N-C's Really Agree With Much of Calvinism

[Rippon]

Chapter 33:"Of The Last Judgment"

I think all three heads of this section would be acceptable to any Christian.

But, just in case, I will quote the words of the 2nd head to be sure.

"The end of God's appointing this day is for the manisfestation of the glory of his mercy in the eternal salvation of the elect, and of his justice in the damnation of the reprobate, who are wicked and disobedient. For then shall the righteous go into everlasting life, and receive that fulness of joy and refreshing which shall come from the presence of the Lord; but the wicked, who know not God, and obey not the gospel of Jesus Christ, shall be cast into eternal torments, and be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power."

 

[Rippon]

So I have discovered that 60.89% of the Westminster Confession of Faith agrees with the non-Cal view of things.That figure is what my estimate was at the beginning of this thread :51%-65%. If I had examined the 1689 Baptist Confession the agreement would have been even higher, perhaps a 75% harmonization between the non-Cal view and the Calvinist understanding of the Bible.

Those who are non-Calvinists should not repudiate the WCoF -- they agree with most of it! I will not be going through Calvin's Institutes next. That is too time-consuming. But I think approximate findings would result.

 

[Plain Old Bill]

Why is it that calvinists can't talk about anything without introducing calvin into the conversation? Are you really that highly indoctrinated? Do you have a mind apart from calvin?Have you ever had a Bible study without bringing up calvin? Have you ever had a conversation without bringing up calvin?Do you have a calvin stick pin for your Sunday suit lapel and tie?Do you have a John calvin coffee cup to go with your john calvin pen and pencil set?
Do you have calvin place mats for the dinner table or perhaps a calvin calender planner on your desk? Do you have John Calvin license plates for your car? Are your 2 sons named John and Calvin? Did you go to Calvin Bible college and Seminary?:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

 

[Rippon]

I would like to examine the 5th chapter "Of Providence". This was a chapter in which I had concluded that non-Cals would totally disavow. But I'm wondering about that now.

I will list the first head and you non-Cals can tell me your opinion. Are you for it -- or against it?Why?

"1. God, the great Creator of all things, doth uphold, direct, dispose, and govern all creatures, actions, and things, from the greatest even to the least, by his most wise and holy providence, according to his infallible foreknowledge, and the free and immutable counsel of his will, to the praise of the glory of his wisdom, power, justice, goodness, and mercy."

 

[Rippon]

So What Do You Non-Cals Think ?

Again, this is your opportunity to voice your opinion. This fifth chapter on God's Providence I had initially set aside as being something which all of you would be against. I am posting different headings to see if indeed there is a bit of agreement here and there.

"2. Although , in relation to the foreknowledge and decree of God, the first cause, all things come to pass immutably and infallibily; yet, by the same providence, he ordereth them to fall out according to the nature of second causes, either necessarly, freely, or contingently."

"3. God in his ordinary providence maketh use of means, yet is free to work without, above, and against them, at his pleasure."

 

[Rippon]

Come On Non-Cals -- Comment !

I am citing the various heads from the 5th chapter of the Westminster Confession of Faith. It's called:"Of Providence". I want to have some feedback . Do you totally disagree, or partially agree with this chapter so far?

"4. The almighty power, unsearchable wisdom, and infinite goodness of God, so far manifest themselves in his providence, that it extendeth itself even to the first fall, and all other sins of angels and men, and that not by a bare permission, but such as hath joined with it a most wise and powerful bounding, and otherwise ordering and governing of them, in a manifold dispensation, to his own holy ends; yet so as the sinfulness thereof proceedeth only from the creature, and not from God; who, being most holy and righteous, neither is nor can be the author or approver of sin."

 

[Jarthur001]

Why is it that calvinists can't talk about anything without introducing calvin into the conversation?

I just now talked with my wife about going to the store. Does that count?

Are you really that highly indoctrinated?

Being that indoctrinated means to be educated and to have learned doctrine...I try my best, but I'm not sure how high I am. Maybe 4.5 on the scale, but I'm not sure what the limits of the scale is. Does this help?

Do you have a mind apart from calvin?

I have my own mind, and have never read a full book of Johns. What does that tell ya?

Have you ever had a Bible study without bringing up calvin?

Is this a trick question? Yes I have. I hardly speak of him other then to defend his bashing.

Have you ever had a conversation without bringing up calvin?

I refer the good gentleman to the 1st answer I gave above.

Do you have a calvin stick pin for your Sunday suit lapel and tie?

No, the website was sold out.

Do you have a John calvin coffee cup to go with your john calvin pen and pencil set?

No. Those pens are cheap and made in China and only last 3-4 days. I still use the quail feather pin like all true Calvinist do. The coffee cup...I would love to have if you tell me where to get one.

Do you have calvin place mats for the dinner table or perhaps a calvin calender planner on your desk?

Wait. Can you see inside my house? How did you know? Did I leave my web cam on again?

Do you have John Calvin license plates for your car?

No...my truck

Are your 2 sons named John and Calvin?

No ..I named my daughters John and Calvin and Ringo

Did you go to Calvin Bible college and Seminary? :laugh:

Wait...

Are you making fun?

Is this all a big joke?

OK...never mind what I said above.

 

[Rippon]

I just now talked with my wife about going to the store. Does that count?




Being that indoctrinated means to be educated and to have learned doctrine...I try my best, but I'm not sure how high I am. Maybe 4.5 on the scale, but I'm not sure what the limits of the scale is. Does this help?



I have my own mind, and have never read a full book of Johns. What does that tell ya?




Is this a trick question? Yes I have. I hardly speak of him other then to defend his bashing.



I refer the good gentleman to the 1st answer I gave above.


No, the website was sold out.



No. Those pens are cheap and made in China and only last 3-4 days. I still use the quail feather pin like all true Calvinist do. The coffee cup...I would love to have if you tell me where to get one.




Wait. Can you see inside my house? How did you know? Did I leave my web cam on again?



No...my truck





No ..I named my daughters John and Calvin and Ringo





Wait...

Are you making fun?

Is this all a big joke?

OK...never mind what I said above.

James you made my day. That was funny!

 

[Rippon]

Why is it that calvinists can't talk about anything without introducing calvin into the conversation? Are you really that highly indoctrinated? Do you have a mind apart from calvin?Have you ever had a Bible study without bringing up calvin? Have you ever had a conversation without bringing up calvin?Do you have a calvin stick pin for your Sunday suit lapel and tie?Do you have a John calvin coffee cup to go with your john calvin pen and pencil set?
Do you have calvin place mats for the dinner table or perhaps a calvin calender planner on your desk? Do you have John Calvin license plates for your car? Are your 2 sons named John and Calvin? Did you go to Calvin Bible college and Seminary?:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

POB, I have no idea why you are so angry. You apparently haven't been reading this thread. You just want to vent somewhere instead of creating your own thread to do so.I think you have a John Calvin fixation.

I have been asking non-Cals about their opinion regarding the 5th chapter of the WCoF dealing with the Providence of God. What is your take? Do you disagree with the various heads so far, or do you agree ?

You supposedly read most of the 'Institutes of The Christian Religion'. Do you mainly agree with it, or disagree ? If the latter , why ? ( Obviously, as the Calvinists here are Baptists there is no need to address the subject of Baptism wherein he differs with us).

 

[Allan]

I would like to examine the 5th chapter "Of Providence". This was a chapter in which I had concluded that non-Cals would totally disavow. But I'm wondering about that now.

I will list the first head and you non-Cals can tell me your opinion. Are you for it -- or against it?Why?

"1. God, the great Creator of all things, doth uphold, direct, dispose, and govern all creatures, actions, and things, from the greatest even to the least, by his most wise and holy providence, according to his infallible foreknowledge, and the free and immutable counsel of his will, to the praise of the glory of his wisdom, power, justice, goodness, and mercy."

Non-Cals would not really have an issue with this one except mayde a clarification on the term 'governs' since it deals with "all creatures, actions, and things".

Not even that that is a real issue except to clarify that God is not the one who makes them do something (most specifically sin), of which I am certain that is not the intent made.

 

[Allan]

Again, this is your opportunity to voice your opinion. This fifth chapter on God's Providence I had initially set aside as being something which all of you would be against. I am posting different headings to see if indeed there is a bit of agreement here and there.

"2. Although , in relation to the foreknowledge and decree of God, the first cause, all things come to pass immutably and infallibily; yet, by the same providence, he ordereth them to fall out according to the nature of second causes, either necessarly, freely, or contingently."

"3. God in his ordinary providence maketh use of means, yet is free to work without, above, and against them, at his pleasure."

Number 2 would need some more clarifying since it states both Gods foreknowledge and decrees are in fact the 'first cause'.

Reason #1 - Many of the Soveriegn grace doctrines hold that Gods (fore)knoweldge is based or known only because of His decree. Thus this would make God the first cause and the originator of all things including sin and evil. Therefore in understanding the order of knowledge and decree it gives us a much needed understanding of what is implied by 'first cause'. (1. according to His knowledge He allows certain things and decrees those to be -or- 2. He decrees and it comes pass according to how and what He planned)

Reason #1-b - If God is the first cause (in accordance with Reason #1) then He is the orginator of not only sin but the sinful act and actions of those who do them. Example - The fact that Jane Doe is raped and murdered is due to God's decreeing of this to happen and then, because His decree is immutable and infalable, God uses secondary causes to bring His purposed decree to fruition.

Therefore since this is not what the majority of those of the Soveriegn grace doctrines hold to, it is incumbent upon us to determine which of God's wills are being discussed and described here. Which is why I state there needs be a clarification.


Non-Cals would have no problem with your listed #3.

 

[Jarthur001]

Number 2 would need some more clarifying since it states both Gods foreknowledge and decrees are in fact the 'first cause'.

Reason #1 - Many of the Soveriegn grace doctrines hold that Gods (fore)knoweldge is based or known only because of His decree. Thus this would make God the first cause and the originator of all things including sin and evil. Therefore in understanding the order of knowledge and decree it gives us a much needed understanding of what is implied by 'first cause'. (1. according to His knowledge He allows certain things and decrees those to be -or- 2. He decrees and it comes pass according to how and what He planned)

Reason #1-b - If God is the first cause (in accordance with Reason #1) then He is the orginator of not only sin but the sinful act and actions of those who do them. Example - The fact that Jane Doe is raped and murdered is due to God's decreeing of this to happen and then, because His decree is immutable and infalable, God uses secondary causes to bring His purposed decree to fruition.

Therefore since this is not what the majority of those of the Soveriegn grace doctrines hold to, it is incumbent upon us to determine which of God's wills are being discussed and described here. Which is why I state there needs be a clarification.


Non-Cals would have no problem with your listed #3.

Hello Allan,

I would have to disagree with your reasoning here. I feel this point is one of the leading "reasons" why Calvinism is rejected by some. Just as you have said above, they feel the only logical end of God being the 1st cause of all things is that He also would be guity of making people sin. Of course you will find some people that would agree with that, however most Calvinist disagree and I would be one.

This is a sore spot for Free-willers and Arminian people for they feel this paints God in a bad light, but what they fail to see is that it is a weak part of their doctrine. It is the will of man that sins and always has been. Mans will is not a good thing as many would claim, but it is a bad thing and limited by its sin nature to never seeing the good choice of God. This only proves that man is evil to the core and will always pick his own way or desire and lust over Gods way. The 1st cause can be placed on God for setting the arena in which sin is a choice. God does know what choice man will take, and places that choice within that arena for His plan to come about. God does not force sin in that he does not push man with his almighty hand into a sin act, but does know man will sin and He then makes the arena with all objects in place according to His plan and bingo man does sin.

The 1st cause is the choice of sin placed in the arena by God Himself knowing full will man will sin.
The 2nd factor, and not the 1st cause, is mans sinful nature choosing mans will over Gods will.

God could have made the arena free of the sinful choice, but He did not. In fact we could show that God counts on the fact man will sin to bring about His will. One arena we can see is the tree in the garden.

Also to back this view, I point to what has been called the Lords Prayer.

"Lead me not into temptation"

Either God leads us or He does not. If God leads us and we are tempted, is the temptation from God? No , it is from our sinful nature. But God still brought that object of temptation into our arena and therefore the 1st cause of the leading is from God.

If God does not lead us, what is the point of the prayer?

 

[skypair]

The 1st cause is the choice of sin placed in the arena by God Himself knowing full will man will sin.

Ergo, you establish that God as the "Author of sin." That's helpful. :laugh: You're saying that God "authored" something that man could do that would be against God's own will? Like eat from a certain tree, right?

Also to back this view, I point to what has been called the Lords Prayer.

"Lead me not into temptation."

If God does not lead us, what is the point of the prayer?

Like Jesus was led into the wilderness. Yeah, we get it. But temptation is not sin. And we are praying that when temptation comes (as it always will), we won't be tempted by it "but" we would be "delivered from evil"/sin as Jesus was.

And realize, the sin wasn't there because God put it there (as you conclude in both of your scenarios). It is only there because, like Eve, we don't know enough about God.

skypair

 

[Plain Old Bill]

My Dear Rippon,
I am not angry, just having a little fun poking fun. I probably agree with Calvin more than I do some of todays Calvinists. I think Calvin was sort of like maxwell smart, very very close but not quit there.. Most of my favorite writers (commentary) are calvinists.

Hey as long as you believe in the 5 fundamentals, are missionary and evanvelistic minded you are fine with me. Would I let you preach or teach in my church, if you stayed within the framework of our statement of faith I would have no problem.

Would I felowship with you, you bet I would. The more important question though is do you have any John Calvin action figures?:laugh: :laugh:

 

[Jarthur001]

Ergo, you establish that God as the "Author of sin." That's helpful. :laugh:

Glad I can help.

You're saying that God "authored" something that man could do that would be against God's own will?

What do you mean by authored? I do not recall using that word. If you mean that God made the tree and placed it in the garden, yes I do believe that.

Like eat from a certain tree, right?

right

Like Jesus was led into the wilderness. Yeah, we get it.

You mean this verse?

"Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil."

That would be a good one.

But temptation is not sin.

Of course not.

And realize, the sin wasn't there because God put it there (as you conclude in both of your scenarios).

Of course sin was not there. Sin is not a object. Sin is a transgression of Gods will. It is found in mans heart. And if this is what you conclude from my post, you need to reread it.

It is only there because, like Eve, we don't know enough about God.

skypair

Eve walked with God and understood Gods law, but loved her wants more then she loved God. There was but one rule to follow and Eve know about it.

 

[Rippon]

Let's See If N-C's Agree With More Than 70%

Let me quote some from another chapter which I had left out entirely because I thought that non-Cals would throughly disagree with it.

I will quote from chapter 9 "Of Free Will". I'll do one head per post and wait for a response from the N-C's.

"1. God hath endued the will of man with that natural liberty, that is neither forced, nor by any absolute necessity of nature determined, to do good or evil."

 

[Rippon]

Continuing With Chapter 9 On Free Will

"2. Man, in his state of innocency, had freedom and power to will and to do that which is good and well-pleasing to God; but yet mutably, so that he might fall from it."

 

[Rippon]

Continuing With Chapter 9 On Free Will

"3. Man, by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation; so as a natural man, being altogether averse from that good, and dead in sin, is not able, by his own strength, to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto."

 

[Rippon]

Continuing With Chapter 9 On Free Will

"4. When God converts a sinner, and translates him into the state of grace, he freeth him from his natural bondage under sin, and by his grace alone enables him freely to will and to do that which is spiritually good; yet so as that, by reason of his remaining corruption, he doth not perfectly nor only will that which is good, but doth also will that which is evil."

 

[Rippon]

Continuing With Chapter 9 On Free Will

"5. The will of man is made perfectly and immutably free to do good alone in the state of glory only."