Is there really a Calvinistic resurgence?

[Skandelon]

It appears to me that you don't want to have a discussion with me but just an argument. Anything I say you appear to just disagree with it because I say it. You and I both seemed to agree that God allows or permits sin, but now you seem to say that he does more than just allow or permit it, but that he actively determines it.

To refer to the term "will" doesn't help the matter, because as I explain, even men like Jonathan Edwards acknowledge the "two wills of God" in reference to what he "actively does" and what he "passively allows."

James teaches us that God doesn't even tempt men to sin, so I think its pretty save to assume that God is not actively determining the temptations and the sin itself. To believe otherwise is beyond the pale of what even Calvinistic scholars have historically argued. There is really no reason for us to disagree on this point, but it appears you are just feeling a bit disagreeable?

 

[Skandelon]

P4T,

Would you agree with this definition of "Decree" from Easton's 1897 Bible Dictionary?

The decrees are eternal (Acts 15:18; Eph. 1:4; 2 Thess. 2:13), unchangeable (Ps. 33:11; Isa. 46:9), and comprehend all things that come to pass (Eph. 1:11; Matt. 10:29, 30; Eph. 2:10; Acts 2:23; 4:27, 28; Ps. 17:13, 14). The decrees of God are (1) efficacious, as they respect those events he has determined to bring about by his own immediate agency; or (2) permissive, as they respect those events he has determined that free agents shall be permitted by him to effect.

Pay careful attention to the distinction between the "efficacious" (active/immediate) aspect of God's decree verses the "permissive" (passive/allowance) aspect?

Can we agree in this distinction?

 

[preacher4truth]

It appears to me that you don't want to have a discussion with me but just an argument. Anything I say you appear to just disagree with it because I say it. You and I both seemed to agree that God allows or permits sin, but now you seem to say that he does more than just allow or permit it, but that he actively determines it.

To refer to the term "will" doesn't help the matter, because as I explain, even men like Jonathan Edwards acknowledge the "two wills of God" in reference to what he "actively does" and what he "passively allows."

James teaches us that God doesn't even tempt men to sin, so I think its pretty save to assume that God is not actively determining the temptations and the sin itself. To believe otherwise is beyond the pale of what even Calvinistic scholars have historically argued. There is really no reason for us to disagree on this point, but it appears you are just feeling a bit disagreeable?

Even if God passively allows, He still determined it to be so. All things come from Him. The only thing I can figure as far as you thinking this isn't discussion is perhaps you are getting upset?

That you agree with me to an extent is fine. I believe God actively determined it all to happen, even evil. He knew it would all happen, He set it all in motion so that it could.

Now, does He actively tempt or passively tempt? Of course not, He does none of this tempting whatsoever, but He sure doesn't let one thing happen without the determinitive counsel of His will, even in permitting sin and evil. He could certainly stop all of it, could He not?

As far as the disagreeable part, it lies in the fact of the words determine, and your attempt to make predestine and cause (predestin/cause) the same things when they are not. In this, what you are doing is saying since God predestined all of it it then means the same thing as He caused it. No. They're two different things.

- Peace

 

[Skandelon]

As far as the disagreeable part, it lies in the fact of the words determine, and your attempt to make predestine and cause (predestin/cause) the same things when they are not. In this, what you are doing is saying since God predestined all of it it then means the same thing as He caused it. No. They're two different things.

- Peace

1. Please let me know what you think about the definition of decree in the post above (post #62). Thanks

2. You say that predestine doesn't mean cause, but you would say that God predestined you to believe, right? Does that not mean that God causes you to believe? Would you like wise say that God predestined you to sin? If not, what is the difference?

My point is, why not draw a clear distinction between what God "actively" determines and what he passively/permissively allows as many Calvinists do?

 

[DHK]

Even if God passively allows, He still determined it to be so. All things come from Him. The only thing I can figure as far as you thinking this isn't discussion is perhaps you are getting upset?

He determined it to be so.
All things come from Him. ALL things!

Jeffrey Dahmer was one of the most infamous and notorious serial killers in American history. Part of the reason he became so well known was the number of victims he killed: at least 17 young men and teenage boys between the years 1978 and 1991. Another reason for Dahmer's infamy was the peculiar nature of his killings. He stored the body parts of many victims in his apartment. He also engaged in cannibalism, although the extent of this is less than was widely believed after this detail was sensationalized in media reports. Dahmer's killing spree was finally discovered and halted in 1991 when one of his intended victims was able to escape and lead police to Dahmer's apartment, where the remains of 11 bodies were found.

http://www.adherents.com/people/pd/Jeffrey_Dahmer.html

According to you, this is God's determined will. He wanted it to be so, and therefore determined it to be so. All things come from him, even this episode of evil. He must be the author of it, by the way you have expressed yourself.

 

[preacher4truth]

He determined it to be so.
All things come from Him. ALL things!

According to you, this is God's determined will. He wanted it to be so, and therefore determined it to be so. All things come from him, even this episode of evil. He must be the author of it, by the way you have expressed yourself.

thelema; (will, specifically of God)

what one wishes or has determined shall be done
of what God wishes to be done by us
commands, precepts
will, choice, inclination, desire, pleasure.

I know many who struggle with this. And there you go again, adding the word "author." Define "author" and compare it to the Greek definition "will" above, and see what we have here.

- Peace

 

[preacher4truth]

1. Please let me know what you think about the definition of decree in the post above (post #62). Thanks

2. You say that predestine doesn't mean cause, but you would say that God predestined you to believe, right? Does that not mean that God causes you to believe? Would you like wise say that God predestined you to sin? If not, what is the difference?

My point is, why not draw a clear distinction between what God "actively" determines and what he passively/permissively allows as many Calvinists do?

I'll get to that definition, sure. Nothing in it changes what I've said or what you agree with me saying. Not a bad definition.

Why you continue to tie cause to presdestine is beyond me. If by cause you mean: cause; bring about; precipitate; be the reason for, then yes, He caused me to be a believer.

Why do I have to do all things that Calvinists do?

 

[DHK]

thelema; (will, specifically of God)

what one wishes or has determined shall be done
of what God wishes to be done by us
commands, precepts
will, choice, inclination, desire, pleasure.

I know many who struggle with this. And there you go again, adding the word "author." Define "author" and compare it to the Greek definition "will" above, and see what we have here.

- Peace

I don't struggle with it at all. I just know that the theology behind it is false. When you take Scripture out of context and fit it into your own preconceived ideas is it any wonder that your theology is confused.

You put Calvinism before the Bible. Everything has to fit into Calvinism. If it doesn't fit into Calvinism you twist it until it does. I don't read the Bible that way. I read it with an open and objective mind and interpret it according to sound hermeneutical principles. That is something you can't do because you are bound and tied by the principles of Calvinism. You can't step out of that box to look at Scripture objectively.

 

[preacher4truth]

I don't struggle with it at all. I just know that the theology behind it is false. When you take Scripture out of context and fit it into your own preconceived ideas is it any wonder that your theology is confused.

Which Scripture did I take out of context? Where? In other words, the definition I give is too much for you to tackle, so you allude to some Scripture out of context "somewhere." Nice way to avoid what we were REALLY talking about. Now get back to that and answer this accusation of "author" and look at the Biblical definition I gave you and then answer how author works with it. OK?

You put Calvinism before the Bible. Everything has to fit into Calvinism. If it doesn't fit into Calvinism you twist it until it does. I don't read the Bible that way. I read it with an open and objective mind and interpret it according to sound hermeneutical principles. That is something you can't do because you are bound and tied by the principles of Calvinism. You can't step out of that box to look at Scripture objectively.

Who's a Calvinist?

 

[Skandelon]

I'll get to that definition, sure. Nothing in it changes what I've said or what you agree with me saying. Not a bad definition.

Good. I like it because it makes the clear distinction between God's active and passive decrees, something I haven't really understood you to support as of yet. I look forward to hearing what you think of it more fully.

Why you continue to tie cause to presdestine is beyond me. If by cause you mean: cause; bring about; precipitate; be the reason for, then yes, He caused me to be a believer.

You just tied cause to predestine. You argue that God predestines his elect to believe, yet on the other hand you argue that predestine doesn't mean cause. Now, you say that you were "caused" to believe.

Do you believe that God "brought about; precipitate; be the reason for" sin?

Why do I have to do all things that Calvinists do?

You don't. I just think you should know when you are stepping beyond the orthodox views of your own system. I could be wrong, but you appear to be doing so just for the sake of disagreeing with whatever I say, as if we just can't agree on any point.

 

[Tom Butler]

Hmm, the last post which dealt with the OP was #47. Anybody got something to contribute?

 

[preacher4truth]

Good. I like it because it makes the clear distinction between God's active and passive decrees, something I haven't really understood you to support as of yet. I look forward to hearing what you think of it more fully.

You just tied cause to predestine. You argue that God predestines his elect to believe, yet on the other hand you argue that predestine doesn't mean cause. Now, you say that you were "caused" to believe.

Do you believe that God "brought about; precipitate; be the reason for" sin?

You don't. I just think you should know when you are stepping beyond the orthodox views of your own system. I could be wrong, but you appear to be doing so just for the sake of disagreeing with whatever I say, as if we just can't agree on any point.

No, I didn't tie predestine to cause and say they are the same things skandelon. I simply said "if by cause you mean this" then yes God caused me to believe through His Word, Romans 10:17.

Never did I say above they both mean the same thing. I simply gave a definition to the word cause. Fair enough?

What is my system?

And I already accept that we agree. But you have tried to argue your way out of God determining/predetermining/willing/ordaining/predestining by making them mean "causes" when they are redundant terms.

It's OK, God has determined all things for His purpose, we've agreed on that.

I think the big problem here in addition to the above redundant terms, is you are trying to argue me into saying He caused these things. This is your objective. Not going there, but that is what you are hoping I will say. Not going to happen.

You'll have to get Luke2427 to answer that one for you.


- Peace

 

[DHK]

Which Scripture did I take out of context?

I'll amend my statement to read "in the rare cases when you do use Scripture,..." I just read all of your posts from page five onward. You are right. You don't use Scripture. I couldn't find even one. It was Skandelon that quoted Scripture.

Where? In other words, the definition I give is too much for you to tackle, so you allude to some Scripture out of context "somewhere." Nice way to avoid what we were REALLY talking about. Now get back to that and answer this accusation of "author" and look at the Biblical definition I gave you and then answer how author works with it. OK?

Now I did read the faulty definitions, of how you believe that God determines all things. I quoted you word for word on that so that there would be no misunderstanding.

 

[Winman]

Now, does He actively tempt or passively tempt? Of course not, He does none of this tempting whatsoever, but He sure doesn't let one thing happen without the determinitive counsel of His will, even in permitting sin and evil. He could certainly stop all of it, could He not?

This answer is to that part of your quote I highlighted:

I do not believe God could stop all sin. Jesus said offences "must needs be"

Mat 18:7 Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!

You don't see exclamation points or marks often in scripture, but you see two of them here in this one verse. Jesus declared great displeasure with offenses (sin).

But note Jesus said offenses "must needs be". This means they are necessary, they cannot be avoided, even by God. So I believe it false to argue that God could prevent all sin.

And why would this be so? Free will. God is a God of love and does not force or constrain any man to love him. He must offer all men the choice to either love and accept him, or rebel and reject him. There is no such thing as true love without choice.

But choice necessitates sin. If you give the person the choice of loving you, it is absolutely necessary that the person also be able to reject and hate you.

There could be no love without free choice. There could also be no true justice without free choice. You cannot hold a man accountable for that which he is constrained to do by nature and cannot possibly avoid doing. That would be like these depraved people who beat and kill a baby because it cries. A baby cannot choose to do otherwise, that is it's God given nature. You cannot condemn a man born blind because he cannot see. If men are born with a sin nature and cannot possibly choose to love God, they cannot be accountable for what is impossible for them to do.

Sin is necessary, Jesus said so. But in the very same verse he fervently condemns sin.

Edit- Also notice that Jesus said offenses (sin) comes BY they man. God does not cause any man to sin, men sin because they choose to, it originates with them.

 

[preacher4truth]

I'll amend my statement to read "in the rare cases when you do use Scripture,..." I just read all of your posts from page five onward. You are right. You don't use Scripture. I couldn't find even one. It was Skandelon that quoted Scripture.

Now I did read the faulty definitions, of how you believe that God determines all things. I quoted you word for word on that so that there would be no misunderstanding.

You'd be incorrect again. I used Job 2, then alluded to it again. We've been debating off of this since. :wavey:

The "faulty" definition is the Biblical definition. You said that, not me.

 

[preacher4truth]

This answer is to that part of your quote I highlighted:

I do not believe God could stop all sin. Jesus said offences "must needs be"

Mat 18:7 Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!

You don't see exclamation points or marks often in scripture, but you see two of them here in this one verse. Jesus declared great displeasure with offenses (sin).

But note Jesus said offenses "must needs be". This means they are necessary, they cannot be avoided, even by God. So I believe it false to argue that God could prevent all sin.

And why would this be so? Free will. God is a God of love and does not force or constrain any man to love him. He must offer all men the choice to either love and accept him, or rebel and reject him. There is no such thing as true love without choice.

But choice necessitates sin. If you give the person the choice of loving you, it is absolutely necessary that the person also be able to reject and hate you.

There could be no love without free choice. There could also be no true justice without free choice. You cannot hold a man accountable for that which he is constrained to do by nature and cannot possibly avoid doing. That would be like these depraved people who beat and kill a baby because it cries. A baby cannot choose to do otherwise, that is it's God given nature. You cannot condemn a man born blind because he cannot see. If men are born with a sin nature and cannot possibly choose to love God, they cannot be accountable for what is impossible for them to do.

Sin is necessary, Jesus said so. But in the very same verse he fervently condemns sin.

Great point! In other words, He could stop it if it were His will, but since it is not His will to do so, it continues. So thus, it fulfills His purpose and He willed and determined it to be so.

- Peace

 

[Winman]

Great point! In other words, He could stop it if it were His will, but since it is not His will to do so, it continues. So thus, it fulfills His purpose and He willed and determined it to be so.

- Peace

I do not agree, it is NEVER God's will that any man sin. It's is God's will that men have a choice to love or hate him, this choice necessitates sin. Saying offences "must needs be" argues the exact opposite of what you are saying, God cannot prevent all sin. Why? Because God would be unjust to constrain and compel man to love him. Even man knows this, you cannot kidnap a woman off the street and force her to love you, this is SIN!

And you quoted me before I edited my post, note that Jesus said the offences come BY the man. God does not cause any man to sin, men sin because they choose to do so, the sin originates with man, not God.

 

[preacher4truth]

I do not agree, it is NEVER God's will that any man sin. It's is God's will that men have a choice to love or hate him, this choice necessitates sin. Saying offences "must needs be" argues the exact opposite of what you are saying, God cannot prevent all sin.

And you quoted me before I edited my post, note that Jesus said the offences come BY the man. God does not cause any man to sin, men sin because they choose to do so, the sin originates with man, not God.

Uh, I just argued God won't prevent sin. Pay attention.

Who allowed it?

What does "will" mean?

I never said it originates from God. But what does originate mean?

 

[Winman]

Who allowed it?

What does "will" mean?

I never said it originates from God. But what does originate mean?

MUST NEEDS BE means sin is necessary, it does not mean allowed, look in the dictionary.

If God were to force or compel man to love him, he would violate his own nature. God is love (1 Jn 4:8, 16)

You have children, would you think it love if someone kidnapped one of your children and forced them to love them?

The problem is that some folks want to exalt God's sovereignty at the expense of his other attributes like love, mercy, and judgment.

Mat 23:23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.
24 Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

The Pharisees were BIG on the law. They obeyed all the ordinances. But they were self righteous and judgmental. They despised common men who did indeed often sin.

People can often have "tunnel vision". They fixate on one thing to the exclusion of all others. The Pharisees were like this. Because they followed the laws and ordinances, they thought they fulfilled the law and exalted God. They overlooked God's great love and mercy for all men, even sinners.

 

[Skandelon]

P4T,

Here is the definition again: The decrees are eternal (Acts 15:18; Eph. 1:4; 2 Thess. 2:13), unchangeable (Ps. 33:11; Isa. 46:9), and comprehend all things that come to pass (Eph. 1:11; Matt. 10:29, 30; Eph. 2:10; Acts 2:23; 4:27, 28; Ps. 17:13, 14). The decrees of God are (1) efficacious, as they respect those events he has determined to bring about by his own immediate agency; or (2) permissive, as they respect those events he has determined that free agents shall be permitted by him to effect.

If we want to stop going in circles you need to help me understand the difference in your mind between those things in which God "efficaciously" decrees/determines/wills (or whatever term you want to use) and what he "permissively" decrees/determines/wills. Okay?

So, I'll make it very simple:

1. What is something God has "efficaciously" decreed?

2. What is something God has "permissively" decreed?

What is the difference in what action God took in decreeing these two things?