The hidden dangers of Calvinism

[HankD]

Come now, you who say, “Today or tomorrow we will go into such and such a town and spend a year there and trade and make a profit”— yet you do not know what tomorrow will bring. What is your life? For you are a mist that appears for a little time and then vanishes. Instead you ought to say, “If the Lord wills, we will live and do this or that.”

In the way James is using the word here, something will happen only if it's God's will. If something doesn't happen, then it wasn't God's will that it happen. This kind of will is reflected in what actually comes to pass.

OK I see what you are saying, I'm still wondering however if this can be applied to The will of God as the object of the premise.

The will of God is the will of God. Enter fatalism?

James (imo) is simply saying we must acknowledge that God is in control and not we ourselves.


Thank You for the explanation, I need to think about this some more.

HankD

 

[russell55]

James (imo) is simply saying we must acknowledge that God is in control and not we ourselves.

Yes, absolutely. God's control is a good way to put it. And scripture sometimes uses the term God's will to refer to God's control.

But it also uses it in at least one other way: to refer to what is morally right for people to do. What God desires (at least in some sense) that people do.

So when we find the word will used in scripture in regards to God, we may need to spend a little time determining the meaning of the word as it is used. Mostly, I'd say we do that automatically without even thinking about it. We already, in our minds, have at least two meanings we take from that word, even though we may be unaware of it.

When people talk of the two wills of God, they are simply codifying what most of us do when we interpret automatically as we read.

 

[stilllearning]

I would like to tweak the title of my thread just a little:
Instead of “the danger of Calvinism” I think it should be, “the danger of Calvinists”.
--------------------------------------------------
Now I don’t want to anger or offend any the Calvinists that are reading this right now, so please let me explain.

The problem isn’t yours, it is mine.

Years and years ago, when I ran into my first Calvinist(some visitor at Church), as we talked, this exact subject came up(free will), and so I quoted John 3:16.

He quickly told me, that the word “world” in this verse wasn’t talking about everybody, but was instead referring to “the world of the elect”.
--------------------------------------------------
Even though, I quickly rejected this(and still do), I made myself a mental note, not to use this verse again, when talking to Calvinists;
(Because they think that they have an answer for it.)

Well, over the years, I have done this again and again;
(Every time, that I have come in contact with a Calvinist, and we start talking about where we disagree, the Lord brings to mind “some verses or passages”, that would show them, how they were in error, and most of the time, they would somehow say, that the Scripture, didn’t really say, what I thought that it said.)

What I have realized today, is the error, of defending a Doctrine or attacking a false Doctrine, with a single verse.
--------------------------------------------------
“My” view remains, that from a systematic view of Scripture, that God’s Holiness demands that every one of us are in the same boat.

(We are all born in Spiritual darkness, and when we are shown the light of the Gospel, each of us will either accept or reject, God’s free gift.)

The argument of exactly why, some reject this light and others accept it, is at the heart of this thread, and it is clear, that no one knows the answer.
--------------------------------------------------
Therefore, I am going to try and remember, that if you are saved by Grace through faith, then you are my brother in Christ, and if your happen to be a Calvinist, than we will talk about “the foolishness of preaching against women wearing pants”, or some other interesting subject.

One of these days, when we see each other in heaven, we will have a big laugh over it, and I will try not to tell you, “I told you so”.

 

[HankD]

Yes, absolutely. God's control is a good way to put it. And scripture sometimes uses the term God's will to refer to God's control.

But it also uses it in at least one other way: to refer to what is morally right for people to do. What God desires (at least in some sense) that people do.

So when we find the word will used in scripture in regards to God, we may need to spend a little time determining the meaning of the word as it is used. Mostly, I'd say we do that automatically without even thinking about it. We already, in our minds, have at least two meanings we take from that word, even though we may be unaware of it.

When people talk of the two wills of God, they are simply codifying what most of us do when we interpret automatically as we read.

OK Thanks Russell.

I've thought about this some more and here is what is puzzling to me.

It's most evident in Young's Literal Translation:

1 Timothy 2:4 who doth will all men to be saved, and to come to the full knowledge of the truth;​

No one but Young translates the "thelei" as the indicative present active of the infinitive "to will", at least in my electronic collection of Bibles.
Many make thelo into "desire" or change it into a kind of subjunctive mood.​

The grammar of this verse means it is a present and abiding reality and not a just a possibility or a generality that God wills all men to be saved.​

This language seems to me to supercede any qualifications of the "moral" or "permissive" will of God.​

This IS His will.​

Yet it is evident from the Scripture that not all men will be saved.​

There are many unacceptable explanations (e.g. universalism, though I know that a few Primitive Baptists hold that view of this verse).​

Another would be that mankind has the power to violate the will of God
even within the immutable boundaries of His sovereignty.
I have no idea how He does that.​

For now that seems the most reasonable explanation, or at least it's the one I prefer.​

Thanks again Russell, God bless you and yours.​

HankD​

 

[Jarthur001]

The argument of exactly why, some reject this light and others accept it, is at the heart of this thread, and it is clear, that no one knows the answer.

I feel the Bible is clear.

You can't come to the Bible and force your views on it. Even in your story above when you met your 1st Calvinist when you heard his views, you quickly rejected it. The Danger you see in Calvinist and now the danger you see in Calvinist, does rest in what you bring to the table. Because it is not what you have been told by others, you feel it is wrong. The wiser thing to do when you disagree with someone is to have them prove to you their views.

There has always been more then one system of theology within the realms of orthodox Christianity.

 

[psalms109:31]

I'm not lying

First Paul speaks of prayer for everyone then He stats that God wants all men to be saved, which is every single person. Then He said He wasn't lying to say just like today there was men that doubted this.

We also cannot disreguard other scripture also that God is going to save only believers in His Son. Even though God wants every single person to be saved He is only going to save believers in His Son.

I know there is one's God has chosen before even the foundation of the world, but not only God going to save those predestined to be saved, He also included those who heard the Gospel of thier salvation having believed. These are not part of those chosen before the foundation of the world, but are included with them when they heard the Gospel of thier salvation having believed.

Like in revelation 7, He talks about the elect chosen, which is the same as those chosen before the foundation of the world. Then you see the multitude saved like the sands of the sea shore, these are the one's that heard the Gospel of thier salvation having believed.

If you read eph 1 You hear of those who where chosen before the foundation of the world, then when you read futher down you see the one's God has included those who heard the Gospel of thier salvation having believed.

These are two different groups of people that makes sence with God wants all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth and God loving the world He sent His Son without putting limits on the word all and the word world to fit your doctrine.

We are all saved by grace and not works even if we are required to believe, because with our belief comes the knowledge that it is what Jesus did on the cross that saved us. Our work is not to sin, but all have sinned and and fall short of the glory of God. So the wages of our sin is death. So even if we believe we are saved by grace because the wages of our sin is death and we didn't pay Jesus did so we are saved by grace through faith.

 

[Rippon]

All of the elect are one group.You need to check Eph.1:2-14 with 2 Thess.2:13;2Tim.1;9 among other passages.

 

[psalms109:31]

Agree

All of the elect are one group.You need to check Eph.1:2-14 with 2 Thess.2:13;2Tim.1;9 among other passages.

They are one group of people after God include them with those predestined to be saved. They are also marked by the seal praise God.

In Christ we are one, those predestined and included.

 

[gb93433]

There is a good article at http://www.baptiststandard.com/1999/11_24/pages/calvinism.html

 

[Rippon]

Dr.Patterson is a nice man and very intelligent -- but he's wrong about Calvinism.

 

[Rippon]

They are one group of people after God include them with those predestined to be saved. They are also marked by the seal praise God.

In Christ we are one, those predestined and included.

All the saved ones have been foreordained in eternity past.No others are included.With your ideas you have the strange notion that God added others as an afterthought.But there is only one group.There are various deignations for this group i.e.saints,elect,sheep,beloved,church,Bride etc.--but no one else except those chosen before the foundation of the world.

 

[psalms109:31]

All the saved ones have been foreordained in eternity past.No others are included.With your ideas you have the strange notion that God added others as an afterthought.But there is only one group.There are various deignations for this group i.e.saints,elect,sheep,beloved,church,Bride etc.--but no one else except those chosen before the foundation of the world.

I know this is been taught for so long without seeing the whole truth that you don't want to believe, but the scripture clearly shows that God has included with them those who hear the Gospel of thier salvation having believed, some are so stubburn that not even God and His word will make them believe.

 

[gb93433]

All of the elect are one group.You need to check Eph.1:2-14 with 2 Thess.2:13;2Tim.1;9 among other passages.

Eph. 1:2 is a Jewish and Greek greeting.
Eph. 1:3-14 is a prayer of thanksgiving. It follows the typical form of a letter during that time.
2 Tim 1:3-14 is a prayer of thanksgiving. It follows the same pattern as Eph. 1:3-14.

 

[Tom Butler]

One of the most fascinating passages in the Bible is Matthew 11. starting in v.20.

Here, Jesus begins to upbraid those cities, Chorazin and Bethsaida, where he had done mighty works, but the people had not repented. The Jesus said, "if the mighty works which were done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented in sackcloth and ashes."

Jesus then turned his attention to Capernaum, and said, "if the might works done in you had been done in Sodom, it would remain until this day."

Fascinating. Tyre, Sidon and Sodom would have repented had they seen the mighty works of God. But they didn't see them because Jesus never went there. Nor, as far as I can see, did any of his disciples (at least up to that point). Had they gone, they would have repented. But they never had a chance to repent.

I confess that interpreting this passage is "above my pay grade," as I heard someone famous say not long ago. Any thoughts?

Here's more fascinating stuff. Right after pronouncing his woes, Jesus spoke to the Father. "i thank thee....that thou hast hidden these things from the wise and prudent and revealed them unto babes."

Two things. The message of God was hidden from Tyre, Sidon and Sodom, and Jesus thanked the father that it was so. If I'm wrong about those cities, then we have to deal with the question, to whom were these things hidden.

Next thing. V.26, "Even so Father, because it seemed GOOD in thy sight." It pleased God to hide the message of salvation from some folks? And it pleased him to reveal it to others?

then in v. 27, Jesus goes even further: "...no man knows the Father save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him."

So what have we got? Jesus reveals the Father, without with no one can know him. Jesus did not go to Tyre and Sidon, but they would have repented if he had. And it pleased the Father to hide the truth from some people.

Now, how does this square with the view that it is not God's will that any should perish, and that all come to repentance,in II Peter 3:9?

Release the hounds!

 

[MB]

I feel the Bible is clear.

You can't come to the Bible and force your views on it. Even in your story above when you met your 1st Calvinist when you heard his views, you quickly rejected it. The Danger you see in Calvinist and now the danger you see in Calvinist, does rest in what you bring to the table. Because it is not what you have been told by others, you feel it is wrong. The wiser thing to do when you disagree with someone is to have them prove to you their views.

There has always been more then one system of theology within the realms of orthodox Christianity.

The underlined above is the only way to see if a particular doctrine is true. The problem is that Calvinist claim to have proved there doctrine true but the truth is they haven't. What comes as proof is a small part of scripture taken out of context and a lot of that persons interpretation of what that scripture means. More often than not what is claimed isn't even what the particular scripture is about in the first place. What I believe of scripture isn't my interpretation but is the God given understanding I have received from above. Anyone can have the same understanding all they have to do is ask God for it. Then stop trying to arrive at your own interpretation but depend entirely on God for the understanding of it.
As far as feeling it is wrong. I have to say it isn't a feeling but according to my Bible is established fact.
MB

 

[webdog]

One of the most fascinating passages in the Bible is Matthew 11. starting in v.20.

Here, Jesus begins to upbraid those cities, Chorazin and Bethsaida, where he had done mighty works, but the people had not repented. The Jesus said, "if the mighty works which were done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented in sackcloth and ashes."

Jesus then turned his attention to Capernaum, and said, "if the might works done in you had been done in Sodom, it would remain until this day."

Fascinating. Tyre, Sidon and Sodom would have repented had they seen the mighty works of God. But they didn't see them because Jesus never went there. Nor, as far as I can see, did any of his disciples (at least up to that point). Had they gone, they would have repented. But they never had a chance to repent.

I confess that interpreting this passage is "above my pay grade," as I heard someone famous say not long ago. Any thoughts?

Here's more fascinating stuff. Right after pronouncing his woes, Jesus spoke to the Father. "i thank thee....that thou hast hidden these things from the wise and prudent and revealed them unto babes."

Two things. The message of God was hidden from Tyre, Sidon and Sodom, and Jesus thanked the father that it was so. If I'm wrong about those cities, then we have to deal with the question, to whom were these things hidden.

Next thing. V.26, "Even so Father, because it seemed GOOD in thy sight." It pleased God to hide the message of salvation from some folks? And it pleased him to reveal it to others?

then in v. 27, Jesus goes even further: "...no man knows the Father save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him."

So what have we got? Jesus reveals the Father, without with no one can know him. Jesus did not go to Tyre and Sidon, but they would have repented if he had. And it pleased the Father to hide the truth from some people.

Now, how does this square with the view that it is not God's will that any should perish, and that all come to repentance,in II Peter 3:9?

Release the hounds!

I think what's even more fascinating is the fact Christ said people who were not of the "elect" could have been saved. He basically refuted predestination as described by calvinists.

 

[annsni]

I think what's even more fascinating is the fact Christ said people who were not of the "elect" could have been saved. He basically refuted predestination as described by calvinists.

Can you show me the verse where it says that those who were not of the elect could have been saved?

 

[webdog]

Can you show me the verse where it says that those who were not of the elect could have been saved?

Everything from Matthew 11 Tom posted. It's clear those in Sodom and Gomorah were destined for destruction...yet Christ stated they could have been saved. How does that work in a determinist model of predestination?

 

[annsni]

Everything from Matthew 11 Tom posted. It's clear those in Sodom and Gomorah were destined for destruction...yet Christ stated they could have been saved. How does that work in a determinist model of predestination?

All I read is that the cities would have repented and not destroyed. I don't see anything regarding salvation.

 

[webdog]

All I read is that the cities would have repented and not destroyed. I don't see anything regarding salvation.

S & G was destroyed because there were not even 10 righeous people found, (only Lot and his family) so you can conclude they were destroyed and are indeed lost. Fact is, people who were not of the "elect" had the opportunity to be just that according to Christ.