Who are, "Those thou hast given to me..."

[kyredneck]

....and welcome to the BB

 

[quantumfaith]

No, that is how Augustine and Calvin understood it. You have seen the quotes, read them carefully. Augustine and Calvin believed that anything God commands MUST happen. His command is the cause.

I do not believe that, God commands many things that we do not obey.

Calvin said incredibly contradictory statements such as when a man disobeys God, he is actually obeying God's will. He believed God's secret will was that the man disobey his commandment. This is pure lunacy. You have God's revealed will and his secret will in opposition to themselves, God is divided against himself!

But that is exactly what Calvin taught.

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

PS, Winman you simply do not understand things that you read.....the way Icon Wants you to understand them.

 

[quantumfaith]

Not COMMANDED, but DECREED. I don't think the two terms mean the same thing. God's decree was that Man would fall and face God's justice; that God the Son would bear that justice on behalf of those who believed on Him, and that from the fallen race of Adam He would redeem some to eternal life.

These things were decreed "before the foundation of the world," but they weren't "commanded" as though the command could be disobeyed by a defiant creation that had it's own plans to carry out.

One of the reasons I believe in sovereign grace is that it exalts God to absolute Master of all His creation - every act of every creature - rather than turning God's will into "God's hope" and leaving it in the hands of corrupt sinners to carry out.

The Arminian picture of Almighty God as a frustrated deity who must pace heaven's floors wringing his hands and hoping someone on Earth will "let him have his way" is just too offensive for me to take it seriously.

Categorically False.

 

[webdog]

Not COMMANDED, but DECREED. I don't think the two terms mean the same thing. God's decree was that Man would fall and face God's justice; that God the Son would bear that justice on behalf of those who believed on Him, and that from the fallen race of Adam He would redeem some to eternal life.

These things were decreed "before the foundation of the world," but they weren't "commanded" as though the command could be disobeyed by a defiant creation that had it's own plans to carry out.

One of the reasons I believe in sovereign grace is that it exalts God to absolute Master of all His creation - every act of every creature - rather than turning God's will into "God's hope" and leaving it in the hands of corrupt sinners to carry out.

The Arminian picture of Almighty God as a frustrated deity who must pace heaven's floors wringing his hands and hoping someone on Earth will "let him have his way" is just too offensive for me to take it seriously.

Preacher4truth?

 

[webdog]

Not COMMANDED, but DECREED. I don't think the two terms mean the same thing. God's decree was that Man would fall and face God's justice; that God the Son would bear that justice on behalf of those who believed on Him, and that from the fallen race of Adam He would redeem some to eternal life.

These things were decreed "before the foundation of the world," but they weren't "commanded" as though the command could be disobeyed by a defiant creation that had it's own plans to carry out.

One of the reasons I believe in sovereign grace is that it exalts God to absolute Master of all His creation - every act of every creature - rather than turning God's will into "God's hope" and leaving it in the hands of corrupt sinners to carry out.

The Arminian picture of Almighty God as a frustrated deity who must pace heaven's floors wringing his hands and hoping someone on Earth will "let him have his way" is just too offensive for me to take it seriously.

Completely devoid of logic. God commands something...yet it doesn't really mean that. The redefining of words are not limited to liberals or gays apparently.

 

[InTheLight]

The Arminian picture of Almighty God as a frustrated deity who must pace heaven's floors wringing his hands and hoping someone on Earth will "let him have his way" is just too offensive for me to take it seriously.

 

[Iconoclast]

PS, Winman you simply do not understand things that you read.....the way Icon Wants you to understand them.

Perhaps it is all subjective like a poem:thumbs: What the scripture actually means, or what a person says......is up to the reader:thumbs:

Okay QF....if you applied this same reasoning to your math equations, your students would languish:wavey:

Winman you simply do not understand things that you read.....the way Icon Wants you to understand them.[/

Correct.QF.....if you want to know calvins thoughts on Romans 5.....read his commentary on romans 5....not some cut and paste partial comment, that you misunderstand and redefine.....

 

[Iconoclast]

Not COMMANDED, but DECREED. I don't think the two terms mean the same thing. God's decree was that Man would fall and face God's justice; that God the Son would bear that justice on behalf of those who believed on Him, and that from the fallen race of Adam He would redeem some to eternal life.

These things were decreed "before the foundation of the world," but they weren't "commanded" as though the command could be disobeyed by a defiant creation that had it's own plans to carry out.

One of the reasons I believe in sovereign grace is that it exalts God to absolute Master of all His creation - every act of every creature - rather than turning God's will into "God's hope" and leaving it in the hands of corrupt sinners to carry out.
The Arminian picture of Almighty God as a frustrated deity who must pace heaven's floors wringing his hands and hoping someone on Earth will "let him have his way" is just too offensive for me to take it seriously.

yes...it is a God exalting teaching...welcome to BB:wavey::wavey:

 

[quantumfaith]

Perhaps it is all subjective like a poem:thumbs: What the scripture actually means, or what a person says......is up to the reader:thumbs:

Okay QF....if you applied this same reasoning to your math equations, your students would languish:wavey:



Correct.QF.....if you want to know calvins thoughts on Romans 5.....read his commentary on romans 5....not some cut and paste partial comment, that you misunderstand and redefine.....

There you go again!!!!! Just because YOU have arrived at YOUR understanding of "particular scriptures" and how they all fit together, does not necessitate that IT is correct. The thing you miss, in comparing "theology" to mathematics is that, mathematics has an underlying and intentional logic (created) as a system. It has specified rules, procedures and axioms that must be followed thus making it repeatable and verifiable. Theology, in essence must be understood and acknowledged in "faith". It (theology) I would argue has even MORE truth value than does mathematics, however, it is not as "intentionally clear" as either sides likes to attempt to make it.

 

[Yeshua1]

Categorically False.

In arminian theology, jesus death purcahsed a "potential" salvation for all men, but up to each sinner to access that Grace and live...

is different froma cal view of Jesus death actually securing an 'actual" salvation to be received by the Elect by god...

 

[quantumfaith]

In arminian theology, jesus death purcahsed a "potential" salvation for all men, but up to each sinner to access that Grace and live...

is different froma cal view of Jesus death actually securing an 'actual" salvation to be received by the Elect by god...

I take no issue what you have said, my response was for the picture painted of "arminian theology" from an earlier post and poster. I recognize and respect that you are of the DoG flavor, while I respect that, I obviously don't share all (or even most) tenets and their interpretations with you.

 

[Winman]

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

PS, Winman you simply do not understand things that you read.....the way Icon Wants you to understand them.

I think I understand Calvin fairly well.

“From this it is easy to conclude how foolish and frail is the support of divine justice afforded by the suggestion that evils come to be not by [God’s] will, but merely by his permission. Of course, so far as they are evils, which men perpetrate with their evil mind, as I shall show in greater detail shortly, I admit that they are not pleasing to God. But it is a quite frivolous refuge to say that God permits them, when Scripture shows Him not only willing but the author of them.”(John Calvin, The Eternal Predestination of God, 176).

Calvin is being quite clear here that he doesn't simply believe God wills to permit sin, but that he is actually the AUTHOR of evils.

Again, speaking of the sinful actions of men, Calvin says;

“You would have us to rest content with the permission of God only. But God, by His prophet, asserts that His will and His hand are in the whole matter as the moving cause. Now just consider, then, which of the two is the more worthy to be believed, God, who by His Spirit, the only fountain of truth, thus speaks concerning Himself; or you, prating about His hidden and unsearchable mysteries out of the worthless knowledge of your own carnal brain?”

Calvin ridiculed those who believed that God merely permits or allows men to do evil. Calvin said that God was "the moving CAUSE" of sin.

Calvin said such things MANY times.

” Hence you see that Satan is not only ” a lying spirit in the mouth of all the prophets,” at the express command of God, but also that his impostures so ensnare the reprobate, that, being utterly deprived of their reason, they are, of necessity, dragged headlong into error. In this same manner also must we understand the apostle, when he says that those who were ungrateful to God were ” delivered over to a reprobate mind,” and ” given up to vile and foul affections,” that they should work ” that which is unseemly, and defile their own natural bodies one among another.” Upon which Scripture Augustine remarks that these reprobate characters were not given up to the corrupt affections of their hearts by the mere permission of God as an unconcerned spectator, but by His righteous decree . . . Whence that which I have just stated is perfectly plain: that the internal affections of men are not less ruled by the hand of God than their external actions are preceded by His eternal decree; and, moreover, that God performs not by the hands of men the things which He has decreed, without first working in their hearts the very will which precedes the acts they are to perform.

Again, Calvin is very explicit that God does not merely allow or permit men to sin, but commands it. God is not a passive spectator, but actively WORKS in the hearts of reprobate men the very will which precedes the evil acts they are to perform.

I think I understand Calvin and Calvinism pretty well.

 

[A Faithful Sidekick]

In Arminian theology, Jesus death purchased a "potential" salvation for all men, but up to each sinner to access that Grace and live...

This is different from a Calvinistic view of Jesus' death actually securing an 'actual" salvation to be received by the Elect of God...

A good summary of the biggest difference between them, I think. While one group says Jesus' work merely makes salvation possible for "whosoever will," the other says that Jesus' work fully accomplished the salvation of the Elect. The Holy Spirit applies that finished work to those the Father has given to the Son.

I apologize if my picture of God pacing heaven's floors helplessly hoping that someone on Earth would "let Him have His way" was offensive. I don't mean to offend, but that is the picture I can't help getting in my mind during those pleading altar calls that seem to depict Him that way.

"Jesus is knocking at the door of your heart, pleading to be let in...."

It's just so opposite of the picture that scripture paints for us, where sinners are the ones on the outside pleading for entrance. The human heart is not some warm, cozy place that would be a nice home for Holy God. In fact, the heart is "deceitful above all things and desperately wicked." Not a place that the Lord would wish to dwell. It is we sinners who long for the beauty and holiness of His heart! And Christ is not left out in the cold at the mercy of the unregenerate, it is the other way around!

Perhaps I'll write a big ol' honking post on why altar calls offend me, suggesting an alternative to this man-made invention which has become as cherished a tradition among evangelicals as ceremonial handwashing was to the Pharisees.

 

[Winman]

A good summary of the biggest difference between them, I think. While one group says Jesus' work merely makes salvation possible for "whosoever will," the other says that Jesus' work fully accomplished the salvation of the Elect. The Holy Spirit applies that finished work to those the Father has given to the Son.

I apologize if my picture of God pacing heaven's floors helplessly hoping that someone on Earth would "let Him have His way" was offensive. I don't mean to offend, but that is the picture I can't help getting in my mind during those pleading altar calls that seem to depict Him that way.

"Jesus is knocking at the door of your heart, pleading to be let in...."

It's just so opposite of the picture that scripture paints for us, where sinners are the ones on the outside pleading for entrance. The human heart is not some warm, cozy place that would be a nice home for Holy God. In fact, the heart is "deceitful above all things and desperately wicked." Not a place that the Lord would wish to dwell. It is we sinners who long for the beauty and holiness of His heart! And Christ is not left out in the cold at the mercy of the unregenerate, it is the other way around!

Perhaps I'll write a big ol' honking post on why altar calls offend me, suggesting an alternative to this man-made invention which has become as cherished a tradition among evangelicals as ceremonial handwashing was to the Pharisees.

It is you that thinks it is demeaning to God for him to beg men to be saved, but that is actually what the scriptures show.

2 Cor 5:20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God.

The word beseech means to plead with, beg, or entreat, look it up for yourself. Paul is saying he is a representative or ambassador for Christ beseeching men to be reconciled to God.

Calvinim misrepresents God. God is not proud, God lowered himself and became a man to save us from our sins. God indeed calls and begs all men to accept his offer of salvation.

Rom 10:21 But to Israel he saith, All day long I have stretched forth my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people.

God himself said that he has stretched out his hands to a disobedient and rebellious people. He called, but they refused to answer.

Whether you like this or not, this is what scripture itself says of God. God does indeed beseech and beg people to be saved.

 

[A Faithful Sidekick]

Calvin is very explicit that God does not merely allow or permit men to sin, but commands it. God is not a passive spectator, but actively WORKS in the hearts of reprobate men the very will which precedes the evil acts they are to perform.

I think Romans 9:17-24 sums up this picture well, quoting from Exodus as well, and crediting God with hardening Pharaoh's heart for the sole purpose of demonstrating His wrath against him! The Apostles describes "vessels of wrath, prepared (as in created, intended) for destruction" in verse 22 and others "prepared beforehand for glory (verse 23)."

This offends us, because we don't think it is fair for God to harden someone's heart and then punish them for having a hard heart. We are tempted (or we just do so outright) to charge God with injustice.

The Apostle anticipates this objection:

You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will (verse 19)?"

Paul's answer does nothing to make us feel any better. In fact it tends to offend us even more. His retort:

On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The molded clay will not say to the potter, "Why have you made me like this," will it? Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one fine vase and one spittoon (verse 21, paraphrased)?

Sounds like the Apostle believed as Calvin did.

The real question then, is this: Is God therefore the Author of sin?

One hint at the answer is in the grand purpose for which God created Man and foreordained the Fall, the Cross, the Bride, and the Lake of Fire:

To demonstrate His power, to make known the depths and glory of His holiness and justice, and the heights of His love and mercy. The wicked testify (involuntarily) to the ugliness of sin and the glory of God's justice; and the righteous testify to the extremes His love and mercy could go in order to redeem unworthy rebels.

For me the wonder is not that God shows mercy to some and justice to the rest. The real wonder is that He shows mercy to anybody at all!

James 1:13-17 makes it clear that God is not tempted, nor does He tempt anyone to evil. But men are tempted and drawn away by their own lust. Evil is not of the Father (1 John 2:16), but of the world.

It is no comfort to those of us who cling to our own sense of justice. Our only comfort is God's choice to show mercy to some of us.

 

[Winman]

I disagree with your interpretation of "fitted to destruction". Note it does not say, fitted "for" destruction. You understand this to mean these persons were prepared or formed for the purpose of destruction, where I understand this to mean these persons were justly deserving of destruction.

For example, you might have a criminal who goes on a crime spree. The police finally catch up with him and there is a shoot-out. The criminal is killed in the gun battle. People say that that man came to a "fitting" end. He deserved to be killed because of his wickedness.

This is how I understand the word "fitted" in Romans 9. Pharaoh was wicked. He repeatedly witnessed the miracles of God and yet rebelled against God. He was going to kill Moses and all the escaping Jews. God destroyed Pharaoh when he allowed the Red Sea to collapse on him and his army. He was fitted, or deserving of destruction.

If you look up "fitted" in Strong's, the first definition is "render". One of the several definitions for render is to;

3. To give what is due or owed:

This is how I define fitted in Romans 9. Pharaoh was rendered or received his just reward for his wickedness. He was fitted (or justly owed) to destruction.

 

[kyredneck]

I make a motion that we assign AFS to Winman for a month.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

A good summary of the biggest difference between them, I think. While one group says Jesus' work merely makes salvation possible for "whosoever will," the other says that Jesus' work fully accomplished the salvation of the Elect. The Holy Spirit applies that finished work to those the Father has given to the Son.

I apologize if my picture of God pacing heaven's floors helplessly hoping that someone on Earth would "let Him have His way" was offensive. I don't mean to offend, but that is the picture I can't help getting in my mind during those pleading altar calls that seem to depict Him that way.

"Jesus is knocking at the door of your heart, pleading to be let in...."

It's just so opposite of the picture that scripture paints for us, where sinners are the ones on the outside pleading for entrance. The human heart is not some warm, cozy place that would be a nice home for Holy God. In fact, the heart is "deceitful above all things and desperately wicked." Not a place that the Lord would wish to dwell. It is we sinners who long for the beauty and holiness of His heart! And Christ is not left out in the cold at the mercy of the unregenerate, it is the other way around!

Perhaps I'll write a big ol' honking post on why altar calls offend me, suggesting an alternative to this man-made invention which has become as cherished a tradition among evangelicals as ceremonial handwashing was to the Pharisees.

Trust me, its been done on here Ad nauseam ..... & I share your disgust for it. The surprising thing is when you see Calvinists who claim it "aint so bad" & we have begun the practice in our own little assembly....then you roll your eyes & clinch your teeth. But lets face it, thats the way its going these days. Humanism is taking over.... but some of us have our post tenebras lux (after darkness, light) experiences to open our eyes to the truth & we are trying to live God Centered lifestyles.... this includes Calvinists & non Calvies alike.

But the whole aim of Doctrines Of Grace theology , especially the soteriology, is to glorify God for His sovereign grace. .... as a fellow Christian who has abandoned Presbyterianism for Calvinistic Baptistic theology & distinctives, I can tell you that your not alone in your questioning.... but I do recall some Westminster Shorter Catechism: " Mans chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy Him forever." I believe we all share that conviction in this Forum.

 

[Iconoclast]

Winman,

Calvin said that God was "the moving CAUSE" of sin.

This evil statement is very disturbing....especially since none of the supposed quotes.....use the word sin.

looks as if that word was supplied by you....so once again you can blame God.

I think I understand Calvin fairly well.

It does not seem to be the case....when you add words that are not there to fit your agenda.
This makes you not a credible witness....you are dismissed:godisgood:

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Preacher4truth?

No No ... P4T is now an moderator at The Calvinist Cafe. ROFL!!! :godisgood: