Calvinist Confusion

[1SimpleMan]

I do not desire to detract from my answer to this thread, which is young people and theologians are the primary ones concerned with the complete synthesis of the theology of free will and God's sovereignty. It is most biblical to believe that both are true in as much as both are stated in God's Word.
When we try to make too much of God's sovereignty we end up with the puppet master God that some on this thread describe. When we do the opposite to focus too much on free independent will, we inevitably end up with the deistic clockwork God who instills in His creation self-will-sustaining-existence.
I will refrain from all the arguments that both sides are more than capable of making and instead I will insist that like a good stone archway, what is required is two solid pillars that bear tension against one another. This is true of Mercy and Justice, It is true of God's wrath and His Love, it is true of the nature of the God-Man Jesus. It is true of the question of whether Jesus ever truly had free will if he never exhibited choosing contrary to what His father wanted from the foundation of the world. Please don't only attack this minor list but instead think of the number of seeming contrary things that are presented in God's Word. The list goes on and on. There are many things in scripture that we are called to hold in belief but also hold in tension.

"Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes."

 

[Don Maurer]

While Calvin seems to have thought that God wills everything that happens, that's not essential.

I am not positive why you say the above. Would you disagree with Calvin here? I would think the sovereignty of God is "essential." Either God intended for evil to happen... or he did not. Either God is sovereign over evil or he is not. Evil is not some unintended consequence that God accidentally fell into when he created. Evil was fore-ordained by God.

Predestination is really about salvation. It's a recognition that we can't have faith on our own, but only because God has moved us or inspired us.

The Westminster confession expresses this...
"By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life, and others foreordained to everlasting death." I see myself as in agreement with this statement, do you? Many years ago, I heard the doctrines of the Westminster referred to as "double predestination." (I recognize that my teachers were heavily arminian and they were denying that God fore-ordained evil). Is this where you are going? Or are you merely distinguishing between predestination and fore-ordination? Is it that you do not like me using the term "predestination" with God's fore-ordination of evil? If you are merely desiring to distinguish been predestination to salvation, and fore-ordination of evil, that's OK. There are similarities in that they are both a part of the decree of God, but differences in that predestination to salvation is active, and in the fore-ordination to sin God is inactive. I am not sure what you have in mind here.

In the 2nd part of your statement, I would also be in agreement with the fact that Faith is the result of regeneration. The language "because God has moved us or inspired us" seems weaker, but I am guessing you did not mean anything different.

At least for Luther, the question of people who aren't saved is really an afterthought. He's not prepared to say why some aren't saved, just that we are saved only because God saves us, with no merit on our own.

Even for Calvin, the discussion of predestination occurs after he has already talked about faith and justification. Unlike Luther, he doesn't think we can ignore the fact that God only saves some people. He doesn't give an answer -- that's pretty much impossible, but acknowledges that if salvation only happens because of God's grace, then somehow lack of salvation must be part of his plan.

I do think the scripture teaches more than is expressed above in your reflections on Calvin and Luther. I would see Romans 9:22 as a statement on the purpose of God in fore-ordaining evil.
What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction?

 

[RileyG]

It's my understanding Calvinists believe God is entirely sovereign over creation, which does interfere with human free will.

 

[Don Maurer]

It's my understanding Calvinists believe God is entirely sovereign over creation, which does interfere with human free will.

Agreed. Some Calvinists use the term free will. Above, I think I mentioned John MacArthur once said "I have the free will to choose any path of sin I desire." That statement merely says that free will is in bondage to original sin.

Actually, I think original sin is the issue. When the term "free will" is used, how does that synchronize with original sin?

 

[GeorgiaGuyinAtlanta]

The Calvinist position is the only discernible position if you take the Bible literally, which it is to be taken.

 

[GeorgiaGuyinAtlanta]

It's my understanding Calvinists believe God is entirely sovereign over creation, which does interfere with human free will.

The natural state of man is to sin. It is only by grace that God has chosen those he has chosen. Man in this natural state does not have the ability to believe. God bestows faith onto His chosen. Freewill in terms of accepting Christ on one's own terms is incompatible with scripture and is a heresy.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The Calvinist position is the only discernible position if you take the Bible literally, which it is to be taken.

Nah. It really isn't. Calvin, like Luther, or even the Pope, is highly overrated.

For my part, I'll take a position regarding the Christian faith that is a dash of Copernicus, a fig of Newton, a splash of Pascal, a kilogram of Kierkegaard, an iota of Einstein (or Wittgenstein), and a granule of Gilkey, among others.

The name of the game isn't to take the bible "literally," but rather literarily and seriously.

 

[OldAbramBrown]

John Calvin: “How it was ordained by the foreknowledge and decree of God what man’s future was without God being implicated as associate in the fault as the author or approver of transgression, is clearly a secret so much excelling the insight of the human mind, that I am not ashamed to confess ignorance…. I daily so meditate on these mysteries of his judgments that curiosity to know anything more does not attract me.” 1​

As a disclaimer, philosophical Compatibilism should not be confused with the fact that Scripture shows God working compatibly with the intentions of others. For example, in Genesis 37:28 (as it relates to 50:20), God may have steered the Midianite traders nearby to Joseph’s brothers because He knew that utilizing them as an alternative to murdering their brother would be “compatible” with their intentions and interests, with which God would then facilitate Joseph’s rescue, apart from having to use more obvious, supernatural intervention. 2

1 - What an admission - from the fountain of all knowledge! (See points I'll make further below.)

2 - Excellent points regarding mercy, providence and Nature.

 

[OldAbramBrown]

The natural state of man is to sin. It is only by grace that God has chosen those he has chosen. Man in this natural state does not have the ability to believe. God bestows faith onto His chosen. Freewill in terms of accepting Christ on one's own terms is incompatible with scripture and is a heresy.

It's my understanding Calvinists believe God is entirely sovereign over creation, which does interfere with human free will.

Only a sovereign God is able to create mankind in His image of being able to defend integrity in a contingent universe.

Most calvinists tend to deny Holy Spirit empowerment for living; hence ones works subsequent to subscribing to their "beliefs" are as worthless as ones prior ones (while Scripture invites us to bring forth the fruits of our repentance and belief).

Depravity in its more obscure meaning of deprivation, was meant to refer to not having "lights" that came from hearing distinct teaching on what we are to be reborn into. It wasn't supposed to mean you're still a rotter (then projected willy nilly).

Belief has to come from hearing distinct teaching, through each of our individual degrees of continual inferring (Jn 3:16).

The choice of God operates in that He chose what shall be gained by it (increasing possibility to look after each others' integrity).

 

[OldAbramBrown]

In a chapter (Foreknowledge, Fate and Philosophy) of his valuable book The Ancient Oracles (2011), Richard Stoneman poses these questions:

- Is the future fixed?
- If so, it is fixed by gods, by Fate, or by Providence?
- Either way, can gods know it?
- If gods know it, can they change it?
- Can they tell humans what the future is directly or through customary means?
- Can humans by free will avert a future if it is said to be foreknown and foretold?
- If not, is it useful to know the future?
- But if we could take such steps can prophecy fail and can we trust the gods?

In regard to 1-4 Stoneman points out Anscombe's distinguishing between:

- contingency which is logical necessity (que sara sara); and
- causal necessity

This distinction is also relevant to evolution debates as the late S J Gould continually strongly pointed out.

In terms of q. 8 I think we need to remember the words of William Clifford (taken from us at a young age and some of whose teachings were distorted by Karl Pearson) that is the responsibility of each one to make sure of the grounds of ones belief independent of its content; and to check if one is relying on mental reservation, false deference, codependency, etc. This is what the Bereans were doing when they checked out what Paul was saying to them.

 

[OldAbramBrown]

... I think I mentioned John MacArthur once said "I have the free will to choose any path of sin I desire." That statement merely says that free will is in bondage to original sin.

... I think original sin is the issue. When the term "free will" is used, how does that synchronize with original sin?

I get the impression John MacArthur disbelieves in Holy Spirit, and that depravity (for church attenders not in authority positions) persists after we entered into new birth, hence he needs to veto the gifts (in overreaction from the various excessive sects and cults, who also veto the gifts). Regardless of the relative merits of the positions of the actual Calvin, I'm told some Calvinists don't think Rev MacArthur represents Calvin fairly (and incidentally both resemble Roman teachings that the "reformed" claim to be "reformed" from!)

A state of "original sin" I always (from my childhood) understood as being able to sin against integrity.

To enter into the kingdom of heaven is to believe that we can trade the spiritual gifts with each other to secure each other's integrity so that our supplications will be better heard.

Good pagans infer subconsciously that there must be some such opportunity yet can't teach how. But it's so sad when believers who should have been able to teach truth, can't because they weren't taught how to teach it.

 

[OldAbramBrown]

I do think the scripture teaches more ... I would see Romans 9:22 as a statement on the purpose of God in fore-ordaining evil.
What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction?

Scripture teaches more, but teachers teach less. Why have verses 23 and 24, and the context of Romans, been omitted? Is it convenient? My turn to say how I see it.

Vessels of wrath are people such as those whom Isaiah and Jeremiah lamented over, who blocked the way of their simpler contemporaries for trusting God in their living. Scripture (namely OT) already contained the message of grace which is why the Bereans could check Paul's words against it. Jesus was constantly reminding people around Him that they were all being grafted in (or had the opportunity), not just Gentiles.

 

[Don Maurer]

I get the impression John MacArthur disbelieves in Holy Spirit,

Interesting, where where would you get such an idea?

and that depravity (for church attenders not in authority positions) persists after we entered into new birth,

I never heard John MacArthur or any reformed person ever talk in that way.

hence he needs to veto the gifts (in overreaction from the various excessive sects and cults, who also veto the gifts).

MacArthur "needs to veto the gifts!!!!" LOL Seriously?

Regardless of the relative merits of the positions of the actual Calvin, I'm told some Calvinists don't think Rev MacArthur represents Calvin fairly (and incidentally both resemble Roman teachings that the "reformed" claim to be "reformed" from!)

That would be interesting to see this substantiated or even discussed what aspects of JMac's theology is different than John Calvin. Certainly John Calvin was not a dispensationalist. Quite shocking, huh?

A state of "original sin" I always (from my childhood) understood as being able to sin against integrity.

I did use the term "original sin" in my previous post. I also assumed readers understood what I was talking about but obviously that was not a pretty big assumption.

The term "original sin" refers to Adams' sin in the Garden of Eden. God threatened that if Adam ate of the tree that he would die. Original sin refers to that spiritual death that Adam suffered when he ate. Ephesians 2:1 uses the word death in the same way when it says "we are dead in our sins and trespasses." When we are conceived, we inherit that death from our parents. This goes all the way back to the first parent, Adam.

It would be good to understand the term "original sin" and "total depravity" and what they truly mean. The Gospel starts with understanding how far the human race has fallen.

To enter into the kingdom of heaven is to believe that we can trade the spiritual gifts with each other to secure each other's integrity so that our supplications will be better heard.

: ) Your just making stuff up now. Your using a biblical term here without any understanding how the Gospel of Matthew uses this term. I do observe your are returning to the charismatic gifts. That must be a huge part of your religion.

Good pagans infer subconsciously that there must be some such opportunity yet can't teach how. But it's so sad when believers who should have been able to teach truth, can't because they weren't taught how to teach it.

What you say above is not to clear. I think your saying that pagan's subconsciously think that one can "trade the spiritual gifts" and secure each others "integrity." Of course neither concept comes from the scripture. Where in the bible do you see a passage that talks about "trading" spiritual gifts? Can you name a bible passage that teaches that spiritual gifts "secure integrity?" Can you show a passage in the scriptures that demonstrate that our "supplications" will be heard if we "trade the spiritual gifts with each other?"

You complain "But it's so sad when believers who should have been able to teach truth," above. What is your source for "spiritual truth?" Is it private revelations from the Holy Spirit?

It just seems to me that you are ignorant of many of the basic doctrines of the faith.

 

[OldAbramBrown]

Can you show a passage in the scriptures that demonstrate that our "supplications" will be heard if we "trade the spiritual gifts with each other?"

Supplications are heard. Supplications of those who don't teach as Jesus did Mt 28:20 - probably because of the way they are taught to teach - may or may not be heard differently. Hard hearted teachers: how differently will they be heard?

Everyone, teachers and not, should supplicate. I've been in churches that taught us not to supplicate, churches that didn't teach us to supplicate, churches that teach supplicating less than they used to.

quote I think your saying that pagan's subconsciously think that one can "trade the spiritual gifts" and secure each others "integrity." unq.

The obvious contrast with pagans is that it was intended that we should be given Holy Spirit as we believe, and they aren't expected to believe yet. There may be some who intuit what integrity in a contingent world means, but they haven't been placed in a position to hear or teach what we (our teachers) ought to teach.

 

[OldAbramBrown]

Interesting, where ... the faith.

I think that what had the strange phrase "charismatic gifts" attached to them are part of the faith and intended normal teaching, only indistinct. I saw that JMac's springboard was critique of grotesque distortions and excrescences, and he was one of the few main people not too passive to do that, but since then a controlling manner of applying authority in his church has been reported - as if he thought he needed to veto gifts in certain instances - and his sense of ecumenism seems too top-down and undemanding (reflecting a functional theology). Indeed I've personally lived with difficulty through all these extremes.