and the death?

How?

Did God know before the foundation of the world know what he was going to do and how he was going to do, it? Would it require sin and death?

Is God fixing something that went wrong or is everything going as planed before the foundation of the world?

Vanity of vanities, said the Preacher, Vanity of vanities: the whole is vanity. Ecc 1:2 ---Since when ? The sin of Adam of since the foundation of the world?

 

[Silverhair]

Sorry but that won't answer the question for those of you who are claiming some kind of equal opportunity for everyone. One guy gets a vision, and a voice and someone else gets a portion of scripture? That is no more "fair" than God doing the choosing.

Why do you put yourself in the position of deciding what will and what will not move someone to trust in God. We can not choose for another what will cause them to do what they do.
Also why do you keep falling back to the idea of "fair"? If God say man is responsible for knowing Him then it would seem obvious that He has provided the means for them to do so. If He has then He would be unjust would He not.

True foreknowledge is related closely to predetermination, when speaking of God.

God foreknows what a man will freely do but if the man chose to freely do otherwise then that would be the action that God foreknew. God's foreknowledge did not predetermine what the man would do.

The whole reason for the Calvinistic view of free will is that they honestly studied scripture and along with personal experience and history have come up with a rather low view of our free will.

And there in is the problem. They have taken the view that man cannot make any good choices even though God indicates that man can do just that and actually expects them to do so.

I don't know what else you could demand they do.

Maybe they should just trust what the bible says rather than their go to calvinist teacher.

What I have found over the years is that calvinists are more concerned with defending their calvinism than the word of God.

 

[DaveXR650]

Why do you put yourself in the position of deciding what will and what will not move someone to trust in God. We can not choose for another what will cause them to do what they do.

Because we will always do what we are most inclined to do. And scripture has a lot of verses that talk about how we are inclined. Scripture also talks a lot about what man in general and all men individually do. And it doesn't paint a good picture.

Also why do you keep falling back to the idea of "fair"?

Because that is the argument always used when objecting to predestination, election, or God acting sovereignly.

God foreknows what a man will freely do but if the man chose to freely do otherwise then that would be the action that God foreknew. God's foreknowledge did not predetermine what the man would do.

You are not thinking this through. First you say a man has to be able to change his mind to be free. The problem is that once something is announced to happen in a future time - should it not happen because the man changed his mind then the one who announced it would happen will be wrong. That's why you and I, even if our IQ was 1000, cannot predict future accurately. When God does so, although he has foreknowledge, the reason he can have certain foreknowledge is that he ordains and decrees what the future will be. That is reflected in the confessions.

And there in is the problem. They have taken the view that man cannot make any good choices even though God indicates that man can do just that and actually expects them to do so.

That's almost right but what even a lot of Calvinists overlook is that "cannot" means what it says, in that it's universally true, but we cannot because we will not. If someone infallibly and always chooses wrong they can still be blamed because the record of their behavior does not prove the cause of the inability. If God were to say that he won't save you if you can't jump over the church building you have a right to complain. If God says he won't save you because you can't go one day without voluntarily sinning then that's on you, even if it in a sense is an "inability".

Our prisons are full of people who, if insulted, can't keep from busting someone's chops. Or if they see a nice looking woman they "cannot" refrain from acting on their lusts. We still blame them for their "inability". You are correct in that if you read Calvinist theologians, they all say that given an understanding of God's law men should be able to do right, but our track record speaks for itself. And the theology addresses that.

What I have found over the years is that calvinists are more concerned with defending their calvinism than the word of God.

Some are. But the fact is the word of God says that whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved, and, without holiness, no one will see the Lord. The word says man has a free will, and, the heart of the king is in the hand of the Lord. You can get by if you obey the imperatives, as they are written, no question about it. But some want to understand the word and so you have theology.

 

[Van]

"Exhaustive determinism" is tough to explain isn't it. If the Bible says in a certain battle a man draws a bow and shoots an arrow "on a venture" I admit that's pretty random. It happened in every battle in history where bows were used I'm sure. That in one particular battle it resulted in the death of a king according to prophesy kinda changes the picture. I don't buy it either that every random molecule is acting under God's active management - but every molecule's movement is under his sovereignty. Even Sproul, who made the first statement, also said God either causes or allows all that happens.

We know God determined times where many gentiles would be open to the gospel and Israel would tend to hardening and rejection. Yet, there is always the same appeal to all to come by faith with no suggestion that an individual Jew can't come to Christ. Why is the concept of both God's sovereignty and man's free will so objectionable to some of you guys? You do have to keep two truths in mind at one time and I have difficulty with that too.

Do storms happen by chance? From our standpoint, yes. What about shipwreaks and loss of life and property? Yes again. When Paul's ship was wreaked and he basically took over and said no loss of life would occur if they followed his instructions - was that random? Does a Calvinist have to say that all shipwreaks have God directly intervening exactly as he did in the ship Paul was in or else Calvinism isn't true? Gimme a break. If you would spend half as much time looking at what the actual confessions and theology say, rather than always trying to come up with a specific scenario and then going "what about this" you would be far better off. Better yet, read the Bible through, fairly quickly, and you will get an overall sense of God being completely in control and sovereign and yet desiring us to freely love and follow him. You will find God determining what he wills ultimately, and you find men defying him to his face, obeying him willingly, and strange as it seems, even negotiating with God concerning future obedience and consequences. I am not a committed Calvinist, but I find a lot of merit in the theology - and I don't find where they deny the basics of what I just said.

Once again you address views of your own manufacture.

1) Yes, my view, derived from scripture study, is that God either causes or allows whatsoever comes to pass. Did you state that is not true? Nope

2) We agree, God brings about whatever He chooses to bring about. We disagree that God has chosen to allow humans to believe in Him fully or not. I say that is what God allows, and again, you seem to stand mute.

3) There is not much of merit in the theology of Calvinism as it is unbiblical.

4) Did I say storms happen by chance? Nope. What did I say? Scripture says "things"happen by chance. Did you state that is not true? Nope

5) "Yet, there is always the same appeal to all to come by faith with no suggestion that an individual Jew can't come to Christ." This is a false statement. Romans 9:18. Romans 11:17

 

[Van]

@Van and all From whence was sin authored?
SNIP
When did the man author, "the," sin into the world [Kosmos] System, Configuration ?
When did the devil, sin?
SNIP
Was it necessary for the first man to do, the sin, and bring, the death, into the newly laid down configuration, system, world to bring about the plan?

Once again, I am baffled as to what you want an opinion on!
If God is not the author of sin, then who is the author of sin? To answer this you need to know what it means to "author" sin.

In your YLT, you can find "author" in two verses, Hebrews 2:10 and Hebrews 12:2. The Greek word translated as author is "archēgos" G747. It means lead first, or the first to bring something. Thus origin or through which something originally came. That would make Adam (man) the author of sin. or at least the sin by which all humanity was cursed.

So it boils down to whether God directly or indirectly, through Satan, caused Adam to sin in order for God to be the author of sin in humanity.
And of course, God would have to "allow" Adam to sin, and not "cause" Adam to sin in order for God not to be the author of sin.

Since the "Exhaustive Determinist" view is unbiblical, and God does allow humans to choose to sin or not, God is not the author of sin.

Lastly you refer to "the plan?" Again I assume you are referring to God's redemption plan, to choose a people for His own possession. I do not know if it was "necessary" only that it was the way God chose to bring about His plan.

 

[Van]

Bible NEVER claims God sovereignty means he directly determined all things, its that He always is in control over all that has happen, but human still have "free will" accountability

LOL, now we get the undefined "free will accountability" On and on folks, the false doctrines of Calvinism are defended by change of subject to red herring posts.

Hopefully, one day the revolution of common sense will infect those deluded by false doctrine. Time will tell.

 

[DaveXR650]

1) Yes, my view, derived from scripture study, is that God either causes or allows whatsoever comes to pass. Did you state that is not true? Nope

This is Calvinism. And you say it is your view.

3) There is not much of merit in the theology of Calvinism as it is unbiblical.

Even if it states something you agree with????????????????

4) Did I say storms happen by chance? Nope. What did I say? Scripture says "things"happen by chance. Did you state that is not true? Nope

I am allowed to use an example without a. saying that you also used the same example, and b. you missed the whole point, that being that many things do happen by chance at least from our point of view - but not all things.

5) "Yet, there is always the same appeal to all to come by faith with no suggestion that an individual Jew can't come to Christ." This is a false statement. Romans 9:18. Romans 11:17

You are misreading Romans. Romans 9:32 clearly states that the problem with the Jews was that they did not seek righteousness by faith. Romans 11:23 states that if they would not continue in unbelief they would be grafted in again. God's sovereignty is a fact, yet man's will is not violated. Oh wait, that's exactly what the great confessions state, isn't it.

 

[Van]

This is Calvinism. And you say it is your view.

Even if it states something you agree with????????????????

I am allowed to use an example without a. saying that you also used the same example, and b. you missed the whole point, that being that many things do happen by chance at least from our point of view - but not all things.

You are misreading Romans. Romans 9:32 clearly states that the problem with the Jews was that they did not seek righteousness by faith. Romans 11:23 states that if they would not continue in unbelief they would be grafted in again. God's sovereignty is a fact, yet man's will is not violated. Oh wait, that's exactly what the great confessions state, isn't it.

1) No Calvinism claims God predestines whatsoever comes to pass, yet in a way that does not make God the author of sin.
2) I do not agree with Exhaustive Determinism.
3) No one said "all things"happen by chance.
4) You continue to refer to "our point of view" as if scripture (God's point of view) did not say things happen by chance.
5) Your statement denying God hardens those of His choosing was and is false.
6) I did not address Romans 9:32. Yet you say I am misreading Romans. Lightweights claim they are mind readers, putting their own thoughts and words in the mouths of those defending biblical truth.

 

[DaveXR650]

1) No Calvinism claims God predestines whatsoever comes to pass, yet in a way that does not make God the author of sin.

They say that because they believe that "God either causes or allows whatever come to pass". The "or allows" gives room for the claim that God was allowing man to act according to his free will. Hyper-Calvinism does indeed say God causes everything and thus is the author of sin.

3) No one said "all things"happen by chance.

So. I didn't either.

4) You continue to refer to "our point of view" as if scripture (God's point of view) did not say things happen by chance.

What I am saying is that in cases not referred to in scripture we have no way of knowing whether "chance" is a good explanation or not. God knows whenever a sparrow falls but yet they often fall. If God doesn't tell us it was part of a prophesy then we don't know to what extent chance was involved, or not. What difference does it make?

5) Your statement denying God hardens those of His choosing was and is false.

Whole books have been written about God hardening hearts. Theologians are all over the place on this. I personally do not believe that God hardens any man's heart who has not already shown willful disobedience to the known will of God. Numerous scriptures link man hardening his own heart first, and numerous scriptures describe God enduring such behavior before acting himself. I do not believe that given the mass of mankind, God is preemptively actively causing the hardening of men's hearts. Calvinist theologians tend to agree with me. God does not in any way push men or cause men to pursue evil. Calvinism is based on an assumption that the mere withdrawal of God from our lives is enough to lead to a degeneration and move towards evil - because of our own tendency to do so.

6) I did not address Romans 9:32. Yet you say I am misreading Romans. Lightweights claim they are mind readers, putting their own thoughts and words in the mouths of those defending biblical truth.

No you didn't. And, when I bring it up you choose to insult rather than address it once you are given the chance. So if I admit I am a lightweight then now will you address it? And don't forget Romans 11:23.

 

[Nolan Stengel]

Since the "Exhaustive Determinist" view is unbiblical, and God does allow humans to choose to sin or not, God is not the author of sin.

Many Calvinists will say that because God foreknew that Adam would sin then that must mean that He caused Adam to sin. Why? Because Adam can’t thwart God’s knowledge of future events.

There are also other scriptures that shows God responding to human action and even sometimes not getting the results He expected. They are dismissed as figures of speech, in which case, why I can’t I apply that same principle to any other part of scripture if it’s all arbitrary?

 

[Silverhair]

Because we will always do what we are most inclined to do. And scripture has a lot of verses that talk about how we are inclined. Scripture also talks a lot about what man in general and all men individually do. And it doesn't paint a good picture.

That is a rather obvious observation. When one hears the gospel message one is either inclined to believe it or to reject it. Thus their individual response to the message.

Yes the bible shows us that man tends to, is inclined to, reject God but to say that man does not have the ability to respond to the gospel message calls into question the reason for the message in the first place.

On being inclined to follow a certain view does not necessatate that they always follow that view. That is where free will comes in.

Because that is the argument always used when objecting to predestination, election, or God acting sovereignly.

By whom? I know you fall back to it but we do not see that in scripture. God is not said to be fair but He is said to be just.

When God does so, although he has foreknowledge, the reason he can have certain foreknowledge is that he ordains and decrees what the future will be. That is reflected in the confessions.

I did not write that as clearly as I should have. God foreknows what a man will freely do, if the man had chosen action B rather then A then that would be the action that God foreknew. There is a vast difference between God foreknowing what will happen and Him causing it to happen. He has foretold certain things that would happen and they did in the past and will do so in the future. What we do not see in the bible is God saying what each man would do, that is just an assumption on the part of the confession writers.

Since by your words Gods foreknowledge "ordains and decrees what the future will be." Then He also decrees and odrains all the sin. I know you will say that is not biblical and you are right it is not but it is calvinism and that is why I reject that view. By the way God either has foreknowledge of all things or He does not.

That's almost right but what even a lot of Calvinists overlook is that "cannot" means what it says, in that it's universally true, but we cannot because we will not. If someone infallibly and always chooses wrong they can still be blamed because the record of their behavior does not prove the cause of the inability. If God were to say that he won't save you if you can't jump over the church building you have a right to complain. If God says he won't save you because you can't go one day without voluntarily sinning then that's on you, even if it in a sense is an "inability".

You were going in the right direction but then you swung off into calvinism again. As soon as you say the person "will not" then you are affirming free will. No one "infallibly and always chooses wrong" that is just hyperbole on your part. Dave you sin but you do not always sin do you? God says there is only one requirement that He has set for our salvation, Faith in Him. You are using strawman arguments to support your view.

Some are. But the fact is the word of God says that whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved, and, without holiness, no one will see the Lord. The word says man has a free will, and, the heart of the king is in the hand of the Lord. You can get by if you obey the imperatives, as they are written, no question about it. But some want to understand the word and so you have theology.

Theology is what we do when we study or discuss the bible and that is good and right. It is when we bring philosophy into the mix that we start having problems.

 

[DaveXR650]

That is a rather obvious observation. When one hears the gospel message one is either inclined to believe it or to reject it. Thus their individual response to the message.

The Bible doesn't seem to equally portray men as some being virtuous and others less so when men are described in general though. There is not equal time given to saying light came into the world and some men preferred darkness rather than light but the good guys preferred the light. Read every single passage in scripture and record how often the negative view of man is presented compared to the positive view. There is clearly a problem with men, all men, and there clearly seems to be some form of choosing by God those who will be saved. But there is also the necessity of coming to Christ by faith.

Just as clearly stated is that the invitation is open to everyone who comes to Christ and that everyone who comes is welcome to do so. Calvinism thus has statements about God's sovereignty, and about such things as "election", "hardening", "opening one's heart" and so on in an attempt to understand that both things are in operation. So you have two things going on that are both true if the Bible is true. God knows who are his and is calling them in, and, no one will be rejected who responds to the invitation, which is announced to everyone.

So, for a moderate (not a hyper) Calvinist, what are we left with from the standpoint of a non-clergyman, non-theologian? We are left with this: the only requirement before you can come to Christ is that you feel your need of Christ. Calvinists, Classic Arminians, Wesleyans and most Christians in general believe that this requirement, feeling your need of Christ, is not something you naturally have or something you can work up in yourself, or even something you can study sermons or even scripture and on your own work up this feeling in yourself. You are dependent upon the action of the Holy Spirit upon your soul for this to happen. If this doesn't happen you can't come. And the only reason is that you won't come by your own free will.

Now let me state once again what I believe, for what it's worth. Calvinism doesn't perfectly explain all this in my opinion. Every time the gospel is preached or scripture is heard some work of the Holy Spirit is in operation. This grace in the form of conviction or enlightenment is resistible. There is no indication that this has to be applied equally or equitably to everyone though, and we know for sure that persistent obstinance in sin, refusal of this grace, hardening of oneself due to love of sin; all these things can result in judicial hardening and even a withdrawal of convicting grace. The fact that such a judicial withdrawal of grace means no possibility of salvation because the person will not now respond, even though, if he would respond he is still promised forgiveness is proof of the truth of our inability in ourselves to come to Christ. And therefore the basic truth of all the claims of Calvinism are true.

Some Calvinists say that the men who are not elect were never called or invited to come to Christ. I don't agree with that. Some say that the atonement being specific, shut out all the non-elect no matter what they did anyway and I don't believe that. But one thing I know, I have read enough real Calvinist preachers to know than many of them preach a free and honest offer of salvation to all who will believe, and they preach that if you are a hearer of the message you really can come, if you will. The difference is that they are fully aware that without the work of the Holy Spirit no one will be able to respond to the gospel. They also are aware that their own ability, whether speaking ability, or reasoning ability, or clever methodology, will have no effect in making real converts. So, the theological principles serve as guardrails to keep them from goofy or aggressive "soul winning" techniques. That's why I like it, and that's why I don't worship it. If it doesn't work for you that is OK.

 

[Silverhair]

The Bible doesn't seem to equally portray men as some being virtuous and others less so when men are described in general though. There is not equal time given to saying light came into the world and some men preferred darkness rather than light but the good guys preferred the light. Read every single passage in scripture and record how often the negative view of man is presented compared to the positive view. There is clearly a problem with men, all men, and there clearly seems to be some form of choosing by God those who will be saved. But there is also the necessity of coming to Christ by faith.

Just as clearly stated is that the invitation is open to everyone who comes to Christ and that everyone who comes is welcome to do so. Calvinism thus has statements about God's sovereignty, and about such things as "election", "hardening", "opening one's heart" and so on in an attempt to understand that both things are in operation. So you have two things going on that are both true if the Bible is true. God knows who are his and is calling them in, and, no one will be rejected who responds to the invitation, which is announced to everyone.

So, for a moderate (not a hyper) Calvinist, what are we left with from the standpoint of a non-clergyman, non-theologian? We are left with this: the only requirement before you can come to Christ is that you feel your need of Christ. Calvinists, Classic Arminians, Wesleyans and most Christians in general believe that this requirement, feeling your need of Christ, is not something you naturally have or something you can work up in yourself, or even something you can study sermons or even scripture and on your own work up this feeling in yourself. You are dependent upon the action of the Holy Spirit upon your soul for this to happen. If this doesn't happen you can't come. And the only reason is that you won't come by your own free will.

Now let me state once again what I believe, for what it's worth. Calvinism doesn't perfectly explain all this in my opinion. Every time the gospel is preached or scripture is heard some work of the Holy Spirit is in operation. This grace in the form of conviction or enlightenment is resistible. There is no indication that this has to be applied equally or equitably to everyone though, and we know for sure that persistent obstinance in sin, refusal of this grace, hardening of oneself due to love of sin; all these things can result in judicial hardening and even a withdrawal of convicting grace. The fact that such a judicial withdrawal of grace means no possibility of salvation because the person will not now respond, even though, if he would respond he is still promised forgiveness is proof of the truth of our inability in ourselves to come to Christ. And therefore the basic truth of all the claims of Calvinism are true.

Some Calvinists say that the men who are not elect were never called or invited to come to Christ. I don't agree with that. Some say that the atonement being specific, shut out all the non-elect no matter what they did anyway and I don't believe that. But one thing I know, I have read enough real Calvinist preachers to know than many of them preach a free and honest offer of salvation to all who will believe, and they preach that if you are a hearer of the message you really can come, if you will. The difference is that they are fully aware that without the work of the Holy Spirit no one will be able to respond to the gospel. They also are aware that their own ability, whether speaking ability, or reasoning ability, or clever methodology, will have no effect in making real converts. So, the theological principles serve as guardrails to keep them from goofy or aggressive "soul winning" techniques. That's why I like it, and that's why I don't worship it. If it doesn't work for you that is OK.

I do not question that mankind is sinful, all you have to do is look around for proof of that. But it is also obvious that sinful men can respond to the various promptings that God has provided. If that were not true then neither of us would be Christians would we. Does God force men to trust in Him, NO, so the only other option is that men freely do in response to His drawing of them. While God draws all men to Himself He does not make them believe in Him. You say there must be some kind of choosing of who will be saved and I agree, it is those that freely have trusted in Him. Those are the only ones who are saved. Those that do not trust in Him are lost. We see this in the OT as well as in the NT.

The invitation to come to God is not restricted it is open to all. Some will respond with faith others with rejection. God in His sovereignty has set the requirement for salvation, faith in the risen Christ. We have the invitation of God and the response on man clearly shown in scripture. Some to election as children of God others to hardening as those under the wrath of God.

Did the Holy Spirit come to convict only some or the whole world? When you say man needs the "action of the Holy Spirit upon your soul" what would you consider His conviction to be if not that? But as we know conviction of sin does not always lead to turning from ones sin. It is because of this conviction that some will see their sin for what it is. But knowing you are a sinner will not save you. You must know that there is a God that can and wants to save you. God has provided the various means for one to know that He exists and if He exists then He can save you. So while the Holy Spirit convicts it is God that saves by His grace through faith in the risen Christ. So while man cannot save himself he is the one that must decide if he wants to be saved.

I could agree with much of what you said up this point "if he would respond he is still promised forgiveness is proof of the truth of our inability in ourselves to come to Christ. And therefore the basic truth of all the claims of Calvinism are true." The fact that he could choose to respond is proof of man's free will and shows the basic calvinst claims are wrong. As according to calvinism man cannot exercise a free will.

The bible is clear that the Holy Spirit convicts and man exercises his free will.

 

[percho]

Once again, I am baffled as to what you want an opinion on!
If God is not the author of sin, then who is the author of sin? To answer this you need to know what it means to "author" sin.

In your YLT, you can find "author" in two verses, Hebrews 2:10 and Hebrews 12:2. The Greek word translated as author is "archēgos" G747. It means lead first, or the first to bring something. Thus origin or through which something originally came. That would make Adam (man) the author of sin. or at least the sin by which all humanity was cursed.

So it boils down to whether God directly or indirectly, through Satan, caused Adam to sin in order for God to be the author of sin in humanity.
And of course, God would have to "allow" Adam to sin, and not "cause" Adam to sin in order for God not to be the author of sin.

Since the "Exhaustive Determinist" view is unbiblical, and God does allow humans to choose to sin or not, God is not the author of sin.

Lastly you refer to "the plan?" Again I assume you are referring to God's redemption plan, to choose a people for His own possession. I do not know if it was "necessary" only that it was the way God chose to bring about His plan.

I believe the word of God says sin originated on the earth through the devil Satan and then entered the world through Adam and through the seed of the woman taken from Adam the Son of God would be manifested, the Son of Man to destroy the devil and his works which began before the creation of Adam.

Therefore Adam was going to sin and bring death, the power of the devil, to mankind. Redemption from sin and death is what destroys the devil and his works and saves man.

I have no clue how Calvin would have felt about that thought.

 

[Van]

Many Calvinists will say that because God foreknew that Adam would sin then that must mean that He caused Adam to sin. Why? Because Adam can’t thwart God’s knowledge of future events.

There are also other scriptures that shows God responding to human action and even sometimes not getting the results He expected. They are dismissed as figures of speech, in which case, why I can’t I apply that same principle to any other part of scripture if it’s all arbitrary?

Hi Nolan, thanks for the thoughtful reply.

One of the sad realities of bible study is if you buy into one falsehood, then you might use that falsehood, believing it to be true, to falsely interpret other verses. In the case you cited, the doctrine that God knows exhaustively the future, and has not chosen not to know the parts He does not want to predestine, is used to support Exhaustive determinism. As they say, garbage in, garbage out.

And I totally agree, I believe the Bible, properly understood, is completely consistent, thus our interpretation should be consistent with all scripture.
Thus, since scripture says some things happen by chance, a view that God has predestined everything turns the bible into a smorgasbord where you take what you like and pretend the rest has no application.

For example, in Luke 10:31, in the parable of the "Good Samaritan" Jesus says a Priest was traveling down a road by (1) chance, (2) coincidence or (3) happenstance, depending on your English translation. Thus Jesus clearly teaches that the encounter was not, repeat not, predestined. A careful bible student would therefore go back and find the basis in scripture that God cannot choose not to know things of His choice to allow chance.

 

[Van]

I believe the word of God says sin originated on the earth through the devil Satan and then entered the world through Adam and through the seed of the woman taken from Adam the Son of God would be manifested, the Son of Man to destroy the devil and his works which began before the creation of Adam.

Therefore Adam was going to sin and bring death, the power of the devil, to mankind. Redemption from sin and death is what destroys the devil and his works and saves man.

I have no clue how Calvin would have felt about that thought.

As I said before, you can believe what you want, but the views you expressed above are not biblical.

1) No scripture says or suggests Adam's sin was predestined.

2) Sin entered the world (humanity) by the disobedience of Adam.

3) Sin has two parts, first a human act of disobedience to the will of God, whether known or unknown, and (2) God applies adverse consequences to the person as just punishment for the disobedience.

 

[Van]

A false claim was made that Calvinism defines God's sovereignty as God causing or allowing whatsoever comes to pass. It is true that some Calvinists hold this view, but this is NOT the view of Historical Calvinism.

Historical Calvinism holds that God ordains, predestines whatsoever comes to pass, but in a way that does not make Him the author of sin. Just how He accomplishes that logical impossibility is said to be a mystery.

Another claim was made thus:

​

b. you missed the whole point, that being that many things do happen by chance at least from our point of view - but not all things.​

Did the statement say things actually happen by chance? No. Wiggle room (from out point of view) was left in the statement.

I believe Christ taught us to say what we mean and mean what we say, that our "yes" should mean yes, and our "no" should mean no.

Hyper or Honest Calvinism proclaims God causes whatsoever comes to pass. It is unbiblical nonsense.

1) God is not the author of sin. Yes God gave Adam the capacity to sin, and provided Adam with the opportunity to sin, but did not cause Adam to sin.

2) Some parts of the future are predestined, and some parts are not. That is what scripture teaches. And as has been acknowledged by others, the Bible does not explain exactly all that is predestined and all that is not predestined. But clearly, unless we have hardened our own hearts, or God has chosen to harden our heart for His purpose, fallen humans have the capacity to hear and understand spiritual milk, the fundamentals of the gospel.

3) Calvinism, no matter the flavor, holds that the outcome of the life of every human, is predestined. We were saved or damned from all eternity for all eternity, and there is nothing you can do to alter that outcome for yourself or your loved ones. It is false doctrine.

 

[DaveXR650]

A false claim was made that Calvinism defines God's sovereignty as God causing or allowing whatsoever comes to pass. It is true that some Calvinists hold this view, but this is NOT the view of Historical Calvinism.

"Some Calvinists". Like R.C. Sproul. Jonathan Edwards.

Historical Calvinism holds that God ordains, predestines whatsoever comes to pass, but in a way that does not make Him the author of sin. Just how He accomplishes that logical impossibility is said to be a mystery.

"Ordains" covers "allowing whatsoever comes to pass". It's another way of saying that a sovereign God knows what someone intends to do by their own free will, and he allows it to go ahead. So it becomes part of God's overall plan and is thus ordained, without making God the author of the sin if we are talking about a sinful action.

Another claim was made thus:
b. you missed the whole point, that being that many things do happen by chance at least from our point of view - but not all things.
Did the statement say things actually happen by chance? No. Wiggle room (from out point of view) was left in the statement.

I believe Christ taught us to say what we mean and mean what we say, that our "yes" should mean yes, and our "no" should mean no.

My own opinion, that we don't have any way to know if God actively causes every action, especially in cases where we are told of no consequences related to God's overall plan, or whether he leaves it to normal and natural cause and effect (which to us looks like chance) is my opinion. Take it or leave it but to then add a statement that somehow my opinion would violate the way Jesus taught us to answer shows me you have a screw loose.

3) Calvinism, no matter the flavor, holds that the outcome of the life of every human, is predestined. We were saved or damned from all eternity for all eternity, and there is nothing you can do to alter that outcome for yourself or your loved ones. It is false doctrine.

And then you go back to a false position lumping all of Calvinism with hyper-Calvinism, knowing that to be a false statement. What you are into is the idea that you get to say it, and it is true only if you said it.
Here's what I mean:

1) God is not the author of sin. Yes God gave Adam the capacity to sin, and provided Adam with the opportunity to sin, but did not cause Adam to sin.

That's pure Calvinist teaching, but only Van is allowed to say it. If someone else says it, it's false. The problem is Van, once you say that about Adam, you do have revealed scripture that has God doing things because Adam sinned before Adam sinned. What Calvinism says is once again, that God predestined all that happens, and the example you brought up yourself proves this, yet, as you said, God is not the author of Adam's sin and yet God began working the redemption for Adam before he even freely sinned by his own choice. You have just become a Calvinist, Van.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Historical Calvinism holds that God ordains, predestines whatsoever comes to pass, but in a way that does not make Him the author of sin. Just how He accomplishes that logical impossibility is said to be a mystery.

Romans 11:33-36. Of, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgements and His ways past finding out! "For who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has become His counselor? Or who has first given to Him hat it shall be repaid to Him?"
For of Him and through Him and to Him are all things, to whom be glory forever.'

So @Van, exactly what things are not of Him, through Him and to Him?