Posted on 05/30/2004 11:53:03 AM PDT by RnMomof7
Game, set and match to you, RnMom.
I tried to skim through your Belgic, Heidelberg and Westminstre catechism links...I couldn't find anything about God foreordaining sin.
Would you be so kind as to provide specific quotations from those catechisms that prove that Calvinism believes all sins are pre-destines and foreordained?
I'm new to this whole topic, and I'm not interested in bashing or thrashing here. I'm just interesting in understanding.
I believe some sins were definitely predestined: Adam & Eve, Judas, Christ's crucifixion, etc. Those have eternal consequences for all mankind, and they helped further God's plan. But are ALL sins foreordained?
Did God foreordain September 11? Did He foreordain Hitler's Holocaust of 6 million Jews?
Then you'd better stick around. 8~)
I think you meant "obsessive-compulsive."
Do Freewill Baptist Churches teach that God offers salvation and man makes a conscious decision to accept God's offer?
Do Freewill Baptist Churches teach that God is knocking and man must open the door and invite God into his life?
Do Freewill Baptist Churches teach that faith is the cause of our salvation, not the fruit of our salvation?
These are the distinctions upon which the Reformation was fought. Arminians back-tracked to Rome by denying that salvation is entirely the work of God and insisting that man cooperates in his own salvation, thereby mitigating God's mercy. It's not mercy if God owes salvation to a man because he's "earned" it.
None of us can earn it. It's a gift.
Unfortunately, your response did not address the fact that the passages cited by the writer of the article did/do NOT say what he claimed that they said.
Can a dead man desire to see the Kingdom of God? With what eyes will he see it?
Isa 44:18 They have not known nor understood: for he hath shut their eyes, that they cannot see; their hearts, that they cannot understand.
Your statement, coupled with your first citation, may serve as an illustration of my point. The above verse is speaking to Israel. Specifically, it is speaking to those within Israel who made and worshipped IDOLS.
There is no indication that this verse was meant to describe "all of mankind, except those who were predestined..." As in the original three verses, the verse does not actually SAY what is claimed of it.
Mat 13:13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.
Again, this verse is specifically about (some of) Israel. His audience were Judeans (Jews), not the Gentiles.
Jhn 9:39 And Jesus said, For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind.
Here, there are two sets of people: " they which see not," and " they which see." Who are these " they which see" folks, anyway? And why will they "be made blind?" Do you imagine that these are people who are called, elected, predestined, to come to Yeshua? If so, How (and why) then are they to "be made blind?" What does this say about "perseverance of the saints?"
Eph 2:1 And you [hath he quickened], who were dead in trespasses and sins;
Eph 2:5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;)
Eph 5:14 Wherefore he saith, Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light.
We needed to be quickened. We were dead in our sin.
OK.
We could not desire what we could not see.
Consider this verse (there are more, if you need them):
Romans 8
24 For in hope we have been saved, but hope that is seen is
not hope; for who hopes for what he already sees?
God had to act on us first . Arise from the Dead...THEN Christ will give us light.
Paul is writing to people who are already Christians. This thought is repeated, here:
Romans 13
11 Do this, knowing the time, that it is already the hour for you
to awaken from sleep; for now salvation is nearer to us than
when we believed.
1 Thessalonians 5
6 so then let us not sleep as others do, but let us be alert
and sober.
The word Quicken is synonyms with being born.
It is more like "enliven," or "make alive."
No what he is saying that as natural men they could not receive the Gospel.
Again, that is NOT what the verse actually says. It is making the verse "fit" your theology.
He did nothing...He did not a stirring salvation sermon or sing 3 verses of Just as I am . He claimed not one wit of credit in the entire process. He said it was all entirely the work of the Holy Spirit . 100%
I do not argue against this idea, but it is NOT in the verse.
Verse 5)
1Cr 2:5 That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.
The fact is the message is one Paul teaches over and over. Being Born again, Repenting and believing are all the work of the Holy Spirit.
Again, I am not arguing the point, merely that this is NOT what the verse actually says. Paul is clearly referring to "the power of signs and wonders, in the POWER of the Holy Spirit."
Romans 15
18 For I will not presume to speak of anything except what
Christ has accomplished through me, resulting in the obedience of the
Gentiles by word and deed,
19 in the power of signs and wonders, in the power of the
Spirit; so that from Jerusalem and round about as far as
Illyricum I have fully preached the gospel of Christ.
1 Corinthians 4:
20 For the kingdom of God does not consist in words but in power.
Unfortunately, the denial of this power is characteristic of many "Christians" of our time:
2 Timothy 3
1But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. 2People
will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive,
disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, 3without love,
unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the
good, 4treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than
lovers of God-- 5having a form of godliness but denying its power.
Have nothing to do with them.
Does a dead man have the Holy Spirit to understand spiritual things? Or would man need to have the Holy Spirit FIRST to understand spiritual things? Can a Dead man without the help of the Holy Spirit understand the gospel (a spiritual thing?) What does Paul say?
These are inappropriate questions. First, they do not address the fact that the verses cited in the article do not actually say what is claimed. Second, it presumes that the "work of the Holy Spirit," in leading the sinner to Christ, is the SAME as the "indwelling of," or "baptism of (or in, or into)," the Holy Spirit. Or, for that matter, being "born again."
It does not say EVERYONE IN THE ENTIRE WOLD will be taught of God. It says those drawn by the Father will come and those taught by the Father..they are both the same group ..
Perhaps my deeply ingrained prejudices color my understanding of these verses. You might consider other possibilities, too.
READ it as a letter and you will see that the everyone refers to the elect..those the father drew ..The Father draws the elect, He teaches the elect, He gives the elect to Jesus to save, Jesus saves them and loses none
That is what is being taught.
I understand that this is how you see it. You need to realize that, whether your belief is true or not, the verses do not so state. This is the problem, as I see it: we cannot, we MUST not, develop a theology which requires that we "fix," or "explain away," or re-state, many ordinary Bible passages.
Think about this OK ? The dead can not hear. It has to be given to them to hear . Those that have it given to them ( be born again ) will have ears to hear.
This illustrates another difficulty: you seem to presume that the work of the Holy Spirit in "convict[ing] the world concerning sin, and righteousness, and judgement;" [see John 6:8] is one and the same work, as "be[ing] born again."
There it is in a nutshell . It was give them to hear.
That is NOT what the verses say. It may very well have been "given them to hear," but these verses do not so state.
We agree that he who believes has eternal life. The question is who can believe? One that can hear the word of God, one that has ears to hear , one that is born again of the spirit and not the flesh.
I do not know why you keep mistaking "hearing" with being "born again." Is not the parable of the sower very clear, in saying that some (I think many) will be able to "hear," but later, "fall away."
Matthew 13:
20 "The one on whom seed was sown on the rocky places, this is the
man who hears the word and immediately receives it with joy;
21 yet he has no firm root in himself, but is only temporary, and
when affliction or persecution arises because of the word, immediately
he falls away.
22 "And the one on whom seed was sown among the thorns, this is
the man who hears the word, and the worry of the world and the
deceitfulness of wealth choke the word, and it becomes
unfruitful.
If you believe, as I do, that this parable sets forth actual reality, you must surely see that a person can "hear the word," and "immediately receive it with joy," and later "fall away." If, (as I understand your theology) one who "hears" must necessarily have already been "born again;" and (if I understand your theology) one who is "born again" will never fall away (perseverance of the saints), how then can these people who "hear" possibly "fall away?"
Please consider the above question to be a rhetorical question. It is intended to provoke meditation on these verses, no posted answer is required.
DG
Or else there is something more powerful than God whose will supersedes the will of God.
Did God ordain that Judas would betray the Son of God?
ONE: A man must repent and believe the gospel in order to be saved.
TWO: Every one who repents and believes the gospel will be saved.
THREE: Repentance and faith are the free acts of men.
Yes, I’m in disagreement. This is the Semi-Pelagius view that is prevalent in the churches today. It is in error. Consider the verse we just had at church today:
Titus 3:5-7 He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that being justified by His grace we would be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.
If repentance ISN'T an act of righteousness what is it? How do you square up the author's three points against Paul's letter to Titus?
There is NOTHING we can do. It is ONLY because of God’s mercy.
***What do you have to say about the authors statement that there are a "hundren variations" of Calvinism? At least he is attempting to be intellectually honest.***
If YOU agree with him, how about listing ten different variants of Calvinism for us.
(BTW: I'm only asking for a tenth of them and I am not asking you to define love or justice as attributes of God which I know gives you the vapors.)
I mean, really, what do my alleged "obcessive"-compulsive behaviors have to do with whether or not Edwin Palmer is a Hyper-Calvinist and whether or not you have any proof that he is???
You can start by showing an accepted definition of Hyper-Calvinism to be the belief that God foreordains all things that come to pass.
So far, you have shown nothing close to this.
Jean
Belgic Confession:
Article 13:
The Doctrine of God's Providence We believe that this good God, after he created all things, did not abandon them to chance or fortune but leads and governs them according to his holy will, in such a way that ~nothing~ happens in this world without his orderly arrangement.
Yet God is not the author of, nor can he be charged with, the sin that occurs. For his power and goodness are so great and incomprehensible that he arranges and does his work very well and justly even when the devils and wicked men act unjustly.
We do not wish to inquire with undue curiosity into what he does that surpasses human understanding and is beyond our ability to comprehend. But in all humility and reverence we adore the just judgments of God, which are hidden from us, being content to be Christ's disciples, so as to learn only what he shows us in his Word, without going beyond those limits.
This doctrine gives us unspeakable comfort since it teaches us that nothing can happen to us by chance but only by the arrangement of our gracious heavenly Father. He watches over us with fatherly care, keeping all creatures under his control, so that not one of the hairs on our heads (for they are all numbered) nor even a little bird can fall to the ground20 without the will of our Father.
In this thought we rest, knowing that he holds in check the devils and all our enemies, who cannot hurt us without his permission and will.
For that reason we reject the damnable error of the Epicureans, who say that God involves himself in nothing and leaves everything to chance.
Heidelberg Catechism:
Lord's Day 10 Question 27: What dost thou mean by the providence of God?
Answer: The almighty and everywhere present power of God; (a) whereby, as it were by his hand, he upholds and governs (b) heaven, earth, and all creatures; so that herbs and grass, rain and drought, (c) fruitful and barren years, meat and drink, health and sickness, (d) riches and poverty, (e) yea, and ~all things~ come, not by chance, but be his fatherly hand. (f)
Westminster Confession:
Chapter 3 I. God, from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass:[65] yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin,[66] nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.[67]
II. Although God knows whatsoever may or can come to pass upon all supposed conditions,[68] yet hath he not decreed anything because he foresaw it as future, or as that which would come to pass upon such conditions.[69]
And, for good measure, I'll throw in a couple of quotations from John Calvin himself that professes the same belief:
Book III, Chapter 23, Section 7 7. They deny that it is ever said in distinct terms, God decreed that Adam should perish by his revolt. As if the same God, who is declared in Scripture to do whatsoever he pleases, could have made the noblest of his creatures without any special purpose. They say that, in accordance with free-will, he was to be the architect of his own fortune, that God had decreed nothing but to treat him according to his desert. If this frigid fiction is received, where will be the omnipotence of God, by which, according to his secret counsel on which every thing depends, he rules over all? But whether they will allow it or not, predestination is manifest in Adam's posterity. It was not owing to nature that they all lost salvation by the fault of one parent. Why should they refuse to admit with regard to one man that which against their will they admit with regard to the whole human race? Why should they in caviling lose their labour? Scripture proclaims that all were, in the person of one, made liable to eternal death. As this cannot be ascribed to nature, it is plain that it is owing to the wonderful counsel of God. It is very absurd in these worthy defenders of the justice of God to strain at a gnat and swallow a camel. I again ask how it is that the fall of Adam involves so many nations with their infant children in eternal death without remedy unless that it so seemed meet to God? Here the most loquacious tongues must be dumb. The decree, I admit, is, dreadful; and yet it is impossible to deny that God foreknow what the end of man was to be before he made him, and foreknew, because he had so ordained by his decree. Should any one here inveigh against the prescience of God, he does it rashly and unadvisedly. For why, pray, should it be made a charge against the heavenly Judge, that he was not ignorant of what was to happen? Thus, if there is any just or plausible complaint, it must be directed against predestination. Nor ought it to seem absurd when I say, that God not only foresaw the fall of the first man, and in him the ruin of his posterity; but also at his own pleasure arranged it. For as it belongs to his wisdom to foreknow all future events, so it belongs to his power to rule and govern them by his hand. This question, like others, is skillfully explained by Augustine: "Let us confess with the greatest benefit, what we believe with the greatest truth, that the God and Lord of all things who made all things very good, both foreknow that evil was to arise out of good, and knew that it belonged to his most omnipotent goodness to bring good out of evil, rather than not permit evil to be, and so ordained the life of angels and men as to show in it, first, what free-will could do; and, secondly, what the benefit of his grace and his righteous judgment could do," (August. Enchir. ad Laurent.)
Book I, Chapter 17, Section 5 5. By the same class of persons, past events are referred improperly and inconsiderately to simple providence. As all contingencies whatsoever depend on it, therefore, neither thefts nor adulteries, nor murders, are perpetrated without an interposition of the divine will. Why, then, they ask, should the thief be punished for robbing him whom the Lord chose to chastise with poverty? Why should the murderer be punished for slaying him whose life the Lord had terminated? If all such persons serve the will of God, why should they be punished? I deny that they serve the will of God. For we cannot say that he who is carried away by a wicked mind performs service on the order of God, when he is only following his own malignant desires. He obeys God, who, being instructed in his will, hastens in the direction in which God calls him. But how are we so instructed unless by his word? The will declared by his word is, therefore, that which we must keep in view in acting, God requires of us nothing but what he enjoins. If we design anything contrary to his precept, it is not obedience, but contumacy and transgression. But if he did not will it, we could not do it. I admit this. But do we act wickedly for the purpose of yielding obedience to him? This, assuredly, he does not command. Nay, rather we rush on, not thinking of what he wishes, but so inflamed by our own passionate lust, that, with destined purpose, we strive against him. And in this way, while acting wickedly, we serve his righteous ordination, since in his boundless wisdom he well knows how to use bad instruments for good purposes. And see how absurd this mode of arguing is. They will have it that crimes ought not to be punished in their authors, because they are not committed without the dispensation of God. I concede more - that thieves and murderers, and other evil-doers, are instruments of Divine Providence, being employed by the Lord himself to execute the judgements which he has resolved to inflict. But I deny that this forms any excuse for their misdeeds. For how? Will they implicate God in the same iniquity with themselves, or will they cloak their depravity by his righteousness? They cannot exculpate themselves, for their own conscience condemns them: they cannot charge God, since they perceive the whole wickedness in themselves, and nothing in Him save the legitimate use of their wickedness. But it is said he works by their means. And whence, I pray, the fetid odour of a dead body, which has been unconfined and putrefied by the sun's heat? All see that it is excited by the rays of the sun, but no man therefore says that the fetid odour is in them. In the same way, while the matter and guilt of wickedness belongs to the wicked man, why should it be thought that God contracts any impurity in using it at pleasure as his instrument? Have done, then, with that dog-like petulance which may, indeed, bay from a distance at the justice of God, but cannot reach it!
I hope that helps.
Jean
I'm gonna ignore the fact that this question violates Godwin's Law, which dictates that as an discussion becomes longer and longer, and more and more heated, the odds approach one that someone will bring up Nazis, the thread is over, and the person that brought them up lost the argument in progress.
In answer to your question, one must ask if God knew about the Nazis, and was able to stop them. IF you believe that God knew the Nazis wanted to kill the Jews and that He had the ability to stop them in their tracks, and yet did nothing to stop them, then you have already demonstrated a degree of God's ordaining the sins of mankind in that He must knowingly and intentionally allow them to happen. Assuming you're not into Middle Knowledge (which posits that God cannot know the outcome of future free choices of men because he has no justification for a true belief, because what has not yet happened cannot be true), then you must believe that God knew from eternity past that the Holocaust would have happened. If you have God knowing from eternity past that the Holocaust would happen, and doing nothing to stop it, you have, ipso facto, a tacit ordination that it may happen.
Now, this in no way makes God the author of sin. God's passive allowing of sin does not mean he actively makes a person to commit it -- men sin because we are by nature sinners and we enjoy it.
From: "John Reisinger" Add to Address Book
To: "my name deleted"
CC: moe.bergeron@comcast.net
Subject: Re: Question regarding Calvinism
Date: Mon, 31 May 2004 10:09:02 -0400
Moe forwarded your e-mail to me. The man in question is a hyper-Calvinists whether he admits it or not. God has never forced any person to do anything that person did not want to do. He has indeed made us willing to do some things which by nature which we are not able to do. It is one thing to say that God's predestination is involved in some way in all things, and it is quite another thing to say "that God planned and CAUSED every sin that every man has or will commit." Regardless of whether or not we can satisfactorily explain the origin of evil, we know that God cannot be charged with being the "guilty" author of any sin. JGR
----- Original Message -----
From: my name deleted
To: feedback@soundofgrace.com
Sent: Monday, May 31, 2004 12:58 AM
Subject: Question regarding Calvinism
Dear Sir:
I have been in discussion with an individual who says he is a Calvinist. He made what seemed to me to be a rather strange claim that God predestined and foreordained every sin that every man has or will commit. In other words, he is telling me that God planned and caused every sin that every man has or will commit.
Does Calvinism actually hold to this belief?
He also mentioned something about hyperCalvinism and said that above claim is not hyperCalvinism. Is he correct?
Thanks in advance for your reply.
Don
Anybody who asserts God predestined and foreordained any sin is worshipping a counterfeit god.
How many reformed/Calvinist denominations are there? There must be at least ten among the GRPL. And as you surely must know, there are disagreements even within those denominations.
Did you even read the whole post. Look at Gen 50.
Did you even read the whole post. Look at Gen 50.
There you go again switching definitions.
Are we talking about Calvinism as a theological system or denomination?
It is not the same.
The variety of Calvinistic denominations are usually not in disagreement with the doctrines of grace (Calvinism), rather they differ on points unrelated to soteriology.
If you are going to play these games find someone who cares.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.