What's Wrong with Calvinism?

[Eric B]

You seem to be attacking a straw man. I have not read anything about us seeing Cain roasting in hell on this thread.

As can be seen in more resent posts, that does seem to be a point being made or at least a side point used to prove that God deliberately did not want to save many people.

 

[Eric B]

Hello Eric...thanks for your reply.

This is a BIG subject that will be hard to give my views in one post. Your point is heard and well taken. No ...we can not assign any one to hell. Mans sin does this. We can not elect anyone to salvation...God does this. We cannot save anyone...no matter how much we want them saved. Salvation is by God.

The authors of the canons of Dordrecht also faced these questions and the charges implied in them.

The preaching of election puts God in His rightful place. Whether that preaching is in church or in the mission field, it gives the hearers the only proper view of God, namely, a high one. God must always be viewed as "high and lifted up" and as perfectly holy . The proper preaching of election shows God's sovereign right to do whatsoever He is pleased, without being arbitrary as some claim on this board or wishy-washy in anyway. The election shows the glory of God, for it exalts and magnifies God's always effective grace in His undeserved favor toward His people in Jesus Christ.

The preaching of election also puts man in his proper place, namely, as undeserving of any good thing and worthy only of condemnation. Through his own fault man has fallen from his original state of righteousness, which makes every man "deserving of eternal death, so that God would have done no injustice by leaving them all to perish, and delivering them over to condemnation on account of sin" (Canons 1, 1).

Before the holy God man is to reply only as did Isaiah,

The preaching of election takes away all in which our flesh might glory, and leaves us only God.

The preaching of election on the mission field and in the church is to be with the same care that one preaches any other doctrine of Scripture. No single truth must be taken out of its place in the "whole counsel of God."

Election is mercy given by God to the sinner. The wrong preaching makes the sinner think all is ok with sin and sees no reason to change. God hates sin and it is men that sin. We must place the sinner in his place...hopeless without Christ and standing before a Holy God. He must know that there is nothing he can do in order to win salvation. The call must be given to all men that Christ came to save sinners. If the sinner sees his need of Christ he will cry out to God to save him. We are not to take that those that do not respond the 1st time are not Gods choosen. We have no idea who Gods choosen are until they believe. It is our job to preach and Gods job to save.

In Christ...James

I didn't say that WE 'assigned' anyone to Hell, only assigning a notion of individual men's fate in hell as if it were the basis of God's plan or the Gospel itself, which "grace" would have no meaning without.
Basically, your argument here is that we must concoct a doctrine of reprobation in order to exalt God's place and lower man's place, but that is a non sequitur. (You even admit that we can't know who is elect now, so that is the primary reason to speculate on why people die without believing). And the idea that us having any choice exalts us is as HP calls it, a paper duck, as if God's glory rests solely on trapping helpless creatures on a path to Hell.
God could have done that, and be glorified, and He could have saved everyone and still be glorified and it still be "grace", so likewise, he could give us choice and still be glorified as well.
The Gospel is not about how hard God "should be", but rather about how merciful He is.

 

[Jarthur001]

Hello Eric,

Basically, your argument here is that we must concoct a doctrine of reprobation in order to exalt God's place and lower man's place, but that is a non sequitur.

I force my views on no one. I have never said one must believe in reprobation. I simply point out one of many errors in the freewill system. What I have done is ask many many times how the freewill model works, if you place the major points together. So far, no one is telling. If you have a model that works, please share.

(You even admit that we can't know who is elect now, so that is the primary reason to speculate on why people die without believing).

I'm not asking anyone to speculate on WHY one does not believe. We can get to that latter if you want. I have asked, if God can...and has in the past stepped in so that a man will not sin, or to bring a man in sin back into the fold from a life of sin..then why did God not stop Cain? Why did God not ask Cain to repent? Why did God send Cain away? but I have only asked this one time. Foreknowing and salvation of all men has been the main focus.

This is only negative reasoning on my part. Yet this seems to be something harder to put together then even I thought it would be.

And the idea that us having any choice exalts us is as HP calls it, a paper duck, as if God's glory rests solely on trapping helpless creatures on a path to Hell.

I'm not sure what view you quote here, but it seems to be a mix of ideas. Election is in no way about being just.

God could have done that, and be glorified, and He could have saved everyone and still be glorified, so likewise, he could give us choice and still be glorified as well.
The Gospel is not about how hard God "should be", but rather about how merciful He is.

I'm not asking if God could have. It has been stated that God main goal was to save all mankind. Now we all agree He could have. We all agree He did not.

If this was Gods main goal, and if God forknew Cain would not believe, and if God has shown he can step in a send a fish in order to have Gods will played out, could not God step in a save mankind before Cain was born, being that God foreknew Cain would not believe and being also that this was Gods main goal?

was free will Gods main goal?

or...

was saving ALL of mankind Gods main goal?

You canot have both in this story.

 

[gekko]

what's wrong with calvinism?

calvinism itself. the label. the denomonationalism. and the arguments between calvinism and armenism. (sp?) who cares how its spelt anyway.

drop the labels. drop the self esteem.

God bless

(dont go counterin that with 'christian is a label...' - if you're smart you know what i mean - can anyone understand what i've said?)

 

[Eric B]

OK, I think I can see your point. But it seems you all are talking past each other, because the free-willers all agree that God did not ensure Cain and all the others would be saved, but what they are opposing is the idea that God deliberately "predestined" them to Hell (and a more passive "preterition" argued by many is seen as basically the same thing), and it is obvious that this is what is being attempted to be built up to with these hypothetical questions. I again believe that some of these things cannot really be answered from our limited perspective.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

JAuthur101: this exercise is to expose the error in the “foreknow” view of free-willers and said goal of salvation of "all man" that free-willers also claim.


HP: The only error I see you exposing is a logical error on your part of shooting at your own paper duck. I believe in freewill. When have I ever said that the goal of salvation was the salvation of all men? I have not heard one ever state that, not even BR with whom I am in some disagreement with over the salvation issue.

Scripture tells us that God is not willing that any should perish, but that does not equate to the ‘goal of salvation is the salvation of all men.’ No man, and not even God Himself, can set a goal that one knows from the start is an impossibility. That is absurd to consider.

You need to try harder to fairly represent the views of those you feel you disagree with. You fight as one that beateth the air on the path you have taken.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Gekko: drop the labels. drop the self esteem.

HP: Pardon me Geeko? Why don’t you tell that to the ‘Hilltop Baptist Church’ you say you attend? Something tells me that name is a code word for a Calvinistic fellowship of sorts. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[jne1611]

OK, I think I can see your point. But it seems you all are talking past each other, because the free-willers all agree that God did not ensure Cain and all the others would be saved, but what they are opposing is the idea that God deliberately "predestined" them to Hell (and a more passive "preterition" argued by many is seen as basically the same thing), and it is obvious that this is what is being attempted to be built up to with these hypothetical questions. I again believe that some of these things cannot really be answered from our limited perspective.

I believe the Scriptures are to plain on the subject. I agree with you on the passive notion that most Calvinist adhere to being basically the same as what they call double predestination. Any way you slice it, if God predestined some to heaven & others not, and that choice was eternal, then the others were predestined by the same plan to hell. But the big question is, what does the Bible actually say about the subject. This is where we each will find the truth about the subject.

 

[jne1611]

HP: Read post #119 and see if it answers the question for you.

I would say that is exactly what you believe having read that & your illustration is wanting greatly in comparison to the subject at hand. The Scripture says that we were dead in trespasses and sins. You not being able to go back to the places you were before salvation is totally different. The dead (spiritually dead) cannot come to Christ because of their condition. They must be quickened. God just pushing away hindrances is not the thought brought forth in the idea of resurrection. Christ moving the stone away from Lazarus' tomb would not have helped him get out. Christ had to quicken him so he could come out. You could do nothing for your salvation. The very coming to Christ was through Divine intervention & operation.

 

[Jarthur001]

Hello HP,

The only error I see you exposing is a logical error on your part of shooting at your own paper duck. I believe in freewill. When have I ever said that the goal of salvation was the salvation of all men? I have not heard one ever state that, not even BR with whom I am in some disagreement with over the salvation issue.

There's that duck again....

Not that you must agree with bob, but maybe you should quote him right...

BR from a few pages back.
God's ultimate plan - His "goal" is to insure the safety - salvation - good outcome for His entire universe for all eternity.

Scripture tells us that God is not willing that any should perish, but that does not equate to the ‘goal of salvation is the salvation of all men.’

1st let me say, I do not think this is talking about all mankind. I feel my view is backed with context. But freewillers use this verse just as Bob has shown, stating this is the goal of God showing the heart of God. What is our view on this passage?

No man, and not even God Himself, can set a goal that one knows from the start is an impossibility. That is absurd to consider.

Really now?
God could not save all mankind?
God does not know from the start?
This idea is absurd? You must be joking!!
You have a small picture of God if your not joking. In my book God can do as He pleases. My God has so much power that he could have made you 1 hour ago with only thoughts of yesterday, and you thinking you have lived you life this whole time. I do not agree with Bob that God's goal was to save all mankind, but God could have if He wanted to....no big deal to Him.

You need to try harder to fairly represent the views of those you feel you disagree with. You fight as one that beateth the air on the path you have taken.

Please show me where I have been unfair? This is 3 times you have made statements like this. Now is the time to back them up.




In Christ...James

 

[jne1611]

JAuthur101: this exercise is to expose the error in the “foreknow” view of free-willers and said goal of salvation of "all man" that free-willers also claim.


HP: The only error I see you exposing is a logical error on your part of shooting at your own paper duck. I believe in freewill. When have I ever said that the goal of salvation was the salvation of all men? I have not heard one ever state that, not even BR with whom I am in some disagreement with over the salvation issue.

Scripture tells us that God is not willing that any should perish, but that does not equate to the ‘goal of salvation is the salvation of all men.’ No man, and not even God Himself, can set a goal that one knows from the start is an impossibility. That is absurd to consider.

You need to try harder to fairly represent the views of those you feel you disagree with. You fight as one that beateth the air on the path you have taken.

This Scripture is not talking about all mankind. Let the context be your guide. Peter is talking to the elect. "Us-ward" Reconcile the mankind as a whole interpretation with God sending a strong delusion to men that they all might be damned. It looks like He willed them to perish & made sure that they did!

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

JNE1611: Let the context be your guide.

HP: And may common sense be our constant companion.

 

[jne1611]

HP: And may common sense be our constant companion.

Common sense is good when it is in line with Scripture, but to make that the rule of faith & practice is an error.

 

[jne1611]

Pro 3:5 Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.

 

[jne1611]

HP, I hope you know I am not trying to insult you. I have found that only by pursuing a truth all the way to the roots of what God has revealed about it can we be blessed as we should be by it. So I hope this will be a study for us all. I will learn things as will you. We just need to present our beliefs for consideration around the Word of God and the Spirit of God will bless us!

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Jne1611: HP, I hope you know I am not trying to insult you. I have found that only by pursuing a truth all the way to the roots of what God has revealed about it can we be blessed as we should be by it. So I hope this will be a study for us all. I will learn things as will you. We just need to present our beliefs for consideration around the Word of God and the Spirit of God will bless us!

HP:I sure like the spirit you show. I took no offense. I indeed do learn everyday, and have to rework the way I present things on a regular basis. I believe with all my heart that even in our disagreements, God will receive the glory in due season if we will remain humble before Him…………………. and our brothers ands sisters in the Lord as much as lieth within us. :thumbs:

 

[BobRyan]

Quote:
God did not "want" Lucifer to fall
God did not "want to lose sinless angels"
God did not "Want to lose all of mankind"

God did not "Want to be tortured on the cross"

James said --
Ok..your view is that God did not want the above list to happen. I do not agree...but we will get to this later.

I doubt that ANY 3 point Calvinists would claim as you do that God WANTED Lucifer, the Angels and Adam to fail.

But I suppose there is a subset of 4 and 5 point calvinists (hyper CAlvinists I suppose we would call them) that would take your extreme position on this one.

I pause to note this - because in that extremem position at least you are being consistent with the extreme position that many of them would STILL WANT to make with Cain - as you are doing.

So at least you are being consistent in your extreme view here.

IN Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

James said
lets get back to what I have asked...
A review of your freewill side is in order...

1) 1st and foremost ...God has a goal to save all mankind. God is not willing that any should go to hell. This is where God starts..according to your view.
2) God foreknew Cain would not believe and is now in hell.

so...a) Could God have come back to save mankind before Cain was born making point 1..the main goal happen?
and...b) If" a" is (yes)...why did not God do this, if this was the main goal?

More precisely - if we use "actual quotes" then

#1. God is "NOT WILLING THAT ANY should perish but that ALL should come to repentance".

#2. That INCLUDES Judas and Cain and King Saul and ...

#3. I never stated that ANYONE is in hell today.

#4. God was NOT WILLING that Lucifer or any of the Angels should fall or that Adam should fall. But He WAS WILLING - in fact INSISTENT on FREE WILL.

SOME then freely CHOSE to fall -- HENCE the outcome is NOT what God wanted - willed to happen - it is the outcome that He foreknew as He sovereignly CHOSE Free WILL.

James
In the freewill model...NOT CALVINIST...we all know Calvinist are crazy. In the freewill model how does these 2 MAJOR points mix?

Has has been stated repeatedly it is the FREE WILL model that fully demonstrates an outcome that is NOT what God WANTED though He fully foreknew it -- because He SOVEREIGNLY CHOSE - free will as the baseline rule for His Creation.

And now - "it is stated again" - after having already been stated "again".

As has been pointed out - each time the Free Will element is brought up Calvinists pretend they don't understand it - when in fact what they really don't understand is "how to BE God"

James
This is the last time I will ask, unless we see a reply to the subject. It is clear that the freewill model has no answer up to this point.

Thank you for demonstrating that point again. (To be fair I really should be paying you to do it.)

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Jne 1611: Pro 3:5 Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.

HP: That is indeed a favorite verse of mine. It says to me, Walk by faith in God, not jut by what you see!

I do not see this as God telling me to disregard the abilities granted to us by God Himself to discern truth, or to disregard common sense, another gift from God to most men….and yes most women as well. I would imagine we all are in agreement with this.

God is the Author of ALL truth, whatever realm we find it in, whether or not it is in common sense, Scripture, reason, first truths of reason, etc. Our duty as Christians is to harmonize all truth to best of our abilities, and not to ignore any. If we find notions that are contradictory or seem to project differing ideas, we need to see if in fact we are erring as theologians or philosophers.

We may have many uncertainties, such as we find in explaining the Deity of Christ, but we should never entertain clear absurdities. We should seek to harmonize truth with truth to the best of our abilities as guided by the Holy Spirit.

 

[BD17]

[. “The umpires ruling caused the team to come up off the bench.” Am I trying to say that the team was unable to come up off of the bench and the umpire granted the abilities necessary to perform such a feat? Not hardly. I am simply trying to say that the umpires ruling motivated or influenced the team to come up off the bench. [/FONT][/COLOR]

Scripture is written in common parlance, much the way we normally speak and converse. We need to exercise caution not to form such tight constraints around the use of certain words, that we place around them by our presuppositions, but allow our minds to look at these words from the angles reflecting the senses commonly used in normal parlance.

Had the umpire not made the ruling would the team have come up off the bench?