Does Calvinism Make God Unjust?

[Grosnick Marowbe]

CALVINISTS:

1) Misinterpret/misrepresent the Bible.
2) Change the character and intent of God.
3) Claim that ONLY they can truly understand Calvinism.
4) Believe that one must first be regenerated before receiving saving faith.
4) Believe that God CHOSE before the foundation of the world who He would save and who He would reject.
5) Believe that humanity has NO free will of their own.
6) Have high regards for John "The Pope of Geneva" Calvin. even though he was evil, wicked, and sadistic.
7) Believe that humanity is too DEPRAVED to hear the Gospel and place their faith in Christ.
8) Believe that God "chose at random" who He would save and who He would send into eternal damnation.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

The response, if Clete gets one, will be along the lines of "Who are you, O man, to answer back against Calvin?"

Calvinists marvel at a man who stood for bloodshed, murder, evil,tyranny wickedness, and sadism. It's amazing how people, of their own accord, will choose to follow such evil men. A good example would be Adolph Hitler, etc.

Calvinists NEVER deny the horrendous actions taken by Calvin during his reign of terror. History exposes him for what and who he was.

 

[popsthebuilder]

CALVINISTS:

1) Misinterpret/misrepresent the Bible.
2) Change the character and intent of God.
3) Claim that ONLY they can truly understand Calvinism.
4) Believe that one must first be regenerated before receiving saving faith.
4) Believe that God CHOSE before the foundation of the world who He would save and who He would reject.
5) Believe that humanity has NO free will of their own.
6) Have high regards for John "The Pope of Geneva" Calvin. even though he was evil, wicked, and sadistic.
7) Believe that humanity is too DEPRAVED to hear the Gospel and place their faith in Christ.
8) Believe that God "chose at random" who He would save and who He would send into eternal damnation.

I'm not too sure about most of your points, but I am certain that GOD randomly chose nothing in regard to the direction and destiny of man.

So do Calvinists think these things that he has listed are correct? I'm especially interested in #8.

Peace

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

 

[popsthebuilder]

Calvinists marvel at a man who stood for bloodshed, murder, evil,tyranny wickedness, and sadism. It's amazing how people, of their own accord, will choose to follow such evil men. A good example would be Adolph Hitler, etc.

Calvinists NEVER deny the horrendous actions taken by Calvin during his reign of terror. History exposes him for what and who he was.

Christianity as a whole, was responsible for grand atrocities.

The Crusades, Spanish inquisition, holocaust, burnings at the stake.



Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

 

[Clete]

I'm not too sure about most of your points, but I am certain that GOD randomly chose nothing in regard to the direction and destiny of man.

So do Calvinists think these things that he has listed are correct? I'm especially interested in #8.

Peace

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

Of course Calvinists would never put their beliefs in such terms but that doesn't mean that GM's post is untrue.

As for #8, this is the way Calvinists say the same thing...

“God is moved to mercy for no other reason but that he wills to be merciful.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 22, Paragraph 8)

“We cannot assign any reason for his bestowing mercy on his people, but just as it so pleases him, neither can we have any reason for his reprobating others but his will.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 22, Paragraph 11)

“Therefore, those whom God passes over, he condemns; and this he does for no other reason than that he wills to exclude them from the inheritance which he predestines for his own children.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 23, Paragraph 1)​

So is it random or is it arbitrary? The difference is semantics.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

Christianity as a whole, was responsible for grand atrocities.

The Crusades, Spanish inquisition, holocaust, burnings at the stake.



Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

This is a valid point.

It should be regularly stated that the argument is NOT that Calvin was a bad guy, therefore his doctrine is false. The point is simply that one should know those in whom you have placed your trust. And the character of the most important single person responsible for the existence of Calvinism is relevant when considering the history of the doctrine and whether its "Father" should be trusted. If you cannot trust a man in regards to issues as important as murder and tyrannical leadership, that is sufficient cause to question the man's theology.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[TulipBee]

So the whole of your salvation was preplanned, preordained and predestined by your god but he left the thing that was going to cause you to need salvation in the first place up to you? I thought you said that man doesn't have free will? Aren't you a man (a human)? How exactly did you pull off this accomplishment? I mean, it's sure lucky for your god that you chose not to be good, huh? If you hadn't chosen to sin, your god's whole plan would have just gone right into the toilet!

Isn't it true that you also believe the same about your sin as you do about your salvation? You don't believe that you CHOSE to sin any more than you chose to believe because "man does not have free will". Isn't it true that you actually believe that the same god that rescued you is the one who set your house on fire to begin with?

Resting in Him,
Clete

God fuels my existance at all times. no fuel, I dont exist nor will you. nothing runs apart from God

 

[Rosenritter]

It was conceived by the devil to make people lose faith in God. It is not humanly possible to have saving faith in a God that condemns billions to hell for no reason other than they were born after Adam.

King James I comments on the Synod of Dort, 1609

“This doctrine is so horrible, that I am persuaded, if there were a council of unclean spirits assembled in hell, and their prince the devil were to put the question either to all of them in general, or to each in particular, to learn their opinion about the most likely means of stirring up the hatred of men against God their Maker; nothing could be invented by them that would be more efficacious for this purpose, or that could put a greater affront upon God’s love for mankind, than that infamous decree of the late Synod, and the decision of that detestable formulary, by which the far greater part of the human race are condemned to hell for no other reason, than the mere will of God, without any regard to sin; the necessity of sinning, as well as that of being damned, being fastened on them by that great nail of the decree before-mentioned.”

 

[Clete]

God fuels my existance at all times. no fuel, I dont exist nor will you. nothing runs apart from God

I put fuel in my car, that doesn't mean I have to force the pistons up and down myself or physically spin the actuator in the fuel pump or open and close each valve.

I am the sovereign ruler of my household but that does not mean that I control every event that occurs under my roof.

And on what planet is this a respond to my post?

Why is it that Calvinist cannot answer a question directly? Why the constant redirection and deflection off onto tangents? Why don't Calvinist ever seem to have the courage of their own convictions?

Isn't it true that you believe the same about your sin as you do about your salvation? You don't believe that you CHOSE to sin any more than you chose to believe because "man does not have free will". Isn't it true that you actually believe that the same god that rescued you is the one who set your house on fire to begin with?

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Tambora]

Both AMR's post and mine are still there for everyone to read. I quoted him directly and applied his own words to the accomplishments of Jeffery Dahmer.

There's an old video Chatmaggot made with AMR's comment.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

@popsthebuilder

I'm not too sure about most of your points, but I am certain that GOD randomly chose nothing in regard to the direction and destiny of man.

So do Calvinists think these things that he has listed are correct? I'm especially interested in #8.

CALVINISTS:
1) Misinterpret/misrepresent the Bible.

When an Arminian, especially GW, posts a verse in supposed support of a particular view, it has often been met with proper interpretative analysis demonstrating the falsity of the claims made by the mere quotation of Scripture followed by nothing more than opinion. In response to said proper interpretative efforts, the Arminian of GW's kin more often than not resorts to cavils or woes that the response is too detailed or too complex to really understand. If Calvinists are misrepresenting Scripture, the burden is upon the one making the claim to demonstrate the claim with a similar substantive hermeneutical analysis. As is often the case, all that comes in response is what you are now reading in the quotes being actually answered. Just more of the same of opinions sans substantive support.

The plain facts borne out by history that the long-lived and most referenced and recommended commentaries available on Holy Writ are authored by men of the Calvinistic/Reformed tradition. While the Calvinistic/Reformed traditions have no claim to the present majority view, the actual holders of the majority view demonstrate their lack of deep study by the very dearth of published commentaries held in the same regard as are the Reformed commentaries when compared to those of the Calvinistic/Reformed view.

2) Change the character and intent of God.

Scripture plainly teaches the character of God. From my personal statement of faith:

There is but one God (Deuteronomy 4:39), who is eternal (Isaiah 57:15; Psalms 90:2; Psalms 90:4; Revelation 1:8; Revelation 4:8; John 8:58; Exodus 3:14; Isaiah 45:21; Isaiah 46:9-10; Galatians 4:4-5; Acts 17:30-31), a spirit (John 4:24), sovereign (Hebrews 1:3; Colossians 1:17; Acts 17:28; Nehemiah 9:6; 2 Peter 3:7; Job 12:23; Job 34:14-15; Job 38:32; Matthew 5:45; Matthew 6:26; Numbers 23:19; 2 Samuel 7:28; Psalms 33:14-15; Psalms 104:14; Psalms 104:29; Psalms 135:6; Psalms 139:16; Psalms 141:6; Psalms 148:8; Proverbs 16:1; Proverbs 16:33; Proverbs 20:24; Proverbs 21:1; Proverbs 30:5; John 17:17; Ephesians 1:11; Galatians 1:15; 1 Timothy 6:15; Jeremiah 1:5; 1 Corinthians 4:7), good (Psalms 86:4; Psalms 107:1), loving (1 John 4:16), holy (Isaiah 6:3; Revelations 4:8 ), transcendent (Isaiah 40:25), omnipotent (2 Kings 19:25; Psalms 135:6; Jeremiah 32:17; Jeremiah 32:27; Genesis 8:14; Luke 1:37; Matthew 19:26; Psalms 115:3; Matthew 3:9), omniscient (Job 37:16; 1 John 3:20; 1 Cor. 2:10-11; Hebrews 4:13; 2 Chronicles 16:9; Job 28:24; Matthew 10:29-30; Isaiah 46:9-10; Isaiah 42:8-9; Matthew 6:8; Matthew 10:30; Psalms 139:1-2; Psalms 139:4; Psalms 139:16; Romans 11:33), unchangeable (Psalms 33:11; Psalms 102:25-27; Malachi 3:6; James 1:17; Isaiah 46:9-11; Numbers 23:19; 1 Samuel 15:29; Zechariah 8:17), yet not existing in an eternally frozen pose but possessing Godly passions and emotions (Isaiah 62:5; Psalms 78:40; Ephesians 4:30; Exodus 32:10; Psalms 103:13; Isaiah 54:8; Psalms 103:17), and perfectly righteous (Psalms 7:11).

The non-Calvinist seeks to dilute the sovereignty of God in favor of giving man unfettered autonomy. Such a man is even able to choose wisely or even choose differently from what their own motives and nature admit. God is just ratifying these choices that He presumably saw happening from eternity before creation. Or, if one is an open theist, God really does not know objectively what man will do until he does it, hence God is always learning new things.

On the contrary to the claim, it is the Calvinist that gives God all His glory and recognizes that we are just not as free as we like to think we are.

3) Claim that ONLY they can truly understand Calvinism.

There is a great deal of truth to this. Few are the non-Calvinists that actually understand Calvinism. This is readily apparent by those that claim to know all about Reformed doctrines that then post or make statements that are in clear opposition to the Reformed corpus of beliefs. No Reformed person will claim that their doctrinal position is easy to understand. This is because we are all born will Arminian tendencies from the fall of Adam, thinking we are captains of our own souls. Such a mindset it terribly difficult to overcome and requires the person embracing the doctrines of grace to take every word captive in diligent study.

These very points to which I and others have (or will) responded demonstrate the superficiality of not a few non-Reformed believers. I have spent a great deal of time describing the proper teachings of the Reformed faith in these forums. These are all available to anyone taking the time to do so. My TOL blog captures many of these teachings in one place for convenient review, too. How wonderful would it be for the glory of God and the edification of all that persons caviling about Calvinism to actually study what a bona fide Calvinist believes and then interact with these beliefs versus posts like the one to which I am responding. Sadly, yet not unexpectedly from men like GW constructing straw men of the Calvinist's views by claiming we operate from the same presuppositions they do and therefore believe about our beliefs what they believe about our beliefs leave no hope for honest discussion.

4) Believe that one must first be regenerated before receiving saving faith.

Indeed this is the case for the Calvinist. Regeneration means being born anew. One must be so borne before one has ears to hear the Good News. The state of the unregenerate is quite plain from Scripture: Jer. 17:9; Mark 7:21-23; Eph. 2:2; Eph. 2:4-5; Titus 3:5; John 3:19; Rom. 3:10-12; 5:6; 6:16-20; Eph. 2:1,3;1 Cor. 2:14. The non-Calvinist rejects these plain teachings in favor of a Romanist idea that man is not so fallen as to have no moral ability to choose wisely. These non-Calvinists believe God leaves some remnant of grace within those in Adam, a minute seed of righteousness, enabling them to choose wisely. All such a view does is give man reason to boast and makes God a debtor to the choices of man. Scripture says nothing of the sort and to embrace such a pernicious view is to rob God of His sovereignty and get in bed with the Romanist.

4) Believe that God CHOSE before the foundation of the world who He would save and who He would reject.

Again, there is nothing to disagree with in the statement, for it is the very teaching of Holy Writ. For example, see: Deuteronomy 7:6-7, Isaiah 55:11, John 6:44, John 15:16, Acts 13:48, Romans 8:28-30, Romans 9:11-13, 1 Corinthians 1:26-29, Ephesians 1:3-5, Ephesians 2:4-7, 2 Timothy 1:9. To deny these teachings one is left believing God does not objectively know the future (open theism), or God does not make any decision about the fate of man until man chooses, which is the same thing as open theism per se. Alternatively, one believes God peeks into the future before creating to see who will choose wisely and then declares these persons so choosing as among the elect. There are no other alternatives for the denier of eternal election even if one want to winsomely assume election is national, corporate, as if nations are not composed of actual individuals.

5) Believe that humanity has NO free will of their own.

As noted above, the statement being made by persons claiming to understand Calvinism is ignorant of what the Calvinist/Reformed actually believe. Man's free will to choose according to his greatest inclinations at the moment he so chooses is in fact established by God (Acts 2:23, Matt. 17:12, Acts 4:27-28, John 19:11, Prov. 16:33).

The non-Calvinist notion of free will entails a view that man possesses the ability to do otherwise than what he did under the exact same conditions. This so-called libertarian free will implies our choices are free from the determination or constraints of human nature. Libertarian freedom is, in fact, the freedom to act contrary to our nature, wants and greatest desires. Libertarians, therefore, when asked what caused the person to choose one action over another, will answer that a free act is when no causal, antecedent, laws of nature, desires or other factors are sufficient to incline the will decisively to chose one option or another. Such a view is easily seen to be logically inconsistent.

If we have the natural capacity to believe or reject the gospel freely (in the libertarian sense) why is there the need for the Holy Spirit in salvation at all, especially when the gospel is preached? If you ask a libertarian whether he could come to faith in Christ apart from any work of the Spirit, like all Christians, they must answer ‘no’. In other words, even to a libertarian, it is not within the [natural moral] ability of the human will to believe or reject the gospel. There is still the necessity of the work of the Holy Spirit, who is the sine qua non of the affections being set free from sin’s bondage. Therefore, these libertarians are forced to admit that the possibility of the natural will exercising faith would be inconsistent with basic Christianity, since we all know that the natural man is hostile to God and will not willingly submit to the humbling terms of the gospel. To overcome this inconsistency, the libertarian is also forced to believe in prevenient grace, which I spoke to above regarding Romanism. Sigh.

The Reformed reject these illogical notions in favor of Scripture's teachings that we choose according to our natures, which are only two, evil or good. The unregenerate nature is evil, able only to sin more or sin less. The regenerate nature is able to sin or not to sin. The unregenerate are we are slaves of sin until the Son sets them free (John 8; Rom 6)

In John 3:19 it says that those who reject the gospel do so because the love darkness and hate the light. A libertarian, on the other hand, to be consistent, must assert that one rejected Christ, not necessarily because he hated Him, or on the other hand did not chose Him because he had affection for Him, but rather only because he chose to, which is contrary to everything we know of Scripture. And so on with the nonsense of libertarian free will. Sigh.

6) Have high regards for John "The Pope of Geneva" Calvin. even though he was evil, wicked, and sadistic.

The Calvinist holds a number of men of old in high regard, Calvin among them. We should stand on the shoulders of those that have come before us and not assume from misguided notions of chronological snobbery that we moderns know more than others.

The "Calvin is a murderer!" meme is hardly worth a response as it has been shown to be far from the historical truths of the matter. The persons making these claims only show their desperation in their failings to actually engage Scripture about Calvinistic views and thus resort to these genetic fallacies and the like. It plays well to the mob, but the discerning see it for what it really is.

7) Believe that humanity is too DEPRAVED to hear the Gospel and place their faith in Christ.

Scripture teaches us clearly about the state of the non-believer: The unbeliever will never seek God's righteousness for the unbeliever

- is deceitful and desperately sick (Jer. 17:9);
- is full of evil (Mark 7:21-23);
- is not able to come to Jesus unless given to by God (Eph. 2:2);
- must be quickened by God (Eph. 2:4-5);
- cannot choose righteousness until regenerated (Titus 3:5);
- loves darkness rather than light (John 3:19);
- is unrighteous, does not understand, does not seek for God (Rom. 3:10-12);
- is helpless and ungodly (Rom. 5:6);
- is dead in his trespasses and sins (Eph. 2:1);
- is by nature a child of wrath (Eph. 2:3);
- cannot understand spiritual things (1 Cor. 2:14); and
- is a slave of sin (Rom. 6:16-20).

Until the non-Calvinist can mount a proper hermeneutical defense to the contrary, which is not possible, the Calvinist view stands unchallenged unless one want to swim the Tibor to Rome.

8) Believe that God "chose at random" who He would save and who He would send into eternal damnation.

God's predestination of the elect was not a random choice. The very word in theological discourse implies a setting of a preference upon another (love before time) by God for reasons known only unto Him. The foreknowledge of God in this case (Romans 8:29-30) is akin to the Scripture's use of "knew" as in "Adam knew Eve". It is an intimate relationship, far from this egregious claim of randomness made by the uninformed. We see this intimacy in Our Lord's High Priestly Prayer in Gethsemane. Anyone assuming Our Lord is speking about arms-length, randomly chosen souls, is being foolish and should avail themselves of a more thorough treatment here.

I will close by noting that I make no claims to have it all figured out with respect to that which I hold dear. Nevertheless, I will claim that I take no shortcuts in forming and defending my views. I will dig deeper into an opposing view, leverage original sources and scholarly treatments, preferring not hide behind self-righteous claims of "Just Me and My Bible" in order to fully understand another's view and offer up a proper defense for my views. In all my years' experience, you will look far and wide to find an intellectually lazy Calvinist. Would that the same could be said for the average non-Calvinist. :AMR:

AMR

 

[TulipBee]

I put fuel in my car, that doesn't mean I have to force the pistons up and down myself or physically spin the actuator in the fuel pump or open and close each valve.

I am the sovereign ruler of my household but that does not mean that I control every event that occurs under my roof.

And on what planet is this a respond to my post?

Why is it that Calvinist cannot answer a question directly? Why the constant redirection and deflection off onto tangents? Why don't Calvinist ever seem to have the courage of their own convictions?

Isn't it true that you believe the same about your sin as you do about your salvation? You don't believe that you CHOSE to sin any more than you chose to believe because "man does not have free will". Isn't it true that you actually believe that the same god that rescued you is the one who set your house on fire to begin with?

Resting in Him,
Clete

God runs the universe. God causes the pistons to be pistons. without God, there would be no spin. nothing opens and closes without God. you think the universe is too big for God. you make God really small he cant save his people

 

[Clete]

God runs the universe. God causes the pistons to be pistons. without God, there would be no spin. nothing opens and closes without God. you think the universe is too big for God. you make God really small he cant save his people

If you believe in this god then you believe in a god that is unjust, by definition. You're arguing with someone who believes what you say your god caused him to believe and I suppose you must believe that your god is causing you to argue with a person about things that they have no power to change. Your every thought is a contradiction to what you claim to believe.

Isn't it true that you believe the same about your sin as you do about your salvation? You don't believe that you CHOSE to sin any more than you chose to believe because "man does not have free will". Isn't it true that you actually believe that the same god that rescued you is the one who set your house on fire to begin with?

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Eagles Wings]

There's an old video Chatmaggot made with AMR's comment.

May all forgive you for posting this.

It is less than worthy of a true Christian to post, Tambora.

It does not honor God in any way.

It is vile.

Take it off, please.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

May all forgive you for posting this.

It is less than worthy of a true Christian to post, Tambora.

It does not honor God in any way.

It is vile.

Take it off, please.

YOU don't make the rules around here "Newbie!"

 

[popsthebuilder]

@popsthebuilder



When an Arminian, especially GW, posts a verse in supposed support of a particular view, it has often been met with proper interpretative analysis demonstrating the falsity of the claims made by the mere quotation of Scripture followed by nothing more than opinion. In response to said proper interpretative efforts, the Arminian of GW's kin more often than not resorts to cavils or woes that the response is too detailed or too complex to really understand. If Calvinists are misrepresenting Scripture, the burden is upon the one making the claim to demonstrate the claim with a similar substantive hermeneutical analysis. As is often the case, all that comes in response is what you are now reading in the quotes being actually answered. Just more of the same of opinions sans substantive support.

The plain facts borne out by history that the long-lived and most referenced and recommended commentaries available on Holy Writ are authored by men of the Calvinistic/Reformed tradition. While the Calvinistic/Reformed traditions have no claim to the present majority view, the actual holders of the majority view demonstrate their lack of deep study by the very dearth of published commentaries held in the same regard as are the Reformed commentaries when compared to those of the Calvinistic/Reformed view.


Scripture plainly teaches the character of God. From my personal statement of faith:

There is but one God (Deuteronomy 4:39), who is eternal (Isaiah 57:15; Psalms 90:2; Psalms 90:4; Revelation 1:8; Revelation 4:8; John 8:58; Exodus 3:14; Isaiah 45:21; Isaiah 46:9-10; Galatians 4:4-5; Acts 17:30-31), a spirit (John 4:24), sovereign (Hebrews 1:3; Colossians 1:17; Acts 17:28; Nehemiah 9:6; 2 Peter 3:7; Job 12:23; Job 34:14-15; Job 38:32; Matthew 5:45; Matthew 6:26; Numbers 23:19; 2 Samuel 7:28; Psalms 33:14-15; Psalms 104:14; Psalms 104:29; Psalms 135:6; Psalms 139:16; Psalms 141:6; Psalms 148:8; Proverbs 16:1; Proverbs 16:33; Proverbs 20:24; Proverbs 21:1; Proverbs 30:5; John 17:17; Ephesians 1:11; Galatians 1:15; 1 Timothy 6:15; Jeremiah 1:5; 1 Corinthians 4:7), good (Psalms 86:4; Psalms 107:1), loving (1 John 4:16), holy (Isaiah 6:3; Revelations 4:8 ), transcendent (Isaiah 40:25), omnipotent (2 Kings 19:25; Psalms 135:6; Jeremiah 32:17; Jeremiah 32:27; Genesis 8:14; Luke 1:37; Matthew 19:26; Psalms 115:3; Matthew 3:9), omniscient (Job 37:16; 1 John 3:20; 1 Cor. 2:10-11; Hebrews 4:13; 2 Chronicles 16:9; Job 28:24; Matthew 10:29-30; Isaiah 46:9-10; Isaiah 42:8-9; Matthew 6:8; Matthew 10:30; Psalms 139:1-2; Psalms 139:4; Psalms 139:16; Romans 11:33), unchangeable (Psalms 33:11; Psalms 102:25-27; Malachi 3:6; James 1:17; Isaiah 46:9-11; Numbers 23:19; 1 Samuel 15:29; Zechariah 8:17), yet not existing in an eternally frozen pose but possessing Godly passions and emotions (Isaiah 62:5; Psalms 78:40; Ephesians 4:30; Exodus 32:10; Psalms 103:13; Isaiah 54:8; Psalms 103:17), and perfectly righteous (Psalms 7:11).

The non-Calvinist seeks to dilute the sovereignty of God in favor of giving man unfettered autonomy. Such a man is even able to choose wisely or even choose differently from what their own motives and nature admit. God is just ratifying these choices that He presumably saw happening from eternity before creation. Or, if one is an open theist, God really does not know objectively what man will do until he does it, hence God is always learning new things.

On the contrary to the claim, it is the Calvinist that gives God all His glory and recognizes that we are just not as free as we like to think we are.


There is a great deal of truth to this. Few are the non-Calvinists that actually understand Calvinism. This is readily apparent by those that claim to know all about Reformed doctrines that then post or make statements that are in clear opposition to the Reformed corpus of beliefs. No Reformed person will claim that their doctrinal position is easy to understand. This is because we are all born will Arminian tendencies from the fall of Adam, thinking we are captains of our own souls. Such a mindset it terribly difficult to overcome and requires the person embracing the doctrines of grace to take every word captive in diligent study.

These very points to which I and others have (or will) responded demonstrate the superficiality of not a few non-Reformed believers. I have spent a great deal of time describing the proper teachings of the Reformed faith in these forums. These are all available to anyone taking the time to do so. My TOL blog captures many of these teachings in one place for convenient review, too. How wonderful would it be for the glory of God and the edification of all that persons caviling about Calvinism to actually study what a bona fide Calvinist believes and then interact with these beliefs versus posts like the one to which I am responding. Sadly, yet not unexpectedly from men like GW constructing straw men of the Calvinist's views by claiming we operate from the same presuppositions they do and therefore believe about our beliefs what they believe about our beliefs leave no hope for honest discussion.


Indeed this is the case for the Calvinist. Regeneration means being born anew. One must be so borne before one has ears to hear the Good News. The state of the unregenerate is quite plain from Scripture: Jer. 17:9; Mark 7:21-23; Eph. 2:2; Eph. 2:4-5; Titus 3:5; John 3:19; Rom. 3:10-12; 5:6; 6:16-20; Eph. 2:1,3;1 Cor. 2:14. The non-Calvinist rejects these plain teachings in favor of a Romanist idea that man is not so fallen as to have no moral ability to choose wisely. These non-Calvinists believe God leaves some remnant of grace within those in Adam, a minute seed of righteousness, enabling them to choose wisely. All such a view does is give man reason to boast and makes God a debtor to the choices of man. Scripture says nothing of the sort and to embrace such a pernicious view is to rob God of His sovereignty and get in bed with the Romanist.


Again, there is nothing to disagree with in the statement, for it is the very teaching of Holy Writ. For example, see: Deuteronomy 7:6-7, Isaiah 55:11, John 6:44, John 15:16, Acts 13:48, Romans 8:28-30, Romans 9:11-13, 1 Corinthians 1:26-29, Ephesians 1:3-5, Ephesians 2:4-7, 2 Timothy 1:9. To deny these teachings one is left believing God does not objectively know the future (open theism), or God does not make any decision about the fate of man until man chooses, which is the same thing as open theism per se. Alternatively, one believes God peeks into the future before creating to see who will choose wisely and then declares these persons so choosing as among the elect. There are no other alternatives for the denier of eternal election even if one want to winsomely assume election is national, corporate, as if nations are not composed of actual individuals.


As noted above, the statement being made by persons claiming to understand Calvinism is ignorant of what the Calvinist/Reformed actually believe. Man's free will to choose according to his greatest inclinations at the moment he so chooses is in fact established by God (Acts 2:23, Matt. 17:12, Acts 4:27-28, John 19:11, Prov. 16:33).

The non-Calvinist notion of free will entails a view that man possesses the ability to do otherwise than what he did under the exact same conditions. This so-called libertarian free will implies our choices are free from the determination or constraints of human nature. Libertarian freedom is, in fact, the freedom to act contrary to our nature, wants and greatest desires. Libertarians, therefore, when asked what caused the person to choose one action over another, will answer that a free act is when no causal, antecedent, laws of nature, desires or other factors are sufficient to incline the will decisively to chose one option or another. Such a view is easily seen to be logically inconsistent.

If we have the natural capacity to believe or reject the gospel freely (in the libertarian sense) why is there the need for the Holy Spirit in salvation at all, especially when the gospel is preached? If you ask a libertarian whether he could come to faith in Christ apart from any work of the Spirit, like all Christians, they must answer ‘no’. In other words, even to a libertarian, it is not within the [natural moral] ability of the human will to believe or reject the gospel. There is still the necessity of the work of the Holy Spirit, who is the sine qua non of the affections being set free from sin’s bondage. Therefore, these libertarians are forced to admit that the possibility of the natural will exercising faith would be inconsistent with basic Christianity, since we all know that the natural man is hostile to God and will not willingly submit to the humbling terms of the gospel. To overcome this inconsistency, the libertarian is also forced to believe in prevenient grace, which I spoke to above regarding Romanism. Sigh.

The Reformed reject these illogical notions in favor of Scripture's teachings that we choose according to our natures, which are only two, evil or good. The unregenerate nature is evil, able only to sin more or sin less. The regenerate nature is able to sin or not to sin. The unregenerate are we are slaves of sin until the Son sets them free (John 8; Rom 6)

In John 3:19 it says that those who reject the gospel do so because the love darkness and hate the light. A libertarian, on the other hand, to be consistent, must assert that one rejected Christ, not necessarily because he hated Him, or on the other hand did not chose Him because he had affection for Him, but rather only because he chose to, which is contrary to everything we know of Scripture. And so on with the nonsense of libertarian free will. Sigh.


The Calvinist holds a number of men of old in high regard, Calvin among them. We should stand on the shoulders of those that have come before us and not assume from misguided notions of chronological snobbery that we moderns know more than others.

The "Calvin is a murderer!" meme is hardly worth a response as it has been shown to be far from the historical truths of the matter. The persons making these claims only show their desperation in their failings to actually engage Scripture about Calvinistic views and thus resort to these genetic fallacies and the like. It plays well to the mob, but the discerning see it for what it really is.


Scripture teaches us clearly about the state of the non-believer: The unbeliever will never seek God's righteousness for the unbeliever

- is deceitful and desperately sick (Jer. 17:9);
- is full of evil (Mark 7:21-23);
- is not able to come to Jesus unless given to by God (Eph. 2:2);
- must be quickened by God (Eph. 2:4-5);
- cannot choose righteousness until regenerated (Titus 3:5);
- loves darkness rather than light (John 3:19);
- is unrighteous, does not understand, does not seek for God (Rom. 3:10-12);
- is helpless and ungodly (Rom. 5:6);
- is dead in his trespasses and sins (Eph. 2:1);
- is by nature a child of wrath (Eph. 2:3);
- cannot understand spiritual things (1 Cor. 2:14); and
- is a slave of sin (Rom. 6:16-20).

Until the non-Calvinist can mount a proper hermeneutical defense to the contrary, which is not possible, the Calvinist view stands unchallenged unless one want to swim the Tibor to Rome.


God's predestination of the elect was not a random choice. The very word in theological discourse implies a setting of a preference upon another (love before time) by God for reasons known only unto Him. The foreknowledge of God in this case (Romans 8:29-30) is akin to the Scripture's use of "knew" as in "Adam knew Eve". It is an intimate relationship, far from this egregious claim of randomness made by the uninformed. We see this intimacy in Our Lord's High Priestly Prayer in Gethsemane. Anyone assuming Our Lord is speking about arms-length, randomly chosen souls, is being foolish and should avail themselves of a more thorough treatment here.

I will close by noting that I make no claims to have it all figured out with respect to that which I hold dear. Nevertheless, I will claim that I take no shortcuts in forming and defending my views. I will dig deeper into an opposing view, leverage original sources and scholarly treatments, preferring not hide behind self-righteous claims of "Just Me and My Bible" in order to fully understand another's view and offer up a proper defense for my views. In all my years' experience, you will look far and wide to find an intellectually lazy Calvinist. Would that the same could be said for the average non-Calvinist. :AMR:

AMR

I appreciate your thorough, sincere post.

I appreciate your honesty too. I'm sure one would be hard pressed to refute much of your specific doctrine, scripturally.

I really need to look into this free will thing more.

I can personally testify to most of what you said.

Peace

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

YOU don't make the rules around here "Newbie!"

Is there a rule somewhere defining "newbee"? [FONT=&quot]I know there is none for [/FONT]newbie[FONT=&quot] ('[/FONT]new-bye'[FONT=&quot]).[/FONT]

From my perspective you are quite the newbee.

Beam. Eye. Remove it. :AMR:

AMR

 

[musterion]

May all forgive you for posting this.

Why?

It is less than worthy of a true Christian to post, Tambora. It does not honor God in any way.

Why? She didn't make the claim. Chatmaggot didn't make the claim. AMR apparently did. All the video does is take the logic of the statement to its logical end. What's the problem with analyzing it?

It is vile.

Tambora and Chatmaggot didn't make the claim graphically illustrated in the video.

Take it off, please.

Why?

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

@popsthebuilder



When an Arminian, especially GW, posts a verse in supposed support of a particular view, it has often been met with proper interpretative analysis demonstrating the falsity of the claims made by the mere quotation of Scripture followed by nothing more than opinion. In response to said proper interpretative efforts, the Arminian of GW's kin more often than not resorts to cavils or woes that the response is too detailed or too complex to really understand. If Calvinists are misrepresenting Scripture, the burden is upon the one making the claim to demonstrate the claim with a similar substantive hermeneutical analysis. As is often the case, all that comes in response is what you are now reading in the quotes being actually answered. Just more of the same of opinions sans substantive support.

The plain facts borne out by history that the long-lived and most referenced and recommended commentaries available on Holy Writ are authored by men of the Calvinistic/Reformed tradition. While the Calvinistic/Reformed traditions have no claim to the present majority view, the actual holders of the majority view demonstrate their lack of deep study by the very dearth of published commentaries held in the same regard as are the Reformed commentaries when compared to those of the Calvinistic/Reformed view.


Scripture plainly teaches the character of God. From my personal statement of faith:

There is but one God (Deuteronomy 4:39), who is eternal (Isaiah 57:15; Psalms 90:2; Psalms 90:4; Revelation 1:8; Revelation 4:8; John 8:58; Exodus 3:14; Isaiah 45:21; Isaiah 46:9-10; Galatians 4:4-5; Acts 17:30-31), a spirit (John 4:24), sovereign (Hebrews 1:3; Colossians 1:17; Acts 17:28; Nehemiah 9:6; 2 Peter 3:7; Job 12:23; Job 34:14-15; Job 38:32; Matthew 5:45; Matthew 6:26; Numbers 23:19; 2 Samuel 7:28; Psalms 33:14-15; Psalms 104:14; Psalms 104:29; Psalms 135:6; Psalms 139:16; Psalms 141:6; Psalms 148:8; Proverbs 16:1; Proverbs 16:33; Proverbs 20:24; Proverbs 21:1; Proverbs 30:5; John 17:17; Ephesians 1:11; Galatians 1:15; 1 Timothy 6:15; Jeremiah 1:5; 1 Corinthians 4:7), good (Psalms 86:4; Psalms 107:1), loving (1 John 4:16), holy (Isaiah 6:3; Revelations 4:8 ), transcendent (Isaiah 40:25), omnipotent (2 Kings 19:25; Psalms 135:6; Jeremiah 32:17; Jeremiah 32:27; Genesis 8:14; Luke 1:37; Matthew 19:26; Psalms 115:3; Matthew 3:9), omniscient (Job 37:16; 1 John 3:20; 1 Cor. 2:10-11; Hebrews 4:13; 2 Chronicles 16:9; Job 28:24; Matthew 10:29-30; Isaiah 46:9-10; Isaiah 42:8-9; Matthew 6:8; Matthew 10:30; Psalms 139:1-2; Psalms 139:4; Psalms 139:16; Romans 11:33), unchangeable (Psalms 33:11; Psalms 102:25-27; Malachi 3:6; James 1:17; Isaiah 46:9-11; Numbers 23:19; 1 Samuel 15:29; Zechariah 8:17), yet not existing in an eternally frozen pose but possessing Godly passions and emotions (Isaiah 62:5; Psalms 78:40; Ephesians 4:30; Exodus 32:10; Psalms 103:13; Isaiah 54:8; Psalms 103:17), and perfectly righteous (Psalms 7:11).

The non-Calvinist seeks to dilute the sovereignty of God in favor of giving man unfettered autonomy. Such a man is even able to choose wisely or even choose differently from what their own motives and nature admit. God is just ratifying these choices that He presumably saw happening from eternity before creation. Or, if one is an open theist, God really does not know objectively what man will do until he does it, hence God is always learning new things.

On the contrary to the claim, it is the Calvinist that gives God all His glory and recognizes that we are just not as free as we like to think we are.


There is a great deal of truth to this. Few are the non-Calvinists that actually understand Calvinism. This is readily apparent by those that claim to know all about Reformed doctrines that then post or make statements that are in clear opposition to the Reformed corpus of beliefs. No Reformed person will claim that their doctrinal position is easy to understand. This is because we are all born will Arminian tendencies from the fall of Adam, thinking we are captains of our own souls. Such a mindset it terribly difficult to overcome and requires the person embracing the doctrines of grace to take every word captive in diligent study.

These very points to which I and others have (or will) responded demonstrate the superficiality of not a few non-Reformed believers. I have spent a great deal of time describing the proper teachings of the Reformed faith in these forums. These are all available to anyone taking the time to do so. My TOL blog captures many of these teachings in one place for convenient review, too. How wonderful would it be for the glory of God and the edification of all that persons caviling about Calvinism to actually study what a bona fide Calvinist believes and then interact with these beliefs versus posts like the one to which I am responding. Sadly, yet not unexpectedly from men like GW constructing straw men of the Calvinist's views by claiming we operate from the same presuppositions they do and therefore believe about our beliefs what they believe about our beliefs leave no hope for honest discussion.


Indeed this is the case for the Calvinist. Regeneration means being born anew. One must be so borne before one has ears to hear the Good News. The state of the unregenerate is quite plain from Scripture: Jer. 17:9; Mark 7:21-23; Eph. 2:2; Eph. 2:4-5; Titus 3:5; John 3:19; Rom. 3:10-12; 5:6; 6:16-20; Eph. 2:1,3;1 Cor. 2:14. The non-Calvinist rejects these plain teachings in favor of a Romanist idea that man is not so fallen as to have no moral ability to choose wisely. These non-Calvinists believe God leaves some remnant of grace within those in Adam, a minute seed of righteousness, enabling them to choose wisely. All such a view does is give man reason to boast and makes God a debtor to the choices of man. Scripture says nothing of the sort and to embrace such a pernicious view is to rob God of His sovereignty and get in bed with the Romanist.


Again, there is nothing to disagree with in the statement, for it is the very teaching of Holy Writ. For example, see: Deuteronomy 7:6-7, Isaiah 55:11, John 6:44, John 15:16, Acts 13:48, Romans 8:28-30, Romans 9:11-13, 1 Corinthians 1:26-29, Ephesians 1:3-5, Ephesians 2:4-7, 2 Timothy 1:9. To deny these teachings one is left believing God does not objectively know the future (open theism), or God does not make any decision about the fate of man until man chooses, which is the same thing as open theism per se. Alternatively, one believes God peeks into the future before creating to see who will choose wisely and then declares these persons so choosing as among the elect. There are no other alternatives for the denier of eternal election even if one want to winsomely assume election is national, corporate, as if nations are not composed of actual individuals.


As noted above, the statement being made by persons claiming to understand Calvinism is ignorant of what the Calvinist/Reformed actually believe. Man's free will to choose according to his greatest inclinations at the moment he so chooses is in fact established by God (Acts 2:23, Matt. 17:12, Acts 4:27-28, John 19:11, Prov. 16:33).

The non-Calvinist notion of free will entails a view that man possesses the ability to do otherwise than what he did under the exact same conditions. This so-called libertarian free will implies our choices are free from the determination or constraints of human nature. Libertarian freedom is, in fact, the freedom to act contrary to our nature, wants and greatest desires. Libertarians, therefore, when asked what caused the person to choose one action over another, will answer that a free act is when no causal, antecedent, laws of nature, desires or other factors are sufficient to incline the will decisively to chose one option or another. Such a view is easily seen to be logically inconsistent.

If we have the natural capacity to believe or reject the gospel freely (in the libertarian sense) why is there the need for the Holy Spirit in salvation at all, especially when the gospel is preached? If you ask a libertarian whether he could come to faith in Christ apart from any work of the Spirit, like all Christians, they must answer ‘no’. In other words, even to a libertarian, it is not within the [natural moral] ability of the human will to believe or reject the gospel. There is still the necessity of the work of the Holy Spirit, who is the sine qua non of the affections being set free from sin’s bondage. Therefore, these libertarians are forced to admit that the possibility of the natural will exercising faith would be inconsistent with basic Christianity, since we all know that the natural man is hostile to God and will not willingly submit to the humbling terms of the gospel. To overcome this inconsistency, the libertarian is also forced to believe in prevenient grace, which I spoke to above regarding Romanism. Sigh.

The Reformed reject these illogical notions in favor of Scripture's teachings that we choose according to our natures, which are only two, evil or good. The unregenerate nature is evil, able only to sin more or sin less. The regenerate nature is able to sin or not to sin. The unregenerate are we are slaves of sin until the Son sets them free (John 8; Rom 6)

In John 3:19 it says that those who reject the gospel do so because the love darkness and hate the light. A libertarian, on the other hand, to be consistent, must assert that one rejected Christ, not necessarily because he hated Him, or on the other hand did not chose Him because he had affection for Him, but rather only because he chose to, which is contrary to everything we know of Scripture. And so on with the nonsense of libertarian free will. Sigh.


The Calvinist holds a number of men of old in high regard, Calvin among them. We should stand on the shoulders of those that have come before us and not assume from misguided notions of chronological snobbery that we moderns know more than others.

The "Calvin is a murderer!" meme is hardly worth a response as it has been shown to be far from the historical truths of the matter. The persons making these claims only show their desperation in their failings to actually engage Scripture about Calvinistic views and thus resort to these genetic fallacies and the like. It plays well to the mob, but the discerning see it for what it really is.


Scripture teaches us clearly about the state of the non-believer: The unbeliever will never seek God's righteousness for the unbeliever

- is deceitful and desperately sick (Jer. 17:9);
- is full of evil (Mark 7:21-23);
- is not able to come to Jesus unless given to by God (Eph. 2:2);
- must be quickened by God (Eph. 2:4-5);
- cannot choose righteousness until regenerated (Titus 3:5);
- loves darkness rather than light (John 3:19);
- is unrighteous, does not understand, does not seek for God (Rom. 3:10-12);
- is helpless and ungodly (Rom. 5:6);
- is dead in his trespasses and sins (Eph. 2:1);
- is by nature a child of wrath (Eph. 2:3);
- cannot understand spiritual things (1 Cor. 2:14); and
- is a slave of sin (Rom. 6:16-20).

Until the non-Calvinist can mount a proper hermeneutical defense to the contrary, which is not possible, the Calvinist view stands unchallenged unless one want to swim the Tibor to Rome.


God's predestination of the elect was not a random choice. The very word in theological discourse implies a setting of a preference upon another (love before time) by God for reasons known only unto Him. The foreknowledge of God in this case (Romans 8:29-30) is akin to the Scripture's use of "knew" as in "Adam knew Eve". It is an intimate relationship, far from this egregious claim of randomness made by the uninformed. We see this intimacy in Our Lord's High Priestly Prayer in Gethsemane. Anyone assuming Our Lord is speking about arms-length, randomly chosen souls, is being foolish and should avail themselves of a more thorough treatment here.

I will close by noting that I make no claims to have it all figured out with respect to that which I hold dear. Nevertheless, I will claim that I take no shortcuts in forming and defending my views. I will dig deeper into an opposing view, leverage original sources and scholarly treatments, preferring not hide behind self-righteous claims of "Just Me and My Bible" in order to fully understand another's view and offer up a proper defense for my views. In all my years' experience, you will look far and wide to find an intellectually lazy Calvinist. Would that the same could be said for the average non-Calvinist. :AMR:

AMR

I couldn't get through your entire "smorgasbord of words and phrases" culminating into a plethora of Calvinist propaganda. I've done homework relating to Calvinism. A combination of history and experiential one on one conversations here on TOL. You folks follow "Another gospel" (small g) and another idea of god.

When I open God's written Word, I don't see the same God, Gospel, and doctrines you folks see. Reading your posts is like reading a textbook. You're so indoctrinated that you regurgitate the entire Calvinist manifesto. You speak AT others rather than to them.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Is there a rule somewhere defining "newbee"? [FONT="]I know there is none for [/FONT][I]newbie[/I][FONT="] ('[/FONT]new-bye'[FONT="]).[/FONT]

From my perspective you are quite the newbee.

Beam. Eye. Remove it. :AMR:

AMR

I see you dabble in the fine art of "Sarcasm." At least it takes you off your "High Horse" for a brief moment. By the way, "Newbie" is the correct word to use. Climb off your High Horse and look it up. :crackup: