Who is the Author of Sin - Micro refutation of Calvinism

[TheRadicalOne]

Originally posted by russell55:
I've read Calvin, and what he is doing is making some sort of explanation of how God's will works in passages like Isaiah 10.

There is no SECRET WILL in Isaiah 10 God has made clear that desobedience deserves a punishment and He used the Assyrians to punish Israel. Read the whole chapter 28 of the book of Deuteronomy.

That was because of Israel's arrogance, rebellion, injustice and oppression. Because of their SIN.

God's will cannot include any SIN in any sense, you should study the attributes of God. So blinded are you by Calvin's philosophy that you pretend to make God a sinner in order to justify yourself and your doctrine.

Psalms 5:4-7 "For thou art not a God that hath pleasure in wickedness: neither shall evil dwell with thee. The foolish shall not stand in thy sight: thou hatest all workers of iniquity. Thou shalt destroy them that speak leasing: the LORD will abhor the bloody and deceitful man. But as for me, I will come into thy house in the multitude of thy mercy: and in thy fear will I worship toward thy holy temple."

 

[TheRadicalOne]

Originally posted by TomMann:
Unlike them, I do happen to ascribe to the absolute fact of this absolute predestination. And I see nothing in scripture that refutes the fact that God in His Soverignty, is in absolute control of all his creation. He does His will, as He will, among the army of heaven, and the inhabitants of the earth. None can resist His will, and none can stay His hand.

I think you have misunderstood what Soverignty means. God is not free, I say this with a conviction of my heart. God is ruled and is governed by his attributes manifested in his WORD. His attributes are clearly manifested in THE HOLY BIBLE. He cannot go against his own attributes. Sorry, but your mistique understanding of God's freedom or Soverignty, is far away from what the Bible teaches about how God is. Maybe you should examinate whether you truly had believed in the God of the Bible instead of the god written in Calvin's philosophical writtings.

 

[russell55]

There is no SECRET WILL in Isaiah 10

1. Was the King of Assyria doing God's will when he want up against Israel?

Answer from the text:

I will send him against an ungodly nation...

Yes, it was God's will for the king to do what He did.

2. Did the king of Assyria know he was doing God's will?

Answer from the text:

Yet he does not means so, Nor does his heart think so...

No, the king did not know he was doing God's will. He thought was going up against God by going up against God's people.

Now, how can you say that there is no SECRET WILL in Isaiah 10?

The king of Assyria, out of an arrogant heart and an evil need for more and more power, goes up against God's people, something God punishes Him for when things are all finished.

....when the Lord has performed all His work on Mount Zion and on Jerusalem, He will say, "I will punish the fruit of the arrogant heart of the king of Assyra, and the glory of his haughty looks."

And yet, in this whole deal, the king is only an unwitting tool in God's hands.

Shall the ax boast itself against him who chops with it? Or shall the saw exalt itself against him who saws with it? As if a rod could wield itself against those who lift it up...

If this isn't God's secret will, then what sort of will is it? It was an evil thing the king did, worthy of God's punishment, so it certainly can't be something God TOLD him to do, or something that the Holy Spirit moved him to do. But nonetheless, if you take the text seriously, what the king did was certainly God's will in SOME way. I think the term "secret will" is probably as good a term as any to describe this sort of event: when God works a good end through the evil acts of men.

[ September 06, 2002, 07:54 PM: Message edited by: russell55 ]

 

[russell55]

God's will cannot includeSIN in any sense

Really? If Assyria's acts weren't sinful, then why did God punish them?

(Of course, for God, none of this was sin, because He was bringing about perfect ends through this all--the judgment of the sin in the nation Israel, and then the judgment of the evil nation Assyria. God was bringing about what is right using evil acts of men.)

[ September 06, 2002, 07:55 PM: Message edited by: russell55 ]

 

[Tiger Fan]

Originally posted by TheRadicalOne:

God's will cannot include any SIN in any sense, you should study the attributes of God.

And you may want to read your bible. The murder of Jesus, which is a sin, was ordained by God. It was His will. read Acts 4:27-28

And how can you say that Assyria wasn't accomplishing the will of God in Isaiah 10? they were doing the will of God and sinning at the same time.

 

[TheRadicalOne]

Russell:

Even the children in our sunday school know that God has a perfect holy will. That there are TWO wills active in this world. GODS WILL AND THE DEVIL'S WILL. When you depart from God, what He does is "To deliver such an one unto Satan". The DEVIL'S WILL AND GOD'S WILL ARE CLEARLY CONTRASTED IN JOHN 10:10

There is no need of your mess. There is no need of you trying to attribute to God all evil acts. Calvin is a heretic in that, wake up.

 

[russell55]

There is no need of you trying to attribute to God all evil acts. Calvin is a heretic in that, wake up.

I don't attribute any evil acts to God, and neither did Calvin. All I said is that God allows evil acts for a reason, and it is that sense, and that sense only, that any evil act can be called God's will.

It is in this sense that it was God's will for the Assyrians to go up against Israel: God allowed Assyria to go ahead with it's evil act for a good reason--the judgment of wickedness in Israel.

If you don't think that God allows evil acts for His own good purposes, then you either don't believe God can know evil acts before they come, or believe God is not powerful enough to prevent them, or that he is disinterested in human affairs (He sees the bad acts coming but doesn't care enough to prevent them), or that He is capricious or arbitrary (He sometimes allows evil to play out, and sometimes prevents it, but hasn't good reason for allowing it one time and disallowing it the next.) Those are your only alternatives. If you object so strongly to God allowing evil for a reason, then which of these alternatives do you hold to?

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by TheRadicalOne:
1) There is no need of your mess.

2) Calvin is a heretic in that, wake up.

1) So you are calling the gospel a mess. How sad.

2) You posted on another thread: "For me Finney was as heretic as Spurgeon. So I have no problem in learing from both."

So, are you saying that Calvin was a heretic in the same way as Finney and Spurgeon? Or are you saying that Calvin was a heretic but not Finney and Spurgeon?

And, since I am curious as you have evidently taken over the position as the "Keeper of Orthodoxy"

, do you regard all who believe in the doctrines of God's grace as heretics?

Christian regards,

Ken
A Spurgeonite

 

[Ray Berrian]

How can "Unconditional Election" be considered a doctrine of grace? If the doctrine were true God would be damning the majority of humanity at His own will and choice. He would be saving only the 'few' [Matt. 7:14d] because of His sovereign choice. I, for one, vote this concept as a disgrace rather than attributing such action to His loving grace. Even if you say 'realitively few.' . . .

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
How can "Unconditional Election" be considered a doctrine of grace? If the doctrine were true God would be damning the majority of humanity at His own will and choice.

Ray,

Man damns himself, not God. Man damns himself, not God. Man damns himself, not God. Got it?

There is nothing in us that God sees that would cause Him to save us except for His unconditional love of us. You do agree, right?

If you agree that there is nothing in us that would cause God to save us, then it must be unconditional on God's part, right?

I think I see now, it appears to me that non-Calvinists are teaching that once man, of his own "free will" repents and believes, then God is obligated to save him. Therefore, the non-Calvinist sees nothing unconditonal in election.

Years ago I heard a Church of Christ teacher say something basically like the above - that once a person heard, believed, repented, confessed Christ, was baptized, and lived a faithful Christian life, that God is obligated to save him.

That is why I see non-Calvinists as teaching that man saves himself conditionally, rather than God saving man unconditionally.

Christian regards,

Ken
A Spurgeonite

[ September 08, 2002, 08:50 PM: Message edited by: Ken Hamilton ]

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by Ken Hamilton:
There is nothing in us that God sees that would cause Him to save us except for His unconditional love of us. You do agree, right?

If you agree that there is nothing in us that would cause God to save us, then it must be unconditional on God's part, right?
[/QB]

If the love is not given to all men, then the love must be conditional on something. Even if God elects some, that love is conditional to some degree. For you to say that God loves men unconditionally, it MUST apply to all men equally.

 

[tyndale1946]

Ken said in regards to The Radical One:

And, since I am curious as you have evidently taken over the position as the "Keeper of Orthodoxy" , do you regard all who believe in the doctrines of God's grace as heretics?

Keeper of Orthodoxy that is a good one on the New Kid On The Block!... Ken has 801 Posts... I have 2,564 and you have 29!... I'm scratching my head!... I've been here in this forum for over one year!... Am I missing something?... Maybe you need to check out our complete post past and present and the archives too... The Radical One you have some catching up to do! ... Brother Glen

[ September 09, 2002, 04:32 AM: Message edited by: tyndale1946 ]

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
If the love is not given to all men, then the love must be conditional on something. Even if God elects some, that love is conditional to some degree. For you to say that God loves men unconditionally, it MUST apply to all men equally.

Scott,

Do you love all people equally? Does God require of you that you love all people equally?

Unconditional refers to the fact that there is nothing in the person or about the person or done by the person that would cause God to save him.

Ken
A Spurgeonite

 

[TheRadicalOne]

Originally posted by Ken Hamilton:

1) So you are calling the gospel a mess. How sad.

Ken, you are dishonest. When did I say that?

2) You posted on another thread: "For me Finney was as heretic as Spurgeon. So I have no problem in learing from both."

Now, you are bringing the Finney issue to this topic, why don't you respect the order or each discussion?

I believe that both Spurgeon and Finney, had certain things that are good and others that are not. That's all what I meant.

do you regard all who believe in the doctrines of God's grace as heretics?

No, not the doctrines of God's grace. But I'm agains JOHN CALVIN'S philosophical and antibiblical theories.

 

[tyndale1946]

Ken said:

Unconditional refers to the fact that there is nothing in the person or about the person or done by the person that would cause God to save him.

Amazing Grace how sweet the sound
That saved a wretch like me!
I once was lost but now I'm found
Was blind but now I see!... If the Primitive Baptist Church had an alma mater this would without a doubt be ours!... Brother Glen

 

[TheRadicalOne]

Originally posted by Ken Hamilton:

Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
[qb]How can "Unconditional Election" be considered a doctrine of grace? If the doctrine were true God would be damning the majority of humanity at His own will and choice.

Ken,

Spurgeon believed that most people are going to be in heaven, so if you are trully a "Spurgeonite" you should agree with Ray in that.

 

[TheRadicalOne]

Originally posted by tyndale1946:
Ken said in regards to The Radical One:

Keeper of Orthodoxy that is a good one on the New Kid On The Block!... Ken has 801 Posts... I have 2,564 and you have 29!... I'm scratching my head!... I've been here in this forum for over one year!... Am I missing something?... Maybe you need to check out our complete post past and present and the archives too... The Radical One you have some catching up to do! ... Brother Glen

That doesn't tell me anything. I don't have the time to read all your messages. You'll find out if I've studied the issues or not.

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by TheRadicalOne:
Spurgeon believed that most people are going to be in heaven, so if you are trully a "Spurgeonite" you should agree with Ray in that.

Radical,

Let me bring you up to date. Ray believes most people will be damned to hell. I, as a Spurgeonite, believe most people will be in heaven.

Christian regards,

Ken

[ September 09, 2002, 03:17 PM: Message edited by: Ken Hamilton ]

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by TheRadicalOne:
Ken, you are dishonest. When did I say that?

No, not the doctrines of God's grace. But I'm agains JOHN CALVIN'S philosophical and antibiblical theories.

Radical,

Didn't you call Calvinism a mess earlier in this thread? Calvinism is an understanding of how the gospel works. To call Calvinism a mess is, in essence, to call the gospel of God's free grace a mess, in my honest opinion.

John Calvin taught the doctrines of God's free grace, as did Augustine, as did the apostle Paul.

Christian regards,

Ken
A Spurgeonite

 

[TheRadicalOne]

Originally posted by russell55:
[QB]

I don't attribute any evil acts to God, and neither did Calvin.

"4. In the same way is solved, or rather spontaneously vanishes, another objection--viz. If God not only uses the agency of the wicked, but also governs their counsels and affections, he is the author of all their sins; and, therefore, men, in executing what God has decreed, are unjustly condemned, because they are obeying his will. Here will is improperly confounded with precept, though it is obvious, from innumerable examples, that there is the greatest difference between them.142{142 142 The French is, "Car ils meslent perversement le commandement de Dieu avec son vouloir secret, veu qu'il appert par exemples infinis qu'il y a bien longue distance et diversité de l'un à l'autre;" for they perversely confound the command of God with his secret will..." Book 1 section 18 - Calvin's Institutes.

He is attributing evil to the "SECRET WILL OF GOD" Not to the Devil, can you notice that?

All I said is that God allows evil acts for a reason, and it is that sense, and that sense only, that any evil act can be called God's will.

NO, Russell, you are not speaking in the same language, Calvin never used the word ALLOW as you do it, he says that God, decreed, foreordained the wicked acts.

If somebody ordains an act he is guilty of that, can you ordain somebody to kill a person and not be responsable? That's why Calvin's reasoning is dangerous. Still blinded, huh!

It is in this sense that it was God's will for the Assyrians to go up against Israel: God allowed Assyria to go ahead with it's evil act for a good reason--the judgment of wickedness in Israel.

If you are trully a follower of Calvin stop using the word ALLOW, the Assyrians were led by the Devil in their idolatry and acts, they went against Israel because God allowed that to happen, at the same time God used that to punish Israel, in other words God delivered them unto Satan, but they couldn't do anything against the remanent. The punishment for sin, is the WILL OF GOD. Because He hates sin. We see the consequenses for the disobedient in Deut. 28. What is secret in all that? Where is the SECRET WILL?

If you don't think that God allows evil acts for His own good purposes, then you either don't believe God can know evil acts before they come

You are missing the whole point, I believe God allows sin, but I DONT BELIEVE HE ORDAINS SIN. That is the reason of the question by which this topic started.

[ September 09, 2002, 03:48 PM: Message edited by: TheRadicalOne ]