Is predestination disturbing?

[dianetavegia]

Whatever, Let's ask... How many 5 point Calvinists believe man has free will to choose to accept Jesus Christ as their Savior or refuse that free gift of salvation without being pre elected by God before they were formed?

 

[BobRyan]

How about this - the Arminian view is that ALL mankind are FREE to accept eternal life ALL are drawn ALL are enabled and some do choose life.

Calvinism also "wants to say" that all mankind is free to choose. But then it needs a "trick" so that while sounding like the Arminian statement it is "Really" not free will at all.

They need this same kind of trick for "ALL" not being "ALL" for "World not being world" for "SAVIOR of the World" not being really "SAVIOR of the WORLD" ad nausium!!

It is "the endless shell game of calvinism"

 

[Andre]

Originally posted by whatever:

Why do you do this to yourself? Calvinists believe in free will too.

"God from eternity, decrees or permits all things that come to pass, and perpetually upholds, directs and governs all creatures and all events; yet so as not in any wise to be the author or approver of sin nor to destroy the free will and responsibility of intelligent creatures."

I think there is nothing wrong with this statement. However, I think it basically makes little if any commitment to one identifiable position. Consider the use of the phrase "decress or permits". There is a huge conceptual distinction between God decreeing x and God permitting x. If God decrees that I sin, then I lose free will. If God merely permitsthat I sin, then I retain free will.

In short, this statement "covers all bases" and therefore seems to say effectively nothing about the matter at issue.

 

[johnp.]

Hello dianetavegia.

How many 5 point Calvinists believe man has free will to choose to accept Jesus Christ as their Savior or refuse that free gift of salvation without being pre elected by God before they were formed?

I don't believe the will can ever be free but is a force with which we accomplish our desires in so far as we are able. It is bound to what we are and as such we will not willing go to God of our own volition because God prevents any such thing occurring as He controls our desires. The only ones that can willingly will to do God's will will have God's will imposed on them by God so they can will to do God's will willingly but we cannot achieve it. We remain incapable of good. Romans 7:14>.

I do by the way see the statement below as a cop out.
"God from eternity, decrees or permits all things that come to pass, and perpetually upholds, directs and governs all creatures and all events; yet so as not in any wise to be the author or approver of sin nor to destroy the free will and responsibility of intelligent creatures."
And I agree with Andre's critique except that it does come down to usurping the throne. It is not a fudge but it is a denial of God's Sovereignty.
If God is Sovereign then all decisions come from Him and if He permits a sovereign action to come from a subject then that subject is sovereign and God is God no longer. My God is Sovereign. That is simple enough Bob? In so far as a man can choose that far he is sovereign.
The statement if believed destroys the question, "Why does God still blame us for who resists His will?" It's a call to show how far Calvinism has drifted in trying to avoid the unpleasant fact that it is God that created all things and all things are because of Him. We are helpless and subjected to outrage by the One that created us, no? Yes man that's what He wants us to know. That's why the question is there. RO 9:19 One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" 20 But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, `Why did you make me like this?' " 21 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?

This of course makes God the Author of sin.

I can understand how republicans can have little concept of sovereignty being in one person but I think they have no excuse for misunderstanding election.

john.

 

[OCC]

John is finally being consistent. He is saying the same things I have said.

"God from eternity, decrees or permits all things that come to pass, and perpetually upholds, directs and governs all creatures and all events; yet so as not in any wise to be the author or approver of sin nor to destroy the free will and responsibility of intelligent creatures."
This statement IS a cop out and God is the Author of sin.

John even though you are obnoxious I am paying attention to some of what you say. Now...I'd like to know why you place so much importance on capitalizing sovereign? Thank you for not pronouncing hell upon me for using a small "s". I do that just to irk you.

 

[dianetavegia]

Originally posted by johnp.:
I can understand how republicans can have little concept of sovereignty being in one person but I think they have no excuse for misunderstanding election.

john.

LOL

I UNDERSTAND what you're saying, I just think it's not scriptural.

Yes I are a Republican!


(I used GREAT restraint here JohnP. and didn't mention your country nor your job.)

 

[OCC]

Why not Diane? He has felt the liberty to insult others...I'm sure he can take it.

 

[johnp.]

Hello dianetavegia.

It was republican not Republican.

1 a : of, relating to, or having the characteristics of a republic : having the form or based on the principles of a republic <the United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government -- U.S. Constitution>

No insult was intended nor given nor did I make a statement concerning many millions of people as to them all being stupid. That would be just stupid. Bush and Blair are mates and that suits me.

(I used GREAT restraint here JohnP. and didn't mention your country nor your job.)

My country is Heaven but if you mean Britain I don't see why you should want to insult Britain because I upset you? That would be like me saying all Republicans is stupid wouldn't it?
As for my job? You intrigue me. What do you know of the world of Lego? And more important, how could you insult a job working with Lego? People would give their right arm for a job like mine.

Oh yea. What's that on your shoulder stirring things up?

I'm sure he can take it.

HaHa! King James was an upright man. Authorised a best seller he did.

john.

 

[OCC]

You don't seriously work with Lego? You get paid to play?

 

[dianetavegia]

Sorry John. I took 'republican' and 'election' as an insult to our country. Mea Culpa!

p.s. woman's work-role reversal/ Mr. Mom?? I get teased about being 'unschooled' in theology as a woman....

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by King James:
John is finally being consistent.

...
This statement IS a cop out and God is the Author of sin.

JohnP has argued this explicitly. He claims "God IS the author of Sin" - "God authors Satan's lies" - "God IS the great despot" and oh yea - he and a few other Calvinists agree that God will enjoy watching their loved ones tormented in the flames of hell.

But in Psalms God warns that if the SAINTS rejoice at the suffering OF THEIR ENEMIES - God will become ANGRY WITH THE SAINTS!!

And we have already shown God to WEEP over the lost!

Yet for Calvinism (as one Calvinist here put it) "God so HATES HATES HATES".

The Arminian view of "God who so LOVES" is foreign to much of Calvinism.

Though JohnP is prone to jumping off any cliff in his all-for-calvinism posting -- the one good thing is that he is consistent in pursing Calvinism to its logical fallacies.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[OCC]

Ok, that's fine. I just didn't remember him saying anything such as "God is the author of sin".

He is different from many Calvinists though because a lot of them try to clean up the mess that Calvinism's logic can cause. But he states the obvious end result to that "logic". I give him that much. Oh...and he's a feisty old chap for a Brit...I thought most of them sat around drinking tea or at least...not getting too worked up over anything but a soccer game.

 

[Bob Krajcik]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
Unless humans have the power of avoiding evil and choosing good by free choice, they are not accountable for their actions—whatever they may be.... For neither would a man be worthy of reward or praise if he did not of himself choose the good, but was merely created for that end. Likewise, if a man were evil, he would not deserve punishment, since he was not evil of himself, being unable to do anything else than what he was made for.

Considering what has been said, how would you explain this verse?

Revelation 17:17 (KJV) For God hath put in their hearts to fulfil his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled.

By grace,
Bob Krajcik
Mansfield, Ohio

 

[OCC]

Easy. Those are people in the Tribulation who have not repented.

 

[Bob Krajcik]

Why don't men obey the law?

What don't men obey the command to repent?

Are they accountable?

 

[Bob Krajcik]

Originally posted by King James:
Easy. Those are people in the Tribulation who have not repented.

So, then is God putting in their hearts to fulfil his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast?

If God does this, what is the problem if God would actually save a man from tehir sin, rether than to leave them to their own devieces?

 

[whatever]

Originally posted by dianetavegia:
Whatever, Let's ask... How many 5 point Calvinists believe man has free will to choose to accept Jesus Christ as their Savior or refuse that free gift of salvation without being pre elected by God before they were formed?

Probably about as many as believe that man has free will to jump over the moon. You are confusing free will and ability again. Many Calvinists believe that all men have freedom to do whatever they are able to do. Whether man is able "to choose to accept Jesus Christ as their Savior or refuse that free gift of salvation without being pre elected by God before they were formed" is a completely different question.

 

[dianetavegia]

Now that's silly! A man could TRY to jump over the moon if he were an astronaut and didn't give a hoot about his life...

Many Calvinists believe that all men have freedom to do whatever they are able to do.

Another play on words..... Boring!

 

[TexasSky]

Whatever,

A four point Calvinis it worse than a 5-point Calvinist, in that, he admits that John Calvin is wrong, but he still turns to him for leadership.

 

[OCC]

Originally posted by Bob Krajcik:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by King James:
Easy. Those are people in the Tribulation who have not repented.

So, then is God putting in their hearts to fulfil his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast?

If God does this, what is the problem if God would actually save a man from tehir sin, rether than to leave them to their own devieces? </font>[/QUOTE]God does this because it is near the end of time and they have heard the gospel and freely rejected it rather than repenting. Thus God sends them delusion so that they will not repent. I believe this only occurs in Revelation. These people are under the control of the anti-christ.

God does actually save men from their sins if they repent. The Holy Spirit has to convict them of their sin and then they freely to choose to repent or not.