I have a question about Calvinism.

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Jim1999, how would you answer the following questions?

• Can any be saved that God has not foreknown?
• Can any be lost that God has foreknown as saved?
• Does the possibility exist that any could be saved that God did not elect?
• Does the possibility exist that any known as saved could be lost?
• Is it not completely true that you indeed do believe in double predestination, i.e., both of the saved and the lost?

 

[Tom Butler]

Jim1999, how would you answer the following questions?

• Can any be saved that God has not foreknown?
• Can any be lost that God has foreknown as saved?
• Does the possibility exist that any could be saved that God did not elect?
• Does the possibility exist that any known as saved could be lost?
• Is it not completely true that you indeed do believe in double predestination, i.e., both of the saved and the lost?

Jim may answer for hiimself, but I'd like to give my answers as well.

1. No
2. No
3. No
4. No
5. No John 3:19 "..this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, and their deeds were evil."

 

[webdog]

5. No John 3:19 "..this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, and their deeds were evil."

My answers are no too, but this one. Taken at face value, it's not double predestination. Used by a calvinist, and within TULIP it cannot be used as such. To love something more than something else requires a real choice. Since calvinism teaches a corpse cannot do anything, it cannot even love something moreso than something else. This is double predestination.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Two straight forward responses.:thumbs: I have to run so I cannot respond to either now and will wait for Jim’s response as well.

I hope Scarlett is paying close attention. Note the absolute necessity Jim places Jonah under. The rich young ruler would be no exception to the clutches of such a system of necessity as he paints from the Calvinistic viewpoint. Free will is rendered a mere convenient sophism, but is not free in the least.

As I pointed out and continue to say, the Calvinist's free will is no free will at all. “Freedom to do as one wills,” (using true Calvinist sentiments) are code words for necessity. The doing sustains to the will the notion of necessity not freedom. One can ONLY do as they will. If they do something different is clear that they have changed their will. Once the will settles on forming and intent, the carrying out of the intent, or the’ doing’ sustains to the will the relationship of ‘necessity’ and not freedom. The ‘doing’, or the actual act, is bound by necessity to carry out the formed intents determined by the will.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Webdog: Since Calvinism teaches a corpse cannot do anything, it cannot even love something moreso than something else. This is double predestination.

HP: Let me quickly say that what we are seeing here is the maelstrom of confusion Calvinism weaves. Is says one thing while denying the necessitated ends of their arguments. They often speak of freedom of the will when in reality, IF CONSISTENT, deny it with 1-4.

Calvin was at least consistent and knew full well that the logical ends of Calvinism was indeed double predestination and unavoidably so.

I can at least see where Calvin was trying to be logical and accept the logical ends of his position. What I cannot understand is the ones that accept the basic tenants of Calvinism yet try and deny the logical ends of that system. Calvinism is by necessity a system of necessity and at direct antipodes with freedom of choice and moral accountability.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Webdog: Since calvinism teaches a corpse cannot do anything, it cannot even love something moreso than something else. This is double predestination.

HP: Can you explain to us how the view you denote as ‘double predestination’ is in effect any different than the views of those on this board that believe that man is born in sin? If a man is born in such a state as to necessitate his intents as sinful and that only, why is that not precisely the same thing as the view point you designate as double predestination? If being born in sin does not eliminate love for God or anything other than ‘sin’ as possibilities, what does it mean? If sin is necessitated from birth due to ones sinful nature, are you then to tell us that the possibility exists that you could love God at the same time or choose to love God from birth as opposed to sin? Again, if not, is that not precisely the position you say mandates double predestination, something you at least appear to disagree with?

 

[Jim1999]

Calvin did not teach so-called double predestination.

God chose some whilst passing by the remainder to their own damnation. There is a profound difference.

There is also a difference to being a corpse and being dead in sins and trespasses.

Absolute free will may be an Arminian thought, but it has never been a part of Calvinism. We show man's free thought within the confines of God's permissive will and all under His absolute soveereignty. If God is not absolutely sovereign He is not sovereign at all. If man wants to play with God's marbles, he must play by God's rules.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[DHK]

One cannot take away from the "absolute" omniscience of God. If he did, then God would not be God. God knows about the future actions of every individual on earth, and knew about them before the foundation of the earth.

He foreknew (but not forced) everyone's decision whether or not they would: trust Christ or reject him; obey Christ or disobey him; choose to serve him; or not to serve him; etc. He knew before hand the very thoughts that you are thinking. He is omniscient, and yet at the same time does not prevent you from making the decisions you make.

I also believe in both the collective sins of an individual, and the collective sins of a nation may bring God's judgment upon that person or nation, for sin does not go unpunished--whether in this life or in the next. But it is often in this life.

A good example was Sodom and Gomorrah. God destroyed them. We reap what we sow.
There is a consequence for sin.
God's Spirit shall not always strive with man.
Yet at the same time God is a sovereign God and nothing happens without his knowledge and his permission. That is easily seen through the Book of Job. It is also one of the themes that runs through the Book of Daniel--the sovereignty of God.

 

[billwald]

>How does the passage in the story of the rich, young ruler (specifically Mark 10:21), where Jesus looks at the young man and loves him fit in with a Calvinistic viewpoint of no free will?

He was young, not on his death bed. If he was elect the Holy Spirit will regenerate him and he will convert.

 

[webdog]

God chose some whilst passing by the remainder to their own damnation. There is a profound difference.

None whatsoever. He chose those who he passed over. It's not like He didn't know who would be passed over. Calvinism teaches there is a difference, but there is none.

If I have chocolate ice cream and vanilla ice cream before me, and I choose the chocolate, I chose not to have vanilla.

 

[Jim1999]

Someone asked for an explanation of the Calvinist view on sovereignty and humankind. I gave it. I have no intention of teaching theology in here. There is nothing more I have to offer.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[webdog]

There is nothing that can be said, that is why.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

I would like to hear the response from those claiming to believe in the foreknowledge of God, holding to inherited moral depravity or original sin, answer the objection of the Calvinist to the Arminian. Let me give it a shot.

Who are you to think that you can just accept salvation when you decide to? You are dead in your trespasses and sins and cannot do anything to please God. You now seem to be saying that sinful man, in and of his own will can please God by choosing salvation. You were either chosen, and as such known by God, or you were rejected, and also known by God. Your salvation has absolutely nothing to do with your will choosing anything, for salvation is by grace and not works. If mans will is involved, that’s works. Have not you read the Scriptures?... “nor by the will of man?” If mans will is involved man has something to boost about. The Scriptures clearly state that we have nothing to boast about, not even my will accepting the offer.

Besides, do you believe your will, or some choice you make, can thwart the foreknowledge of God via election or rejection? Either God foreknew you or He doesn’t. Your will again has nothing to do with your salvation period. Again, “nor by the will of man.” That includes any so called choice to accept or reject any offer of salvation.

I await your response. Yes, Webdog, my friend, there is much ground yet to cover!:thumbs: We have not begun to debate! :saint: :smilewinkgrin:

PS: Sorry Jim, you simply know not whereof you speak when you claim Calvin did not believe or teach in double predestination. Try reading his Institutes. (Book three(3) Chapter 21 entitled "Eternal Election, by Which God has Predestined Some to Salvation and Others to Damnation" pp920 Vol. 1.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Webdog: If I have chocolate ice cream and vanilla ice cream before me, and I choose the chocolate, I chose not to have vanilla.

HP: I cannot follow the illustration. There was not chocolate and vanilla before Him. (That might even be viewed by some as a racist comment )

He did not choose between two sets, He created two sets. Some were CREATED to be chosen and some CREATED to be rejected……….IF original sin is correct and election is as understood by Calvinists and those leaning hard in that direction anyway.

 

[DHK]

I would like to hear the response from those claiming to believe in the foreknowledge of God, holding to inherited moral depravity or original sin, answer the objection of the Calvinist to the Arminian. Let me give it a shot.

If you are going to carry on any meaningful debate get your terminology straight.
Almost all here believe that we have inherited a sin nature or are morally depraved from birth (perhaps all but you). But there are few here that say they agree with original sin. Stop equating the two. If you don't understand the terminology, then do your homework and find out what they mean.
I was a Catholic; I am not a Catholic any longer.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK, enlighten us as to any meaningful difference or distinction between original sin, held by Catholics, Arminians, Calvinists, and many others alike, and what you may term as sin nature or moral depravity from birth. There are many that hold to original sin that do not attach guilt directly to it, which is the case with every Arminian I have ever met, if in fact that is what you are referring to. They still hold firmly to the terminology of original sin. I see them as inconsistent in that area as the inconsistency I see in any other believing in original sin, but I still proclaim “Oh those blessed inconsistencies!”

Again. Show us the distinction you see and why.

 

[webdog]

HP: I cannot follow the illustration. There was not chocolate and vanilla before Him. (That might even be viewed by some as a racist comment )

He did not choose between two sets, He created two sets. Some were CREATED to be chosen and some CREATED to be rejected……….IF original sin is correct and election is as understood by Calvinists and those leaning hard in that direction anyway.

If you choose one, you have chosen not to choose the other one. Both the choice, and non-choice required choosing.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Webdog: If you choose one, you have chosen not to choose the other one. Both the choice, and non-choice required choosing.

HP: That sounds precisely like double predestination to me. By choosing one you have by default chosen the other.

 

[TCGreek]

A person either accepts or denies what is commonly called Calvinism.

One's personal salvation is not at stake whether Calvinism is embraced or rejected.

 

[Tom Butler]

Regarding double predestination:

I said in an earlier post that I did not hold to double-predestination.

Credit to T.P. Simmons, Indiana Theologian and Educator for the following which reflects my views:

Election imposes no restraint on the non-elect, and affects them in no way. They are already under condemnation, and remain so. The remain condemned, as all sinners are by nature. They remain in the same condition they would be in if there were no such thing as election.

Election of some to life does not imply election of some to death. The wicked die, not from election, but from God's just dealings with them as sinners.

They earned it.

Had God determined to allow all the wicked to reap the harvest of their wickedness, he would be just in doing so. That he chose to save some who deserve death, for reasons only He knows, is a cause for gratitude from us to whom he extended his grace.

The idea that God chooses some and not others gives rise to the complaint, "that's not fair." Brothers and sisters, give praise to God that he is not fair. Were he fair, we'd all be headed for hell. Be grateful that we are objects of mercy and not justice. Be grateful that we are not getting what we deserve.