What is the purpose of Calvinism?

[Dr. Bob]

When did burning at the stake become passe'?

True "brothers in Christ" might have differing interpretations on a host of issues, but are in basic agreement (like a sovereign God, salvation by grace without works, etc). It is FALSE 'brethren' who, when confronted with their pelagian error and will not repent, from whom we must separate.

There ARE hills to die on, and I will have no fellowship or even civility with those who attack God's grace. My whole life is designed to glorify that grace, not allow it to be trampled underfoot.

I am piling up the faggots as I type . .

 

[Pastor Larry]

I see no value in a theology label.

They are of great value because they keep us from long conversations about what we believe. When I say I am an inerrantist, that is a label that tells you about my bibliology. When I say I am a Trinitarian, that is a label that tells you about my theology. When I say I am a Christian, that is a label that tells you about my theology. When I say I am a dispensationalist, that is a label that tells you about my theology. My guess is that you probably don't mind theological labels as much as you say you do.

What Calvin wrote is not God's word but rather an opinion of what he thought scripture taught. While I have great respect for Calvin and have been challenged by his discipline, I am not challenged to study what he believed.

Then you are well on your way to becoming a Calvinist since most Calvinists know that what Calvin wrote is not God's word, and most Calvinists are not compelled to study Calvin.

I am willing to spend time studying that which is eternal at the loss of that which is temporal.

This will set you up well to be a Calvinist, since Calvinism is about what Scripture teaches.

It is bewildering to me why one would make a claim of being a Calvinist and saying that one agrees with Calvin when one has never read what Calvin wrote. If one has never read what Calvin wrote then how can he name himself among those who subscribe to Calvin's teachings.

Because Calvinism is not really about what Calvin taught, but about what Scripture teaches. As you should know, the tenets of Calvinism predate Calvinism by many many centuries.

What I also find interesting is that most Baptists claim to be people who use their Bible as their sole standard for faith and practice, yet quite a number call themselves Calvinists.

Not sure why that is interesting to you. If the Bible is our sole standard of faith and practice, then I think we will all be Calvinists. The problem is that people follow the teachings of men and as a result believe other things. Even the name Baptist is a label that is not found in the Bible. So if your argument is correct here, we could not even call ourselves Baptist. I think you have just exposed your own fallacy.

When I read 1 Cor. I do not see labeling as being a good thing commended by Paul, but rather addressed as a negative issue. Isn't that what the Bible teaches?

No. The labeling there was something entirely different than what we are talking about here. Studying the Scripture in its historical context as you say you like to do will help you understand that.

I am not sure why you can't understand that Calvinism is not about men, but about what the Scripture teaches.

 

[doulous]

The above is what scripture calls 'immature christians'. It is all about what they want. it is only polarizing when one or both sides state my view is right and that the other is does know how to read, understand, or study the scriptures. It becomes polarizing when you start belittling, condecending, and bringing ad-homs in.

But no, it isn't a 'pipe dream' except for those who seek to destroy the unity of the brethren. I will agree that it is something that takes great love to do however and thus many will divide because they are still children who have yet to understand and practice this spiritual fact.




No your switching to a completely different topic that IS a polar opposite to what is being discussed. This is not about changing doctrine or deny immutable truths. This is speaking of those who hold to the same immutable truths but see some differences in the process of how they are accomplished.



None of these are primary doctrinal things but tertiary and only become a problem when people want their view exhaulted above others.


The only time a church split is healthy is when sin is removed from the body. If a church splits for theological of polity issues it is because a problem has been allowed to festur for far to long and has become sin in the church as a whole. The church already has a theolgical view and if some do not agree why try to oust those who have already established a body there. WHy not seek to create a new Church with different views rather split a church? ANswer typicially is because they want power and predominance not truth and unity.



To this we will agree.


I have yet to find ANYONE confused about the debate.
Some might not know about it but anyone who knows even a little is not confused concerning what each believe.

Allan, I won't take the time to parse your post, but I will respond. You may an extraordinary individual who is willing to incorporate a myriad of doctrinal positions in your church. But as a matter of practicality, what one believes regarding the doctrines of grace effects the entirety of their ministry. Preaching, counseling, worship are all impacted by how we view God's sovereignty and holiness. If the leadership is divided on this issue than there are real problems. Depending on the area of disagreement there may be a way to live with the doctrinal tension. But then again, maybe not.

I knew I ran the risk of being misunderstood in my previous post. That's fine. Let me restate what I was trying to say. Just remember that I am writing from the perspective of as a shepherd of the flock, so my concerns are more broad than a member of the church. Unity is a fine goal. Would it be that all God's children could agree, and when we disagree learn to live with charity. But while some issues may still yield charity they don't result in a like-minded view of scripture. I may be in the minority, but when the issues at hand are God's sovereignty and His holiness, I don't believe we are dealing with secondary issues. How we view these doctrines are essential to our faith and our ministry. If a pastor and his elders cannot agree on these foundational areas then there are material problems that must be addressed. Happily most churches don't face this problem too often. A Calvinist church is mostly lead by Calvinists. An Arminian church by Arminians. This message board is an interesting mix because we have Calvinists and Arminians side by side.

I still believe that the issue is not well known among most individual Baptists. People that frequent message boards like this are interested in the topic, but the majority of pew sitters aren't. We all preach to the choir in our indiviudal churches, and that is likely to continue. As for me? I am in church that started Arminian and has changed to Calvinistic. I have a lot of foundational work to do in teaching doctrine, so this issue is ground zero for me.

Blessings.

 

[sag38]

The majority of church members don't want their church's split wide open. The majority of church members don't want to fight over an issue that to them is a mute point. They don't want a boxing ring set up in the tulips. They don't want a line drawn in the sand using the word grace.

 

[doulous]

The majority of church members don't want their church's split wide open. The majority of church members don't want to fight over an issue that to them is a mute point. They don't want a boxing ring set up in the tulips. They don't want a line drawn in the sand using the word grace.

I agree. If a church member becomes convinced of Calvinism or Arminianism while in a church that teaches the opposite, that member either has to endure where they are or leave if they cannot submit to their current leadership. To have a church fight over these issues is dishonoring to the Lord. But when it's LEADERSHIP that is divided on the issue, that's a different story. Pastors and elders should be mature enough to deal with theological differences without petty squabbling. In my church we had one elder who disagreed strongly with Calvinism and resigned his position. He eventually left the church. He did so with grace and dignity. We parted friends.

Please remember this is a message board where divergent theologies clash. I am saddened when I see mischaracterizations and intentional slandering of a brother with whom we disagree. Christ is not honored in such cases. The Calvinism/Arminianism debate rightly belongs in larger venues like this or in our seminaries.

 

[Jim1999]

Would you feel the same is some folks in your church were advocating modernism, Barthianism, Neoevangelicalism? These too are attempts at understanding the bible.

If we hadn't taken a strong stand in the early days of modernistic teachings, we might not have the stronger evangelical churches and church bodies we have to-day.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[gb93433]

They are of great value because they keep us from long conversations about what we believe. When I say I am an inerrantist, that is a label that tells you about my bibliology. When I say I am a Trinitarian, that is a label that tells you about my theology. When I say I am a Christian, that is a label that tells you about my theology. When I say I am a dispensationalist, that is a label that tells you about my theology. My guess is that you probably don't mind theological labels as much as you say you do.

You really told me nothing about what you believe other than give yourself a label that may not relate to what you really believe.

Are you a 3 point, 4 point, 5 point, or 6 point Calvinists. In saying you are a dispensationalist which one of the three in the last 100 years do you subscribe to? Would your dispensational theology fit in well with the German rationalsim of the time when Darby promoted it? Do you subscribe to the way the dispensationalist C.H. McIntosh interprets scripture? Do you believe in the theology of what Larkin taught? Are you a progressive dispensationalist or do you like the dispensationalist theology of Ryrie better? Some dispensationalists do not believe that they should have a paid pastor and that it is against what scripture teaches. Some believe that leadership should be shared and that the leadership should be bivocational. Do you? When you say that you are an inerrantist which theology do you believe? Do you believe that every word fits together in such a way as the parts to a jet engine do or do you believe the message is without error? Would your inerrantist theology provide for differences in the numbers recorded in scripture such as number of people present or differences in calendars over the course of history? Your labels would do nothing to provide me with a clear cut answer about what you really believe. Whole books are written on these issues. If we were to focus on the truth of scripture then both of use would be encouraged and edified.

Then you are well on your way to becoming a Calvinist since most Calvinists know that what Calvin wrote is not God's word, and most Calvinists are not compelled to study Calvin.

I went there and left years ago.

Interestingly I have a lot of Calvin's works and have read them. Reading Calvin does nothing to help me understand what John wrote about the word knowing in 1 Jn 5:13. It does nothing to help me understand what a perfect active subjunctive is.

This will set you up well to be a Calvinist, since Calvinism is about what Scripture teaches.

Is it more temperament and focus or really theology. I have met few theologians who spent many hours studying their Bible and were focused on evangelism more than anything else. Label a person whatever you choose, but my Bible declares what a godly person looks like in Hebrews 13:7. One who makes disciples shows the fruit of their life not just in what they say. A fat preacher can stand and preach all the right things, talk about how we must be disciplined in our life, but his round belly clearly shows how he lives. That is the difference between godliness, reaching people, and intellectual theology without godly discipline.

Because Calvinism is not really about what Calvin taught, but about what Scripture teaches. As you should know, the tenets of Calvinism predate Calvinism by many many centuries.

Those kind of opinions have changed like a chameleon while scripture remains the same. If you have read about what Calvin believed you would easily see some parallels to communism too. His view of community very much parallels communism.

If the Bible is our sole standard of faith and practice, then I think we will all be Calvinists.

I do not happen to believe with the way so many Calvinists interpret Ephesians 1:4-5. They tend to lift it out of its context and form of a typical written letter in that day.

The problem is that people follow the teachings of men and as a result believe other things.

My point exactly. So why waste your time on Calvin and not spend it on Christ? People teach what they know. I do not see everything that Calvin believed can point back to scripture. Even Calvin himslef declared the shortcomings of his own theology. Apparently he realized the issues of his own theology but many Calvinists do not.

Even the name Baptist is a label that is not found in the Bible. So if your argument is correct here, we could not even call ourselves Baptist. I think you have just exposed your own fallacy.

Who is John the Baptist? Was he not given that name by others? People labeled him as a way of identifying him. Isn't that what the world does? Wasn't it the world who labeled the followers of Christ as Christians? That could be good thing or a bad thing depending on who it is, they are looking at. Does the label that the world places on a person who claims to be a Christian clearly represent who you are? I would hope not and that you are above that image in terms of manipulating people to take their money. Does the label Baptist represent you? I would hope that you made it clear to people that you were not a part of the BFA and did not support that practice.

Does the label we give unite or divide? I would tend to believe that most labels given tend to divide the body. If I spent several hours interviewing you and then stood before your congregation with your theology written out how many people do you think would raise their hand saying that they agree with everything you believe. I seriously doubt you would have 100%. Not even all of the apostles agreed with one another.

When I talk to people I do not share what a Baptist believes or what church I attend but rather what scripture teaches.

No. The labeling there was something entirely different than what we are talking about here. Studying the Scripture in its historical context as you say you like to do will help you understand that.

I disagree. The labeling in 1 Cor. caused division much like we read in another post where it caused division in that church too.

I am not sure why you can't understand that Calvinism is not about men, but about what the Scripture teaches.

If it is not about a man then why give a label with a man's name?

It is a theology written by man and not inspired by God. You may believe that Calvin was correct. In my studies of Calvin I see parts of his theology as being very parallel to the start of communism. It does not hold a candle to the word of God in terms of inspiration, power, and the ability to reach the heart.

In the end I believe that when one takes into account giftedness, and temperament it very much parallels the theological focus one has and how they see God. Each person has a different measure of faith and each has different giftedness. So in some way their theology and understanding is slightly different.

I see those who claim to be Calvinists much like those who talk about God creating evil while others state that God did not create evil and that it was Satan who was rebellious without ever mentioning the mindset and understanding of a person in that day with a Jewish Background. Should it surprise us when the people in the pew are in a fog.

 

[doulous]

Would you feel the same is some folks in your church were advocating modernism, Barthianism, Neoevangelicalism? These too are attempts at understanding the bible.

If we hadn't taken a strong stand in the early days of modernistic teachings, we might not have the stronger evangelical churches and church bodies we have to-day.

Cheers,

Jim

Jim, please understand how I framed my response. If individual members of a church are harping on each other about doctrine, that will accomplish little except to create hard feelings and schisms. If leadership is divided, then it needs to hammer out the issue and seek the truth. If false teaching creeps into the membership then the elders needs to intercept it and deal with it swiftly or else it will infect the body.

 

[Jerome]

If false teaching creeps into the "eldership" then the members need to intercept it and deal with it swiftly or else it will infect the body.

 

[Benjamin]

Jim, please understand how I framed my response. If individual members of a church are harping on each other about doctrine, that will accomplish little except to create hard feelings and schisms. If leadership is divided, then it needs to hammer out the issue and seek the truth. If false teaching creeps into the membership then the elders needs to intercept it and deal with it swiftly or else it will infect the body.

I’m sorry, but frankly what I’m seeing framed here seems to be a looking to justify the means for a takeover of a church. Point 1, you have said the church started out as Arminian (Only labeling myself as a Biblicist, not non-Calvinist or Arminian, I usually understand this definition to come from Calvinist upon anyone who opposes their views which they endeavor to monopolistically refer to as “THE Doctrines of Grace”.) so apparently a systematic Calvinist agenda has advanced on this church body.

Point 2, you seem blind to your own biased belief that you consider any anti-Calvinist view as false teaching. As per point 1 it is obvious from your own statement that what is creeping in this (started out Arminian church) is a Calvinist takeover to begin with, not the other way around. I see nothing but hypocrisy in your line of thought toward false teaching creeping in and the need to intercept it.

Point 3, it seems you are suggesting individual members (who are not generally as studied in these issues) which are becoming aware of the issues should be silenced by blindsiding them through use of elders (meaning Calvinist slanted elders) to deal with it swiftly, (meaning muzzle any anti-Calvinist proponents) before they are able to persuade the said members contrary to this Calvinistic agenda to take over said church.

All I a perceiving here is you attempting to justify this takeover and proposing a battle plan: A) stop discussion in the ranks, B) start by interrogating and hammering down opposing leadership, C) intercept and deal swiftly with all who oppose beginning with exterminating the opposing officers.

It is more than evident that the “infectors” are strategizing a method of warring geared toward a dictatorship takeover. This comes very close to my definition of a cultic takeover: authoritarian leadership with extremist ideology forcefully injecting themselves into a organized system.

Originally posted by doulous:
I am in church that started Arminian and has changed to Calvinistic. I have a lot of foundational work to do in teaching doctrine, so this issue is ground zero for me.

 

[Pastor Larry]

You really told me nothing about what you believe other than give yourself a label that may not relate to what you really believe.

No, I use a label that is commonly accepted and recognized.

Are you a 3 point, 4 point, 5 point, or 6 point Calvinists.

I think this (as well as your other attempts) proves my point. The label immediately tells you something about what I believe. No label tells everything. They aren’t intended to.

Your labels would do nothing to provide me with a clear cut answer about what you really believe.

As you should know, they are not intended to. They are short hand for basic beliefs and categories.

Interestingly I have a lot of Calvin's works and have read them. Reading Calvin does nothing to help me understand what John wrote about the word knowing in 1 Jn 5:13. It does nothing to help me understand what a perfect active subjunctive is.

So? Perhaps it isn’t intended to. I find very little exegetical help in Calvin.

I have met few theologians who spent many hours studying their Bible and were focused on evangelism more than anything else.

So? Is this because you don’t know enough people?

Label a person whatever you choose, but my Bible declares what a godly person looks like in Hebrews 13:7.

My Bible has a lot more information about a godly person than Hebrews 13:7.

A fat preacher can stand and preach all the right things, talk about how we must be disciplined in our life, but his round belly clearly shows how he lives.

It may, or may not. It might show he has a physical problem. It might show he has a particular body type.

That is the difference between godliness, reaching people, and intellectual theology without godly discipline.

No it’s not.

Those kind of opinions have changed like a chameleon while scripture remains the same. If you have read about what Calvin believed you would easily see some parallels to communism too. His view of community very much parallels communism.

I haven’t read much of Calvin. I am a Calvinist because I see no other option in the Bible.

I do not happen to believe with the way so many Calvinists interpret Ephesians 1:4-5. They tend to lift it out of its context and form of a typical written letter in that day.

I happen to believe you are wrong.

My point exactly. So why waste your time on Calvin and not spend it on Christ?

I agree. I don’t waste my time on Calvin. I have no need to. The Bible teaches me what to believe. It happens to be the same thing that Calvin believed in the main about soteriology. The fact that Calvin also believed it is irrelevant.

I do not see everything that Calvin believed can point back to scripture

I agree. So what? Calvinism is not about Calvin.

Who is John the Baptist?

An individual who baptized. Being a Baptist doesn’t mean we are individuals who baptize.

Does the label we give unite or divide?

Isn’t it obvious that they do both? Being a Baptist unites me with some and divides me from others.

If it is not about a man then why give a label with a man's name?

I would prefer to call it the gospel, but many don’t understand what that means so it was given another name.

It is a theology written by man and not inspired by God.

Not at all. Calvin had a lot of problems, but the soteriology generally labeled Calvinism is firmly grounded in the revelation of God.

In my studies of Calvin I see parts of his theology as being very parallel to the start of communism.

You already said this. It is irrelevant so far as I can tell.

It does not hold a candle to the word of God in terms of inspiration, power, and the ability to reach the heart.

I agree as do all Calvinists I know. Do you know any who disagree?

 

[webdog]

It appears to me that the non-calvinists are the leaders in the debate against calvinism. Must be their guilt in ignoring the teachings of scripture.

I differ greatly with dispensationalism, but I doubt you have read many such posts in my name. I simply state the positive things of calvinism that lifts the Saviour high, lays the sinner low, remembering that I am but a sinner saved by His grace.

Cheers,

Jim

...and the pride I have read from the calvinists on this thread has made me want to puke. How arrogant to think non-calvinists "ignore the teachings of Scripture". Talk about a statement that has more heat than light!

 

[Dr. Bob]

The opposite of a strongly calvinistic/reformed view of soteriology is the pelagian heresy. In reality, arminian interpretation is not that far from the calvinistic (not even to the "middle" between the two positions) as many would think. BOTH are still on the very conservative side of the spectrum.

Standing on the biblical side (vs the heretical side) is not "arrogance". It is biblical.

And not sure that "ignorance" is a virtue to be heralded, especially in dealing with such basic Christian issues like the sovereignty of God in salvation!

 

[Salamander]

What is rather ignorance is the Biblical concept that no one was saved before they were saved, contrary to the ideal of "Sovereignty of God in salvation" as some define it to force calvinism to make sense.

Explain how anyone was holy and blameless before Him in love BEFORE they were saved?:laugh:

 

[doulous]

...and the pride I have read from the calvinists on this thread has made me want to puke. How arrogant to think non-calvinists "ignore the teachings of Scripture". Talk about a statement that has more heat than light!

I need to jump in here. There is no need for either side to get pugilistic. I believe the Arminian position fails under the examination of scripture, but I am not prepared to say that Arminians cannot support their position biblically. The reason I started this thread was not to defend Calvinism, but rather to explain it. Calvinism and Arminianism are like politics. You have your partisans and undecideds. Your partisans are the die-hards. They could receive divine revelation telling them they are wrong and they would reject it (I'm exagerating, but you get my point). The undecideds are willing to look at both sides in light of scripture. It seems like the majority of participants in this thread are partisans, therefore we're all preaching to our own choirs. That said, there's no reason to throw out ad homs or to insult.

 

[doulous]

What is rather ignorance is the Biblical concept that no one was saved before they were saved, contrary to the ideal of "Sovereignty of God in salvation" as some define it to force calvinism to make sense.

Explain how anyone was holy and blameless before Him in love BEFORE they were saved?:laugh:

That's actually a very easy thing to explain. God has a will of decree that is based in eternity past. IOW before God created the physical universe, He was the only being in existence. He had perfect fellowship with Himself. God is also eternal. That means God knows all things because He orders all things. Consider what He said about Jeremiah:

Jeremiah 1:5 5 "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, And before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations."

God not only knew Jeremiah before he was born, He predestined him to his role as a prophet. Two things are at work here in perfect unison: God's foreknowledge and His will of decree. These are first causes. Jeremiah's choices that lead to manifestation of God's predestination in his life are second causes. God ordains the first causes while allowing man to choose second causes, all while accomplishing God's will of decree.

There never existed a time when God did not know all things. There never existed a time when God did not order all things into being. He is an infinite and eternal God.

 

[doulous]

I’m sorry, but frankly what I’m seeing framed here seems to be a looking to justify the means for a takeover of a church. Point 1, you have said the church started out as Arminian (Only labeling myself as a Biblicist, not non-Calvinist or Arminian, I usually understand this definition to come from Calvinist upon anyone who opposes their views which they endeavor to monopolistically refer to as “THE Doctrines of Grace”.) so apparently a systematic Calvinist agenda has advanced on this church body.

Point 2, you seem blind to your own biased belief that you consider any anti-Calvinist view as false teaching. As per point 1 it is obvious from your own statement that what is creeping in this (started out Arminian church) is a Calvinist takeover to begin with, not the other way around. I see nothing but hypocrisy in your line of thought toward false teaching creeping in and the need to intercept it.

Point 3, it seems you are suggesting individual members (who are not generally as studied in these issues) which are becoming aware of the issues should be silenced by blindsiding them through use of elders (meaning Calvinist slanted elders) to deal with it swiftly, (meaning muzzle any anti-Calvinist proponents) before they are able to persuade the said members contrary to this Calvinistic agenda to take over said church.

All I a perceiving here is you attempting to justify this takeover and proposing a battle plan: A) stop discussion in the ranks, B) start by interrogating and hammering down opposing leadership, C) intercept and deal swiftly with all who oppose beginning with exterminating the opposing officers.

It is more than evident that the “infectors” are strategizing a method of warring geared toward a dictatorship takeover. This comes very close to my definition of a cultic takeover: authoritarian leadership with extremist ideology forcefully injecting themselves into a organized system.

I appreciate your being frank, but you quite clearly do not know the circumstances surrounding my church. Our church was planted by a larger church. That larger church did not provide oversight or counsel. They supported us financially but left us to our own devices. The pastor was in his first pastorate and he had no deacons or elders. Elders were appointed two years into the fledgling existence of the church. The church membership was extremely young and spiritually immature. The pastor was battling with the sovereignty of God and the new elders were all "quiet" Calvinists, except for one. The pastor never knew the Calvinistic leanings of the elders. As time progressed the pastor and elders found out they were all on the same sheet of musics theologically. Obviously that theological unity was displayed in the preaching from the pulpit and other teaching venues. We never sought to purge or impugn those members who disagreed with the doctrines of grace.

Over time the membership investigate the scriptures on their own and most of them came around to the Calvinist position. Some didn't. The ones that didn't were never castigated or treated different. But the ones who were honest about their theological differences told us. One was an elder who could not agree with Calvinism. He resigned and a few families chose to leave the church. They were never asked to leave and we were sorry that they did leave.

What is unique about our situation are the dynamics that were in play. We were a new church and the theological change occurred within the leadership, not the members. Had this change happened in the membership it would have been examined in light of scripture. In the end the elders are responsible for the pastoral care of the flock. They are the gatekeepers who are supposed to intercept erroneous doctrine and stop it cold. The church that planted us did that very thing a few years before our church began. There were some Calvinists who tried to orchestrate a takeover of the church. The pastor and deacons dealt with it decisively. The Calvinists left the church. So it cuts both ways. We never tried to takeover our own church. We presented the scriptural evidence to support the doctrines of grace and allowed the Lord to direct. He has done so.

We still have Arminians and undecideds in our church. We love them and care for them like any other member. They are not required to be Calvinists in order to remain members.

I hope this provides you a bit more information.

 

[gb93433]

I think this (as well as your other attempts) proves my point. The label immediately tells you something about what I believe. No label tells everything. They aren’t intended to.

So which of the 3-6 pointers is correct? One of those may be correct while the others a heresy. Does that leave most Calvinists as heretics?

It may, or may not. It might show he has a physical problem. It might show he has a particular body type.

Those are excuses. That is typical of the tolerance society today so prevalent in the church today all in the name of grace which is not grace at all but a lack of love for the person and a refusal to help them to be disciplined. Ever see a fat person who does not have enough to eat?

Sometime meet some people from other countries who do not have enough to eat and ask them what they think. You will not get the same answer you suggest.

The number one college heavyweight wrestler in the nation last year was at one time a fat boy until a coach encouraged him to go out for wrestling. He is definitely not a fat boy today.

I am a Calvinist because I see no other option in the Bible.

I don't just believe in God's sovereignty but believe the entire Bible. I am a Christian who believes that God in His sovereignty created man with a free will to make choices. If man has no choice and it is all God's choice then the evil that man does would be God's will and that man is predestined to do evil. What label would you give me?

Take a look at http://bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=29318

 

[gb93433]

Explain how anyone was holy and blameless before Him in love BEFORE they were saved?:laugh:

Could a young child?

 

[Jim1999]

There are none righteous, no not one.... We are born in sin and trespasses.....the penalty for sin is eternal damnation. Man did not earn this status, he was born into it.

If a child is taken into heaven it is by God's choice and not the child's will. We base the fact on a child entering God's presence on David's statement about his child. From there was have no certain scripture. We only have theological hope.

If man has any free will it is under God's Permissive Will, an aspect of God's absolute sovereignty. I am allowed to shake my fist at God in my anger. God will respond, but it may take a quiet moment for this to happen. It is like the atheist who shook his fist at God at a public meeting as he declared, "See. No God!" It was on his way home, alone and in the wooded area that a bolt of lightning struck him dead. Was that God? I don't know. I can only presume.

Cheers,

Jim