What on earth?

[Brandon C. Jones]

Webdog, SDA and Catholic are different categories for labels; they would correspond to Presbyterian or Baptist and have some objectivity to them. Your reductio ad absurdum misses the mark. I'm all for labels that reasonably have objective meaning, but "calvinism" and posters on this board have demonstrated to me that it's a useless term here (and other places).

Your "pelagian" label is an example that is similar to "calvinism" and it proves my point. You'd be surprised what gets called pelagian and compare it to what Pelagius and his followers like Julian of Eclanum really believed. If it's that hard to objectively define "pelagian," why bother wondering who is a "hyper-pelagian?"

BJ

 

[Andy T.]

Saying that God ordains the sin of men is not the same thing as saying that He is the author of sin.

Being the author of sin would mean that one is a sinner. God does not sin, nor does He cause sinners to sin since they do what they are inclined to anyhow.

I agree with you Jack, but hang around here long enough, and you will notice at least one vocal proponent (Johnp) says unequivocally that God is the author of, and immediate cause of, sin.

 

[Andy T.]

I don't care. Both terms "calvinism" and "hyper-calvinism" are rather useless. That's my honest opinion. There's too many disagreements as to what constitutes them, and if it's majority rule then fine. JohnP is well aware that his position is in the minority past or present no matter what group is in view, but giving him the hyper label seems useless to me. What other minority positions deserve the label? Is there a proper place to vote for such issues?

I posted on my blog a little while ago about useless terms and included calvinism but forgot to include "hyper-calvinism," in hindsight it surely belongs. The most useless term I've come into contact with is "biblical." It's objectively meaningless in most every theological discussion.

Brandon, I can surely sympathize with your sentiment here. The evidence on this board indicates that there are many stripes of "Calvinists". So let's concede your argument for now - is there a good shorthand label other than "Calvinism" to use to describe someone's soteriological views that accord with the WCF, LBC and other "calvinist" confessions of faith? Or are you not into shorthand?

 

[Brandon C. Jones]

Fair enough, shorthand is necessary for brevity. I don't have another label other than "doctrines of grace," but not too many people use that phrase and it's a little presumptuous. But I have long since been weary of dumb arguments against "calvinism" that surface from time to time here all because of the label itself and whose name it bears.

 

[MB]

Isa 40:28

Pro 16:9 A man's heart deviseth his way: but the LORD directeth his steps.
Directing isn't unalterable nor is it an appointment or absolute control. Problem is not everyone will follow directions. In fact most don't.
MB

 

[Isaiah40:28]

Isaiah,

If I can untwist this -- you appear to be saying that everything you do is what God wanted you to do.

Let me see if I can understand you --- let's say you sin. So you 'plan' and 'think' to sin but God determined/predesinated for you to "step into" sin? But it was your fault?

How exactly did God "determine" that you would sin if you did your own "thinking" and "planning" and "choosing?" At what point would God say that, on account of His plan, He was sovereign at this point in your decision? That this is what He determined for you to do -- that it was His purpose that you sin?

Sorry, Isaiah. I think that all you are saying is that you had free will to choose bad or good and God retained His sovereignty over the outcome of your choices. This is hard for predestinarians to understand since total sovereignty does not acknowledge that anything escapes God's control -- but even by your description, it appears that our choices escape His control, it's the consequences do not.

skypair

Why don't you exegete the verse in question?

Proverbs 16:9
In his heart a man plans his course, but the LORD determines his steps.

 

[russell55]

Isa 40:28

Pro 16:9 A man's heart deviseth his way: but the LORD directeth his steps.
Directing isn't unalterable nor is it an appointment or absolute control. Problem is not everyone will follow directions. In fact most don't.
MB

Why don't you look up the word translated "directeth" to see what it means?

 

[russell55]

Pro 16:9 A man's heart deviseth his way: but the LORD directeth his steps.
Directing isn't unalterable nor is it an appointment or absolute control. Problem is not everyone will follow directions. In fact most don't.
MB

Why don't you look up the word translated "directeth" to see what it means?

 

[HankD]

How did Adam get what? A nature inclined toward sin? It was the result of the judgment of God for his sin.

How can that be? If it was a judgement for his sin then how did he sin in the first place if he had no inclination to sin?

Not a trick question.

HankD

 

[MB]

Hi Russel;

Why don't you look up the word translated "directeth" to see what it means?

We all know what it means. Maybe it means something differently to you than what it means to me. We don't all take direction, if we did we wouldn't sin. The comandments are directives from God yet there isn't one man on this earth that has followed them perfectly. So why not give us your definition. Then prove it with scripture.
MB

 

[Isaiah40:28]

Isa 40:28

Pro 16:9 A man's heart deviseth his way: but the LORD directeth his steps.
Directing isn't unalterable nor is it an appointment or absolute control. Problem is not everyone will follow directions. In fact most don't.
MB

The verse is contrasting two things.
We know that from the use of the conjunction, "BUT".
In the first clause, man is said to "plan in his heart". Devise.
So man is devising, planning, thinking.
The second clause tells us that the LORD is determining something.
Your translation says "directeth.
Did you take time to look up that word and how it is used of God's activities?
I did.
It means establish, order, set straight.
And it also means that it comes with a certainty.
A confidence that cannot be shaken.
To bring something into being such that it's existence is a certainty.
As far is what God is directing, establishing, ordering, determining, etc. is man's "steps".
Man's "way".
The course of one's life.

And these two clauses are separated with the word "BUT", indicating a contrast is in place.
The verse is contrasting man's plans with God's order and it says that it is God who orders man's way. God who establishes man's path or course.

 

[russell55]

How can that be? If it was a judgement for his sin then how did he sin in the first place if he had no inclination to sin?

Not a trick question.

HankD

Okay, I think I see where the miscommunication is. We're each using the word "inclined" differently. I wouldn't say Adam had "no inclination to sin" in the way you're using the word. Adam was able to sin before that fall, but his nature itself wasn't corrupted yet, so he wasn't in the same condition as fallen people are: not able not to sin. We don't have the ability be perfect, but Adam, as he was created, did. He wasn't perfect, but he started out with the abiltiy to be perfect.

I guess when I used the word inclined, I was thinking more of something like an inclined plane: the marble can roll in one direction only. After the fall, we're like marbles on an inclined plane. As soon as we can move, the direction is downward, away from God and toward sin.

Adam's situation, in that sense, would be more like a marble on a perfectly balanced plane. The plane tilts in the way the marble rolls.

 

[russell55]

Hi Russel;

We all know what it means. Maybe it means something differently to you than what it means to me. We don't all take direction, if we did we wouldn't sin. The comandments are directives from God yet there isn't one man on this earth that has followed them perfectly. So why not give us your definition. Then prove it with scripture.
MB

The word has a range of meanings, just like every word does. See the definition here. You'll see it runs the range from number 1—mastermind, engineer, organize, orchestrate—through number 4 (which is the definition you are using)—give directions to; point somebody into a certain direction—to number 10—steer, maneuver, etc.


We need to figure out what force the word direct takes in this particular case. We do that by context, and by looking up the Hebrew word that direct translates. The underlying word has nothing to do with pointing someone in one direction, but rather with establishing something or determining something or making something certain. More like the first definition of direct in the English dictionary.

 

[johnp.]

I agree with you Jack, but hang around here long enough, and you will notice at least one vocal proponent (Johnp) says unequivocally that God is the author of, and immediate cause of, sin

I will thank you to express my belief properly Andy T, thank you.


john.

 

[johnp.]

The underlying word has nothing to do with pointing someone in one direction, but rather with establishing something or determining something or making something certain.

Rom 11:32 For God has bound all men over to disobedience...

And if you think that this includes Adam then you are a determinist and if you think this does not then you are indeterminist russel? Which? Did Adam have free will or not?

john.

 

[J.D.]

I for one am thankful that we are not pringles, stamped out in theological uniformity. People that generaly consider themselves Calvinists have disputes among themselves, just like non-calvinists. Calvinism is a definable theological term because I can "point" (no pun intended) to a set of doctrines that describe it. Hyper-calvinism can not be defined with any certainty. Those that have tried to do it (and as far as I know, all of them are Calvinists) have done nothing more than string together a few unrelated unorthodox doctrines and tried to make the label stick on the practitioners of those doctrines.

If any one needs proof that the reformed family is not monolithic, just take a look around the internet at the controversy J. McArthur has stirred up over his insistence on a dispy/premil view of eschatology, accusing non-premils of not being good Calvinists.

BTW I've decided to raise my flag as a committed Amil. And I've recently learned that I am a Clarkian presuppositionalist. Isn't learning big words fun?

 

[johnp.]

...Clarkian presuppositionalist...

Nice to know someone else has been there isn't JD? Sounds good.

I have been challenge by a person on one forum to go to a geological society here in Nottingham to speak with the boffins about life, the universe and everything. Please pray that I am not destroyed by science. Or the pub that we are going to visit after.

john.

 

[J.D.]

Nice to know someone else has been there isn't JD? Sounds good.

I have been challenge by a person on one forum to go to a geological society here in Nottingham to speak with the boffins about life, the universe and everything. Please pray that I am not destroyed by science. Or the pub that we are going to visit after.

john.

What is a boffin? Translate into American South for me.

 

[johnp.]

Scientists JD.

john.

 

[J.D.]

Scientists JD.

john.

I'll take your word for it. (no pun intended)
And learning little words can be fun too!