Question about Calvinism

[JonC]

This leads me to the conclusion that the reason why some are saved and some are lost is part of how the fabric of time has been woven by a sovereign God.

That is not the only logical conclusion. You missed a huge factor, that is omniscience and God knowing His creation.

I am not saying I hold this position BUT it could just as logically be that an omniscient God created for His glory, the lost being a contrast to the saved rather than God actively predestining the lost to be lost.

The issue is we cannot divorce qualities of God from one another as they are how God has revealed Himself to man.

 

[Silverhair]

It means to establish or set something in an established order if you took the time to look up the word as it was used when the WCF was written. So if God causes Joseph's brothers to sell him into slavery that is different than God using the fact that they want to get rid of him (by their own free choice), and then arranging for a caravan to come by at the right time leading to Joseph ending up in Egypt. Joseph's brothers free will was not violated, yet God had ordained that Joseph would go to Egypt and Joseph's brothers worked for God while all the while sinning against God, to accomplish what he ordained. That is why "ordain" is used and why it can be followed by a note that free will does not have to be violated to accomplish what God has ordained.

Dave you can try to make the words sound really nice but the reality is that for the calvinist theology to work you have to have God determine / ordain / decree, you can choose the word you like, all things unchangeably. You can not have any free will involved as that for the calvinist would mean that God was not sovereign. How many times have I been told by calvinists that God has to be absolutely totally sovereign or that the Holy Spirit has to make the decisive action.
From a biblical perspective I can see God working in the lives of Joseph's brother to accomplish His goals but calvinism steps outside of the bible into determinism.
So for the calvinist ordain just means suggestion is that what you want us to believe?

So no, that is why "ordains" is in there, and why it is made clear that the person has every option to act according to his own free will. You are wrong and your real problem is that it is dawning on you that the WCF was taking all that into account when it was written.

The real problem is that you know what the problem is and you just ignore what the the WCF actually says and you want us to accept your contradictory view. And why, because according to you that is not how it was understood when the WCF was written.

The KJV only uses G1299 diatássō 16 times in the NT. appointed 3, ordained 3, commanded 8, set in order 1, given order 1. Even the three where ordain is used it show it means more than just a suggestion as you want us to believe the WCF is saying. "What the Apostle ordained in the churches in regard to marital conditions (1Co_7:17); of what the Lord ordained in regard to the support of those who proclaim the gospel (1Co_9:14); of the Law as administered through angels by Moses (Gal_3:19)" The Complete WordStudy Dictionary

And lastly, in case some jasper came along that still didn't get it, the WCF put in plain language that God was not the author of sin. But there is always somebody who doesn't get the word.

They can make that claim all they want but the text is clear "God from all eternity did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass ". I can understand why you want to run away from it. They even tried to do so by then denying what they had just written.

 

[DaveXR650]

The KJV only uses G1299 diatássō 16 times in the NT. appointed 3, ordained 3, commanded 8, set in order 1, given order

I'm not sure what you're doing there since the WCF was not translated from Greek or Hebrew. Maybe they wrote it in Latin? But anyway, "set in order" would be fine. That shows a deliberate purpose to use a word different than "cause", or directly cause, which is what extreme determinists want.

And why did they do that? For two reason, both of which they stated. One. They didn't want to eliminate the idea of free will because to do so causes other theological problems. Two. They did not want to make God the author of moral evil because that would be against what has been revealed about his nature.

I can understand why you want to run away from it. They even tried to do so by then denying what they had just written.

I think the writers of the WCF were sufficiently careful to fully explain exactly what they meant by saying what they did. You can mock it or reject it. It's not scripture, although if you get on a site where they included the scriptures that go along with the points you will be impressed. But I am not under any obligation by church affiliation to swear to it or the London Baptist Confession of Faith, which is slightly modified. And neither are you. Just reject the points you don't like.

 

[AFJ]

Then it would be intellectually dishonest to say you also believe Spurgeon was correct. Am I not correct in saying that you indeed are already a convinced Calvinist?

I quoted Wiersbe/Spurgeon because that seems to be the position some on here hold to and I explained why I find it difficult to accept. I don't want to be called any type of [insert label here] Christian. I have been asking simple, logical questions and so far I have not found any convincing argument other than that some simply don't want to believe in it. No matter what I believe, I fully intend on building relationships at the nondenominational church in my area and I'm not going to usurp the pastor's authority to teach others what I believe behind the scenes.

 

[AFJ]

From a biblical perspective I can see God working in the lives of Joseph's brother to accomplish His goals but calvinism steps outside of the bible into determinism.

I'm glad you brought this up.

Genesis 50:20 (ESV)
As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today.

So you admit God used Joseph's brothers to accomplish His goals. Did God know ahead of time that Joseph's brothers would do what they did? If you say no, does that mean that God was sitting there trying to figure out how He was going to protect the people of Egypt until the right people came along? And if nobody came along, wouldn’t that also mean that God may not have been able to accomplish His goals at all?

If you say yes, God did know what Joseph’s brothers were going to do, then that must be because they couldn’t do otherwise.

 

[Silverhair]

I'm not sure what you're doing there since the WCF was not translated from Greek or Hebrew. Maybe they wrote it in Latin? But anyway, "set in order" would be fine. That shows a deliberate purpose to use a word different than "cause", or directly cause, which is what extreme determinists want.

You said I should try to understand how the word ordain was used in the time when the WCF was written and since I am sure those writers were aware of the KJV bible then they would be aware of what it meant in the context in which they used it. That context does not allow for a different understanding of the word than "cause". Calvinism is based on a deterministic view which is what you see in the WCF statement.

And why did they do that? For two reason, both of which they stated. One. They didn't want to eliminate the idea of free will because to do so causes other theological problems. Two. They did not want to make God the author of moral evil because that would be against what has been revealed about his nature.

They had to add the second part of the statement in an effort to soften the logical outcome of the first part of the statement.
You even agree that they had to add the qualifier statement because they knew that to say God unchangeably ordained whatsoever comes to pass would include evil in the "whatsoever". The bible does not make God the author of evil, calvinism does that on its' own.

I think the writers of the WCF were sufficiently careful to fully explain exactly what they meant by saying what they did. You can mock it or reject it. It's not scripture, although if you get on a site where they included the scriptures that go along with the points you will be impressed. But I am not under any obligation by church affiliation to swear to it or the London Baptist Confession of Faith, which is slightly modified. And neither are you. Just reject the points you don't like.

What you call being careful to fully explain what they meant falls far short of any form of explanation. I can see where they tried to cover up the error with a contradictory statement.

I do not need to mock it but I do reject it as a logical incoherent statement. And since I have the WCF & LBCF on my system and have looked into them I am not impressed. I have no problem with the parts that agree with scripture but do reject anything that calls the character of God into question.

As with any confession they are written from a theological position in support of that position. The problem comes in when that confession is held in higher regard that scripture. This is what I see happening with the WCF & LBCF. and by extension TULIP/DoG.

 

[DaveXR650]

I quoted Wiersbe/Spurgeon because that seems to be the position some on here hold to and I explained why I find it difficult to accept.

I find it the best position to take. Your OP was about you possibly leaning toward Calvinism and from what you post you are well into the modern, highly deterministic, Calvinist camp. I was just pointing out that a thorough reading of Calvinist preachers who really lived it, like Spurgeon, you get a different take on it than you get from the internet Calvinists of the recent Calvinist resurgence, which is on the way out already.

 

[DaveXR650]

I do not need to mock it but I do reject it as a logical incoherent statement. And since I have the WCF & LBCF on my system and have looked into them I am not impressed. I have no problem with the parts that agree with scripture but do reject anything that calls the character of God into question.

There are scriptures where God is clearly interacting with humans where they are clearly given a choice that will matter. There are passages where God seems to say "now I know" something, after seeing what a person will do. There are also passages clearly saying God chooses someone for something and they are going to fulfill that role. There are scriptures indicating you must choose God's will for you, and scriptures saying that men don't do this naturally. There are clear differences in God's dealing with Israel and surrounding heathens and there are indications of heathen nations being praised as at least being as basically good as the Jews. There are scriptures that indicate we are all irrecoverably evil and scriptures promising blessing upon repentance. All these confessions are attempts by men to systematize this in a coherent way. But they are something else too.

As with any confession they are written from a theological position in support of that position. The problem comes in when that confession is held in higher regard that scripture.

They are also documents designed to establish boarders. They needed to come up with a document that would serve as a way for churches and even denominations to unite and to exclude others, like Catholics and Quakers. They also were presented to the ruler at the time as a plea for toleration, so it would be understood what they could teach and not teach and avoid persecution from the government. From what I have read in the WCF the parts on the extent of the atonement and free will were definitely designed for compromise.

What you said about putting scripture first is absolutely true. For instance, scripture promises that if you come to Christ by faith he will save you. Anyone who at that point would throw up anything about election or predestination is misusing theology. Anyone who says that such a person by coming to Christ, may be changing a decree of God does not understand scripture or the proper use of theology. But it also does not mean that when you decide to come to Christ you came by way of an autonomous free will. You are invited to come. You can decide to come. If you really put scripture first then leave it at that and you are fine. But theological speculation is not just a problem with Calvinists. Claiming that you were not called, that you have always had the ability to figure this out on your own, or that God had to wait for your autonomous decision is just as abusive of scripture as any Calvinist theology. Spurgeon and Wiersbe knew this. So did Owen, Edwards and Bonar and even Wesley and Baxter.

 

[Silverhair]

There are scriptures where God is clearly interacting with humans where they are clearly given a choice that will matter. There are passages where God seems to say "now I know" something, after seeing what a person will do. There are also passages clearly saying God chooses someone for something and they are going to fulfill that role. There are scriptures indicating you must choose God's will for you, and scriptures saying that men don't do this naturally. There are clear differences in God's dealing with Israel and surrounding heathens and there are indications of heathen nations being praised as at least being as basically good as the Jews. There are scriptures that indicate we are all irrecoverably evil and scriptures promising blessing upon repentance. All these confessions are attempts by men to systematize this in a coherent way. But they are something else too.

"There are also passages clearly saying God chooses someone for something and they are going to fulfill that role." Do you mean people such as Pharaoh, Cyrus in OT or Paul, Judas in NT? I agree that God chose them for a task but do you think they could have rejected the call?
When you say "we are all irrecoverably evil" would that not negate our ability for "repentance" ?

Agreed men have tried to systematize their views which has both a good and bad side to it.

They are also documents designed to establish boarders. They needed to come up with a document that would serve as a way for churches and even denominations to unite and to exclude others, like Catholics and Quakers. They also were presented to the ruler at the time as a plea for toleration, so it would be understood what they could teach and not teach and avoid persecution from the government. From what I have read in the WCF the parts on the extent of the atonement and free will were definitely designed for compromise.

I do not see much compromise when you consider "All those whom God hath predestinated unto life, and those only, He is pleased in His appointed and accepted time effectually to call, " Chapter X. Of Effectual Calling "The grace of faith, whereby the elect are enabled to believe to the saving of their souls " Chapter XIV. Of Saving Faith.
Those comment are exclusionary and disagree with scripture.

What you said about putting scripture first is absolutely true. For instance, scripture promises that if you come to Christ by faith he will save you. Anyone who at that point would throw up anything about election or predestination is misusing theology. Anyone who says that such a person by coming to Christ, may be changing a decree of God does not understand scripture or the proper use of theology. But it also does not mean that when you decide to come to Christ you came by way of an autonomous free will. You are invited to come. You can decide to come. If you really put scripture first then leave it at that and you are fine. But theological speculation is not just a problem with Calvinists. Claiming that you were not called, that you have always had the ability to figure this out on your own, or that God had to wait for your autonomous decision is just as abusive of scripture as any Calvinist theology. Spurgeon and Wiersbe knew this. So did Owen, Edwards and Bonar and even Wesley and Baxter.

You continue to use the phrase "autonomous free will" as a pejorative but as has been pointed out to you more that once man responds to the various means that God uses to draw man to Himself. No one has an autonomous free will but we all have a God given free will with which to make the choice to trust in or reject God based on the information that we have and how we choose to view it.
Spurgeon and Wiersbe knew this.

Man either has a free will or all is determined by God. With a free will man is responsible for the choices he makes if all is determined then God is responsible for the determined choices man makes.

 

[DaveXR650]

but we all have a God given free will with which to make the choice to trust in or reject God based on the information that we have and how we choose to view it.
Spurgeon and Wiersbe knew this.

Spurgeon and Wiersbe absolutely did not believe this. They both believed in the direct action of the Holy Spirit on any person who gets saved as a prior action. All the Puritan Calvinists, Bonar, non-Calvinists like Wesley and Baxter, and Arminius believed the same thing.

Man either has a free will or all is determined by God.

This is why we have theology and commentaries - so that we won't make such statements. And as you see, those who claim that they only follow scripture in reality make absolute theological statements just like those who respect theology do.

I don't know what some of you guys think. I don't care if you reject the confessions and I have said repeatedly that I don't consider it an issue of orthodoxy. But do you really think that you are going to really come on and demolish documents like the WCF? At least have some respect for it if for nothing else, just for the historic significance.

 

[Silverhair]

Spurgeon and Wiersbe absolutely did not believe this. They both believed in the direct action of the Holy Spirit on any person who gets saved as a prior action. All the Puritan Calvinists, Bonar, non-Calvinists like Wesley and Baxter, and Arminius believed the same thing.

That is just a foolish statement on your part. They believed what the bible says you are the one that requires a decisive action from the Holy Spirit. That is just another way of saying determinism.
Charles Spurgeon commented, “If the elect were marked with an X then I would not need to preach ‘whosoever will’ but since they are not then I continue to preach ‘whosoever will.'” God provides the information but He does not cram it down a persons throat as you seem to think. You are more of a hard calvinist than you let on.

This is why we have theology and commentaries - so that we won't make such statements. And as you see, those who claim that they only follow scripture in reality make absolute theological statements just like those who respect theology do.

Free will or determinism are the only two options available. Who makes the decision to believe, the man or God? Does God hold man responsible for the choices he makes? If you say YES then you have to agree that man has a free will as only via a free will can he make choices.
Theological statements are made based on the study of scripture which is the basis of ones' theology.

I don't know what some of you guys think. I don't care if you reject the confessions and I have said repeatedly that I don't consider it an issue of orthodoxy. But do you really think that you are going to really come on and demolish documents like the WCF? At least have some respect for it if for nothing else, just for the historic significance.

Pointing out the logical contradictions in a document is just that. What a person does with that information is up to them. If they are comfortable with the contradictions and can accept them then so be it but they should not expect everyone to just go along with their view.

The WCF and the LBCF were documents written by people that held to a particular view of scripture and it shows in the text of those documents.

 

[JonC]

I have to agree with @DaveXR650 regarding Spurgeon. He went to great lengths to describe the work of the Spirit as the cause for a person believing (one sermon he tells his audience that if they are being convicted towards a belief then this is the Spirit, another he describes the work of the Spirit as an effectual persuasion, and in another he describes the work of the Spirit towards the salvation of a person as God breaking down our walls so that we can believe.

I'm not arguing against free-will, just that Spurgeon did preach the necessity of the work of the Spirit in order that one can believe.

 

[AFJ]

l Your OP was about you possibly leaning toward Calvinism and from what you post you are well into the modern, highly deterministic, Calvinist camp.

I haven’t yet come to a final conclusion. I would like to leave the discussion open that way I can consider all possibilities.

 

[Scarlett O.]

I haven’t yet come to a final conclusion. I would like to leave the discussion open that way I can consider all possibilities.

I try very hard not to get into these discussions about Calvinism. And as far as Arminianism, I've been here at the BB for 22 years and never seen a person admit to those beliefs.

I cannot be an Arminian because the classic teachings teach that you can lose your salvation. That's not what I believe.

I cannot be a Calvinism because I do not believe nor see anywhere in the Bible where God created billions of people in their mothers' wombs hating them while he did so - intending from before their conception that they burn in hell for eternity for the sole reason that he never intended on drawing them to himself or giving them an opportunity to be saved - because he hated them from the time he thought of them.

It's a circular unreasonableness.

Cain, more than likely, is in hell. If Calvinism is true, then why did God urge him to turn away from sin and tell him that if he did right that he, Cain, would be accepted?

Cain did not accept God's grace and did not do right. But God made the offer. Cain was allowed to make the choice. He made the wrong choice.

The same thing with the rich, young ruler. The Bible says that Jesus loved him and explained how to receive eternal life. The rich, young ruler could not admit that he was a sinner and could not turn away from his self-centeredness nor riches.

But Jesus extended his truth and love nonetheless.

 

[DaveXR650]

Charles Spurgeon commented, “If the elect were marked with an X then I would not need to preach ‘whosoever will’ but since they are not then I continue to preach ‘whosoever will.'” God provides the information but He does not cram it down a persons throat as you seem to think. You are more of a hard calvinist than you let on.

Not only did Spurgeon say that but look at this:
"Wherefore, that which is now proposed unto consideration in answer hereunto, is the readiness of Christ to receive every sinner, be he who or what he will, that shall come unto him."
That from John Owen.
"Salvation is ready brought to your door; and the Savior stands, knocks, and calls that you would open to him, that he might bring it in to you. There remains nothing but your consent. All the difficulty remaining is with your own heart. If you perish now, it must be you would not come to Christ that you might have life, an because you virtually choose death rather than life." Jonathan Edwards

He does not cram it down a persons throat as you seem to think. You are more of a hard calvinist than you let on.

So do I seem to think that. Did Edwards, Spurgeon and Owen think that? That's why I keep saying that you (and the new Calvinists) need to really read these guys. If you do you eventually get a sense of where they were and you get a sense of why the great confessions are so brilliantly well done and thought out.

 

[DaveXR650]

I haven’t yet come to a final conclusion. I would like to leave the discussion open that way I can consider all possibilities.

Nothing at all wrong with that.

 

[DaveXR650]

I try very hard not to get into these discussions about Calvinism. And as far as Arminianism, I've been here at the BB for 22 years and never seen a person admit to those beliefs.

I've wondered about that too. Recently I've been reading Arminius himself, rather than about Arminius, and his writings where he goes back and forth with the Puritan Perkins. He makes a lot of sense.

I cannot be a Calvinism because I do not believe nor see anywhere in the Bible where God created billions of people in their mothers' wombs hating them while he did so - intending from before their conception that they burn in hell for eternity for the sole reason that he never intended on drawing them to himself or giving them an opportunity to be saved - because he hated them from the time he thought of them.

I agree with you there 100%.

 

[kyredneck]

No matter what I believe, I fully intend on building relationships at the nondenominational church in my area and I'm not going to usurp the pastor's authority to teach others what I believe behind the scenes.

Excellent!

 

[Reynolds]

If man has no free will then man has no responsibility.

You didn't read what I said.
Romans plainly tells us we are responsible.

 

[Silverhair]

I have to agree with @DaveXR650 regarding Spurgeon. He went to great lengths to describe the work of the Spirit as the cause for a person believing (one sermon he tells his audience that if they are being convicted towards a belief then this is the Spirit, another he describes the work of the Spirit as an effectual persuasion, and in another he describes the work of the Spirit towards the salvation of a person as God breaking down our walls so that we can believe.

I'm not arguing against free-will, just that Spurgeon did preach the necessity of the work of the Spirit in order that one can believe.

As I have said a number of times on this board the Holy Spirit convicts men of their sin. But He does not cause or force men to believe. That is what @DaveXR650 is advocating when he says that a person cannot believe without the Holy Spirits' decisive action. So no decisive action by the Holy Spirit then no ability for the person to believe.

I can understand that Spurgen said what he said, he was a calvinist. While I respect Spurgeon as a good preacher he was still just a flawed man who happened to hold to the calvinist view so I would expect him to preach as he did.