Why a Sacrifice if Calvinism is True?

[Clete]

On this particular, I just don't know how many believe from all camps, that a freewill was the result of the Fall, as I do. Certainly some Calvinists, and certainly some others as well, even some few 'freewill' theists. I believe in a will that chooses, but believe without a duality, not present before the Fall, it is not possible sans an external factor, to 'choose otherwise.' In my mind, it is just as Calvinistic to suggest it from freewill proponents because God would knowingly create a man with switch (choice) purposefully to go against Him. Because of that, I'm ever glad that freewill theists and Calvinists participate in these threads, because we don't think long enough and hard enough to witness our own stigmas. Calvinism has it. Freewill theism has it.

So, I've read this idea that a free will didn't exist until after the the fall from you twice now. It makes even less sense after this post than it did before.

First of all, there was basically no answer from you at all about what the difference between a "will" and a "free will" is. You seem to have basically no clear definition for either term.

I believe in a will that chooses, but believe without a duality, not present before the Fall, it is not possible sans an external factor, to 'choose otherwise.'

You claim here (with absolutely no biblical support whatsoever) that it took an external factor to "choose otherwise" but don't give any indication if such a factor existed and, if so, who or what was this factor, what choice was made as a result of this factor, who made that choice and who was responsible for that choice!

In my mind, it is just as Calvinistic to suggest it from freewill proponents because God would knowingly create a man with switch (choice) purposefully to go against Him.

This is just as weird a contradictory comment as I can remember any Calvinist (or quasi-Calvinist) ever saying.

How is it Calvinistic to believe that God would knowingly create a person with the ability to hate Him? That is a logically necessary possibility! When God creating someone with the ability to love Him, He created a person who was capable of hating Him, by definition. Love is a choice. You cannot be forced to love someone nor is love the logical conclusion of a series of effects that followed in a logically necessary fashion from preceding causes. If you cannot reject someone, you cannot accept them either. Volition requires alternative possibilities, by definition.

And, in case you were thinking it is Calvinistic based on foreknowledge then, no that doesn't work either. A point Calvin himself was very much aware of, by the way. It all still comes down to the fact that volition requires alternative possibilities and whether the future is settled by predetermination or by foreknowledge, volition goes right out the window regardless. If your sentence had read, "...it is just as Calvinistic to suggest it from freewill proponents who also believe in exhaustive divine foreknowledge, because God...." then it would have made sense and in fact just echos what I've said for years about how Arminianism is Calvinism lite. Indeed, Arminianism is easier to refute logically than Calvinism is, by far.

T = You answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am

1. Yesterday God infallibly believed T. [Supposition of infallible foreknowledge]
2. If E occurred in the past, it is now-necessary that E occurred then. [Principle of the Necessity of the Past]
3. It is now-necessary that yesterday God believed T. [1, 2]
4. Necessarily, if yesterday God believed T, then T. [Definition of “infallibility”]
5. If p is now-necessary, and necessarily (p → q), then q is now-necessary. [Transfer of Necessity Principle]
6. So it is now-necessary that T. [3,4,5]
7. If it is now-necessary that T, then you cannot do otherwise than answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am. [Definition of “necessary”]
8. Therefore, you cannot do otherwise than answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am. [6, 7]
9. If you cannot do otherwise when you do an act, you do not act freely. [Principle of Alternate Possibilities]
10. Therefore, when you answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am, you will not do it freely. [8, 9]

 

[blackbirdking]

​

I find it difficult to say 'not found' because ideas are certainly found in the Bible, including ones I disagree with Calvin on. ... ​

​

​

Yes, I admit then, that according to your argument, Calvinism is "found" in the Bible along with many other false ideas/isms and that is my very argument:​

​

Nope; a humanist lawyer who used scripture to prove his own ideas. He did not become a Calvinist by reading the Bible. His views were formulated into Calvinism after he interpreted scripture to fit his views.​

You will not find Calvinism by simply reading scripture with an open mind.​

​

​

By your use of "found", you also acknowledge that all other isms are also "found" in the Bible; however, you also clearly understand that these isms do not emerge as 'truth', simply by reading the Bible. ​

So add to that, that Calvinism teaches salvation as being available to only part of Adam's race by the will of God, and that Adam fell by the will of God, and you have an ism that no man will discover by simply reading the Bible with an open mind. Calvinism is simply man's idea, as are other isms which are found in the Bible.​

​

... "the first Adam" as Paul says in Romans, "brought death. It is in the sense that he chose something for which he could be of no help. ...​

​

​

An action which does not have a possible alternative (i.e. no action), cannot be chosen. By definition, choosing requires a choice between more than one option. Adam could not have chosen "something for which he could be of no help."

I may be misunderstanding what you mean.

It looks as though you believe that God planned that Adam would sin and that Adam could not keep from sinning, thus, "he could be of no help"; therefore then, because Adam could not keep from sinning, it follows, that God was the reason for Adam's sin and the serpent was an instrument used by God to accomplish God's plan/will. ​

Accordingly, Poly is right:​

Calvinism says that God would rather go through all the trouble of creating those whom He has elected to first live a life of sin on Earth before they could be saved and be with Him. He could have just created them to be with Him from the beginning as He did the angels. If you deny that He has the ability to do this, then you deny that He has all power. If He were to do this rather than predestine them to sin, He would not have to send HIs son to die for them. So according to Calvinism, God would prefer to watch His son die a miserable death for an elect group that He predestined to live on Earth and sin rather than just create the elect to be with Him from the get go. Why would He go through having to watch His son be tortured and murdered when in His Sovereignty, He could just have just skipped all this devastation?

​

 

[Lon]

Yes, I admit then, that according to your argument, Calvinism is "found" in the Bible along with many other false ideas/isms and that is my very argument:​

By your use of "found", you also acknowledge that all other isms are also "found" in the Bible; however, you also clearly understand that these isms do not emerge as 'truth', simply by reading the Bible. ​

So add to that, that Calvinism teaches salvation as being available to only part of Adam's race by the will of God, and that Adam fell by the will of God, and you have an ism that no man will discover by simply reading the Bible with an open mind. Calvinism is simply man's idea, as are other isms which are found in the Bible.​

An action which does not have a possible alternative (i.e. no action), cannot be chosen. By definition, choosing requires a choice between more than one option. Adam could not have chosen "something for which he could be of no help."

I may be misunderstanding what you mean.

It looks as though you believe that God planned that Adam would sin and that Adam could not keep from sinning, thus, "he could be of no help"; therefore then, because Adam could not keep from sinning, it follows, that God was the reason for Adam's sin and the serpent was an instrument used by God to accomplish God's plan/will. ​

Accordingly, Poly is right:​

Yes, I admit then, that according to your argument, Calvinism is "found" in the Bible along with many other false ideas/isms and that is my very argument:​

By your use of "found", you also acknowledge that all other isms are also "found" in the Bible; however, you also clearly understand that these isms do not emerge as 'truth', simply by reading the Bible. ​

So add to that, that Calvinism teaches salvation as being available to only part of Adam's race by the will of God, and that Adam fell by the will of God, and you have an ism that no man will discover by simply reading the Bible with an open mind. Calvinism is simply man's idea, as are other isms which are found in the Bible.​

An action which does not have a possible alternative (i.e. no action), cannot be chosen. By definition, choosing requires a choice between more than one option. Adam could not have chosen "something for which he could be of no help."

I may be misunderstanding what you mean.

It looks as though you believe that God planned that Adam would sin and that Adam could not keep from sinning, thus, "he could be of no help"; therefore then, because Adam could not keep from sinning, it follows, that God was the reason for Adam's sin and the serpent was an instrument used by God to accomplish God's plan/will. ​

Accordingly, Poly is right:​

You've made up your mind, sight unseen, Imho, you are hasty in your judgement. You turned an odd corner, from meaningful discussion, to declaration. There is no point in continuing a conversation where you are already summarizing and rejecting the whole content of our and other's discussions. I DO see Calvinism in the scriptures. How could you read, for instance, Romans 9 and not see it? My contention is you cannot. At this point, there is no sense in arguing scriptures, but 'reading' them. There are many many passages 'in' scripture that talk of the Sovereignty of God. Say it: "God is Sovereign King over me and He gets to call the shots." If such is true, God will make you and I more like Him and use scriptures to mold us into His image. Here is my stance: I don't care if I don't like it, I will learn to love it, if its from God. I also want my fellow believers in the same boat. I see truths IN scriptures. I'm pretty light compared to other Calvinists on my scripture understanding, but I do hold to all five points. I believe atonement is limited 1) because scripture says the road is narrow 2) because there were people already condemned before Christ came and only those who had faith (Abraham etc.) were atoned for. It isn't exactly what Calvinists mean by 'limited' but I do believe it certainly was limited. 3) The Father and Christ's work will cause wheat (His people) to thrive godly. The very same love and involvement will and does, cause the unbeliever, to take it for granted, complain, and deny His existence. Some atheists ask why God doesn't come down and make Himself plain. They miss it: He did. I maintain that scriptures will mold you and I to His image. To the scriptures, then. -Lon

 

[Clete]

You've made up your mind, sight unseen, Imho, you are hasty in your judgement. You turned an odd corner, from meaningful discussion, to declaration. There is no point in continuing a conversation where you are already summarizing and rejecting the whole content of our and other's discussions. I DO see Calvinism in the scriptures. How could you read, for instance, Romans 9 and not see it? My contention is you cannot.

My contention is the exact opposite!

The difference between Lon and I, however, is that I actually can and do make the argument....



The ninth chapter of Romans is speaking about the cutting off of Israel. It is quite clear that Paul is making a case that God cut off Israel and turned instead to the gentiles, and that God is justified in having done so. It will become equally clear that this is all that the chapter is about, and that it has nothing to do with predestination at all.

It helps to see it if one looks at the introduction and summation of the chapter. In the first few verses it is clear that Paul is speaking of Israel and that he is upset by their condition of unbelief...
.

Romans 9:1 I tell the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Spirit, 2 that I have great sorrow and continual grief in my heart. 3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my *countrymen according to the flesh, 4 who are Israelites, to whom pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises; 5 of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God. Amen.​

And then in the last few verses Paul sums up the point of what he's just been saying in the previous several verses...
.

Romans 9:30 What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness of faith; 31 but Israel, pursuing the law of righteousness, has not attained to the law *of righteousness. 32 Why? Because they did not seek it by faith, but as it were, *by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumbling stone. 33 As it is written:
"Behold, I lay in Zion a stumbling stone and rock of offense,
And whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame."​

Now, that by itself is probably enough to make it clear what Paul is talking about but what really nails it down is his reference in the body of the chapter to a couple of Old Testament passages, those being Jacob and Esau and then the Potter and the clay story.
It's always a good idea to read any Old Testament passage that is quoted or made reference to in the New, in order to maintain the context of what's being said. (Remember the whole "Bible interpreting the Bible" thing.) So let's take a look at them so that we can be on the same page that Paul was on when he made these references. Doing so will undoubtedly shed additional light on the point he was making.
.

Romans 9:13 As it is written, "Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated."​

This is a direct quote from Malachi 1:2-3 but even the Malachi passage is not referencing the two boys themselves but the nations which came from them. I won't bother quoting it here but even a surface reading of Malachi 1 will confirm that it is talking about a nation not a person.
Likewise, Paul is talking also about a nation. We can tell this for certain because of what is quoted just before in verse 12...
.

Romans 9:12 "it was said to her, "The older shall serve the younger.""​

This is a direct quote from Genesis chapter 25 where it says explicitly that there are two nations in Rebecca's womb...
.

Genesis 25:23 "And the LORD said to her: "Two nations are in your womb, Two peoples shall be separated from your body; One people shall be stronger than the other, And the older shall serve the younger."​

Additionally, even if it didn't explicitly state that it's talking about two nations we could still know for certain that it is anyway because Esau (the older) never served Jacob (the younger). That did not happen, ever.

This passage is very clearly talking about nations and about how God deals with nations not about individuals or how God deals with individuals and Paul by referencing this material was making the exact same point. That's the reason why he referenced it.

Now let's move on to the Potter and the clay story. It is on the same topic and is found in Jeremiah chapter 18...
.

Jeremiah 18:1The word which came to Jeremiah from the LORD, saying: 2 "Arise and go down to the potter's house, and there I will cause you to hear My words." 3 Then I went down to the potter's house, and there he was, making something at the wheel. 4 And the vessel that he made of clay was marred in the hand of the potter; so he made it again into another vessel, as it seemed good to the potter to make.
5 Then the word of the LORD came to me, saying: 6 "O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter?" says the LORD. "Look, as the clay is in the potter's hand, so are you in My hand, O house of Israel! 7 The instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, to pull down, and to destroy it, 8 if that nation against whom I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I thought to bring upon it. 9 And the instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it, 10 if it does evil in My sight so that it does not obey My voice, then I will relent concerning the good with which I said I would benefit it.​

Okay, that couldn't be any clearer! Jeremiah was making the very point that Paul is making! No wonder Paul referenced this passage, it applies directly to the subject he was dealing with! It IS the subject he was dealing with! Romans 9 and Jeremiah 18 are making the exact same point; they both use the same analogy for the same reasons. For all intent and purposes Romans 9 and Jeremiah 18 are the exact same chapter! The only difference is that, in Romans 9, Paul is saying that the principle described in Jeremiah 18 has been carried out by God on the nation of Israel.

Romans 9 is not about predestination at all. Paul didn't start talking about Israel and then suddenly change the subject to predestination and then just as suddenly change the subject back again to Israel. The whole chapter is on one issue and one issue only. That issue being God's absolute right to change His mind concerning His blessing of a nation that had done evil in His sight. It's no more complicated than that. In a nutshell, Paul was simply saying that Israel's promised kingdom wasn't coming because they had rejected the King and Romans 9 is all about how God was justified in having changed His mind about giving them that kingdom. That's all it's about; nothing more, nothing less.

Clete

 

[blackbirdking]

You've made up your mind, sight unseen, Imho, you are hasty in your judgement. You turned an odd corner, from meaningful discussion, to declaration. There is no point in continuing a conversation where you are already summarizing and rejecting the whole content of our and other's discussions.

I realize why you think I turned a corner, but if you go back and look, I started with a declaration.

I had to let this sit for a while to understand why you responded such.

I DO see Calvinism in the scriptures. How could you read, for instance, Romans 9 and not see it? My contention is you cannot.

If one looks for something in scripture, he will generally be able to find it in 'certain' scriptures; hence, all the disagreement, but everybody claims to be 'right'.

Can you really read Romans 9 after reading the rest of the Bible, and believe that God ordained Adam's sin? And that God willed it?

The point I made previously About Calvin:

When a man says that God created man with the ability to choose, and then he says that God could have prevented man, who was created with the ability to choose, from having the ability to choose, the man is making a contradictory statement about God's creation. God could not have prevented the man from having the ability to choose, while that same man is having the ability to choose.



Calvinism states that Adam had free choice, "Hence the unskilful rashly infer, that man did not sin by free choice."
here


Calvinism states that God could have prevented Adam from sinning, " For, in the first place, it must be conceded, that God was not in ignorance of the event which was about to occur; and then, that he could have prevented it, had he seen fit to do so."
here


Calvinism asserts that Adam had the ability to choose, then proceeds to say that God willed the fall of man:


"So far as the fall of Adam was the subversion of equity, and of well-constituted order, so far as it was contumacy against the Divine Law-giver, and the transgression of righteousness, certainly it was against the will of God; yet none of these things render it impossible that, for a certain cause, although to us unknown, he might will the fall of man. It offends the ears of some, when it is said God willed this fall; but what else, I pray, is the permission of Him, who has the power of preventing, and in whose hand the whole matter is placed, but his will?"

here


Calvinism by doing so, affirms that Adam had the ability to choose to sin, and, that Adam had the ability to choose to not sin, and, that God could have prevented Adam from exercising that ability to sin; thereby, Calvinism has built a syllogism on a false premise. That's why I said a man cannot find Calvinism by reading the Bible. God could not have prevented Adam from sinning while Adam had the ability to choose to sin; unless of course, God can draw a square circle and you can find it to be so in the Bible.

I was not arguing from a theological standpoint, rather, just plain logic. Even when it looks like scripture teaches Calvin's mentioned ideas, it's not a logical conclusion. To claim that an illogical conclusion is true theology seems to be stretching it way too far. Especially when scripture gives alternative ideas.
God may have willed Adam's sin; if so, Adam did not sin by his own will. Also, assuming that God did will Adam's sin, then we definitely know something about the character of God; that He wills sin.
I strongly disagree.
1 John 1:5 "This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all."

At this point, there is no sense in arguing scriptures, but 'reading' them. There are many many passages 'in' scripture that talk of the Sovereignty of God. Say it: "God is Sovereign King over me and He gets to call the shots." If such is true, God will make you and I more like Him and use scriptures to mold us into His image. Here is my stance: I don't care if I don't like it, I will learn to love it, if its from God. I also want my fellow believers in the same boat. I see truths IN scriptures. I'm pretty light compared to other Calvinists on my scripture understanding, but I do hold to all five points. I believe atonement is limited 1) because scripture says the road is narrow 2) because there were people already condemned before Christ came and only those who had faith (Abraham etc.) were atoned for. It isn't exactly what Calvinists mean by 'limited' but I do believe it certainly was limited. 3) The Father and Christ's work will cause wheat (His people) to thrive godly. The very same love and involvement will and does, cause the unbeliever, to take it for granted, complain, and deny His existence. Some atheists ask why God doesn't come down and make Himself plain. They miss it: He did. I maintain that scriptures will mold you and I to His image. To the scriptures, then. -Lon

Again, it seems you are assuming a Calvinistic view of "Sovereign" which inescapably makes God the author of sin.
In reality, you are limiting God with such reasoning.

 

[blackbirdking]

You've made up your mind, sight unseen, Imho, you are hasty in your judgement. You turned an odd corner, from meaningful discussion, to declaration. There is no point in continuing a conversation where you are already summarizing and rejecting the whole content of our and other's discussions.

I realize why you think I turned a corner, but if you go back and look, I started with a declaration.

I had to let this sit for a while to understand why you responded such.

I DO see Calvinism in the scriptures. How could you read, for instance, Romans 9 and not see it? My contention is you cannot.

If one looks for something in scripture, he will generally be able to find it in 'certain' scriptures; hence, all the disagreement, but everybody claims to be 'right'.

Can you really read Romans 9 after reading the rest of the Bible, and believe that God ordained Adam's sin? And that God willed it?

The point I made previously About Calvin:

When a man says that God created man with the ability to choose, and then he says that God could have prevented man, who was created with the ability to choose, from having the ability to choose, the man is making a contradictory statement about God's creation. God could not have prevented the man from having the ability to choose, while that same man is having the ability to choose.


Calvinism states that Adam had free choice, "Hence the unskilful rashly infer, that man did not sin by free choice."
here

Calvinism states that God could have prevented Adam from sinning, " For, in the first place, it must be conceded, that God was not in ignorance of the event which was about to occur; and then, that he could have prevented it, had he seen fit to do so."
here

Calvinism asserts that Adam had the ability to choose, then proceeds to say that God willed the fall of man:

"So far as the fall of Adam was the subversion of equity, and of well-constituted order, so far as it was contumacy against the Divine Law-giver, and the transgression of righteousness, certainly it was against the will of God; yet none of these things render it impossible that, for a certain cause, although to us unknown, he might will the fall of man. It offends the ears of some, when it is said God willed this fall; but what else, I pray, is the permission of Him, who has the power of preventing, and in whose hand the whole matter is placed, but his will?"

here

Calvinism by doing so, affirms that Adam had the ability to choose to sin, and, that Adam had the ability to choose to not sin, and, that God could have prevented Adam from exercising that ability to sin; thereby, Calvinism has built a syllogism on a false premise. That's why I said a man cannot find Calvinism by reading the Bible. God could not have prevented Adam from sinning while Adam had the ability to choose to sin; unless of course, God can draw a square circle and you can find it to be so in the Bible.

I was not arguing from a theological standpoint, rather, just plain logic. Even when it looks like scripture teaches Calvin's mentioned ideas, it's not a logical conclusion. To claim that an illogical conclusion is true theology seems to be stretching it way too far. Especially when scripture gives alternative ideas.
God may have willed Adam's sin; if so, Adam did not sin by his own will. Also, assuming that God did will Adam's sin, then we definitely know something about the character of God; that He wills sin.
I strongly disagree.
1 John 1:5 "This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all."

At this point, there is no sense in arguing scriptures, but 'reading' them. There are many many passages 'in' scripture that talk of the Sovereignty of God. Say it: "God is Sovereign King over me and He gets to call the shots." If such is true, God will make you and I more like Him and use scriptures to mold us into His image. Here is my stance: I don't care if I don't like it, I will learn to love it, if its from God. I also want my fellow believers in the same boat. I see truths IN scriptures. I'm pretty light compared to other Calvinists on my scripture understanding, but I do hold to all five points. I believe atonement is limited 1) because scripture says the road is narrow 2) because there were people already condemned before Christ came and only those who had faith (Abraham etc.) were atoned for. It isn't exactly what Calvinists mean by 'limited' but I do believe it certainly was limited. 3) The Father and Christ's work will cause wheat (His people) to thrive godly. The very same love and involvement will and does, cause the unbeliever, to take it for granted, complain, and deny His existence. Some atheists ask why God doesn't come down and make Himself plain. They miss it: He did. I maintain that scriptures will mold you and I to His image. To the scriptures, then. -Lon

Again, it seems you are assuming a Calvinistic view of "Sovereign" which inescapably makes God the author of sin.
In reality, you are limiting God with such reasoning.

 

[beloved57]

Calvinism says that God would rather go through all the trouble of creating those whom He has elected to first live a life of sin on Earth before they could be saved and be with Him. He could have just created them to be with Him from the beginning as He did the angels. If you deny that He has the ability to do this, then you deny that He has all power. If He were to do this rather than predestine them to sin, He would not have to send HIs son to die for them. So according to Calvinism, God would prefer to watch His son die a miserable death for an elect group that He predestined to live on Earth and sin rather than just create the elect to be with Him from the get go. Why would He go through having to watch His son be tortured and murdered when in His Sovereignty, He could just have just skipped all this devastation?

To manifest His Attributes, Mercy, Love Wisdom, Justice etc

 

[Lon]

I was not arguing from a theological standpoint, rather, just plain logic. Even when it looks like scripture teaches Calvin's mentioned ideas, it's not a logical conclusion. To claim that an illogical conclusion is true theology seems to be stretching it way too far. Especially when scripture gives alternative ideas.

That's fair. I'd gone through the same.

God may have willed Adam's sin; if so, Adam did not sin by his own will. Also, assuming that God did will Adam's sin, then we definitely know something about the character of God; that He wills sin.
I strongly disagree.
1 John 1:5 "This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all."

Some Calvinists would agree with the above first line. I do not. Adam sinned because a wrench was thrown into the works (the serpent entered the Garden).

Again, it seems you are assuming a Calvinistic view of "Sovereign" which inescapably makes God the author of sin.
In reality, you are limiting God with such reasoning.

I don't believe God is the Author of Sin. I see Him as the editor, not the writer, of this portion, though His own contributions are in these scriptures. He is active and was active when Adam and Eve fell.

As it sits, there are some who see me as a Calvinist, and some who say I cannot possibly be. For me, that isn't a huge concern, but rather if I'm scriptural.
Thus it'd seem you'd have me 'Calvinistic' on this particular. Ephesians 2:10 makes me truly believe as a Calvinist regarding Sovereignty (and a good many MAD theologians too btw). It is a realization that we are God's new creations and His work completely in Christ (If any man is in Christ, he/she is a new creation, the old has passed away).

 

[Lon]

I realize why you think I turned a corner, but if you go back and look, I started with a declaration.

I had to let this sit for a while to understand why you responded such.

It was just that summations are generally when 'conversation' ends. I'd been answering questions, but I'm not the one, particularly, for arguing after assessments are made. At least I'm trying to learn to use my time wisely after I've been of use, if any. It wasn't so much 'directed' at you as a point where I was going to try and graciously bow out of the discussion.

If one looks for something in scripture, he will generally be able to find it in 'certain' scriptures; hence, all the disagreement, but everybody claims to be 'right'.

It is a double-edged sword. The one side of the blade, it is a good thing where iron sharpens iron.

Can you really read Romans 9 after reading the rest of the Bible, and believe that God ordained Adam's sin? And that God willed it?

Most Calvinists believe in two wills of God, and as I said above, it is akin to the difference between writer and editor. God has a decretive will. It is where Calvinists split: Some Calvinists believe God 'decreed' that Adam would sin. I'm not in that camp, so in a lot of instances, you are specifically against these Calvinists that believe "God only has a decretive will." In this instance, you are correct against them as I am: They believe God decreed sin. The majority of Calvinists believe that God has a prescriptive will. It goes like this: "Man will fall after I make him because the serpent will enter the Garden." God as editor, rewrites that: "Their fall will cause their destruction, but I will send my Son to redeem." That is the prescription to the ill of man. Why not simply remove the serpent? Why not remove the tree? I'd thought about that, but the tree is representative of God's character: It is a symbol of His knowledge of Good and Evil. God is perhaps the only individual in (and apart from) His universe that has that knowledge while remaining completely holy and good. Man at that point, interacting with truths of God, then may not have had the option of dwelling without the tree's presence. I'm speculating here, it is nowise implicit in scripture, but I do believe such shows 1) that God does have a prescriptive will and 2) that I agree with you that certain views of Calvinism I also eschew, but so do a good many that are called "Calvinists" as well.

I was not arguing from a theological standpoint, rather, just plain logic. Even when it looks like scripture teaches Calvin's mentioned ideas, it's not a logical conclusion. To claim that an illogical conclusion is true theology seems to be stretching it way too far. Especially when scripture gives alternative ideas.
God may have willed Adam's sin; if so, Adam did not sin by his own will. Also, assuming that God did will Adam's sin, then we definitely know something about the character of God; that He wills sin.
I strongly disagree.
1 John 1:5 "This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all."

If it helps, single predestination Calvinists disagree that God is the Author of sin and would instead view Him as 1) the Author of the book, 2) The editor of another's interference that stays in the book (the serpent), and 3) that He still owns the book and the rights to it. Such things may 'lead' to a drawn conclusion (and often does where Calvinism is concerned) but most Calvinists disagree God is the 'author' of sin in the same sense that nobody else wrote the book. It is history, thus He gives it factually even as it doesn't go as He desired. He 'desired' them not to partake of the tree. Calvinists at large, agree with you. There are Calvinists on TOL who don't agree with this.

 

[Clete]

To manifest His Attributes, Mercy, Love Wisdom, Justice etc

In what way is justice manifested by God in the Calvinist system?

 

[Clete]

It was just that summations are generally when 'conversation' ends. I'd been answering questions, but I'm not the one, particularly, for arguing after assessments are made. At least I'm trying to learn to use my time wisely after I've been of use, if any. It wasn't so much 'directed' at you as a point where I was going to try and graciously bow out of the discussion.
It is a double-edged sword. The one side of the blade, it is a good thing where iron sharpens iron.

Most Calvinists believe in two wills of God, and as I said above, it is akin to the difference between writer and editor. God has a decretive will. It is where Calvinists split: Some Calvinists believe God 'decreed' that Adam would sin. I'm not in that camp, so in a lot of instances, you are specifically against these Calvinists that believe "God only has a decretive will." In this instance, you are correct against them as I am: They believe God decreed sin. The majority of Calvinists believe that God has a prescriptive will. It goes like this: "Man will fall after I make him because the serpent will enter the Garden." God as editor, rewrites that: "Their fall will cause their destruction, but I will send my Son to redeem." That is the prescription to the ill of man. Why not simply remove the serpent? Why not remove the tree? I'd thought about that, but the tree is representative of God's character: It is a symbol of His knowledge of Good and Evil. God is perhaps the only individual in (and apart from) His universe that has that knowledge while remaining completely holy and good. Man at that point, interacting with truths of God, then may not have had the option of dwelling without the tree's presence. I'm speculating here, it is nowise implicit in scripture, but I do believe such shows 1) that God does have a prescriptive will and 2) that I agree with you that certain views of Calvinism I also eschew, but so do a good many that are called "Calvinists" as well.

If it helps, single predestination Calvinists disagree that God is the Author of sin and would instead view Him as 1) the Author of the book, 2) The editor of another's interference that stays in the book (the serpent), and 3) that He still owns the book and the rights to it. Such things may 'lead' to a drawn conclusion (and often does where Calvinism is concerned) but most Calvinists disagree God is the 'author' of sin in the same sense that nobody else wrote the book. It is history, thus He gives it factually even as it doesn't go as He desired. He 'desired' them not to partake of the tree. Calvinists at large, agree with you. There are Calvinists on TOL who don't agree with this.

First, on a more secondary note, God having two wills is a logical problem for anyone who believes it because it teaches, in effect, that God's own decrees are in opposition to righteousness. In other words, the idea that God has a prescriptive will, which communicates what God wants to happen (i.e. don't lie, don't steal, don't murder, love your neighbor as yourself, love God with all your heart, soul mind and strength etc.) vs His decretive will, which is everything that actually does happen according to God's own command.

Why would God do this?

b57 would have you believe that God decreeing depravity, disease, death and destruction brings glory to God and "manifests His Attributes, Mercy, Love Wisdom, Justice, etc" but he will offer nothing at all in the way of explaining how this is accomplished. Of course, He cannot do so because it is impossible to explain how the evil is actually the good.

Alternatively, Calvinists speak of God's "perfect will" vs. God's "permissive will". This is the way that most laymen discuss it and is how it is most often presented in your average Calvinist Sunday School class. The logical problem here is even easier to see because everything that happens falls into the category of God's permissive will, including the fact that people would and do violate his perfect will. And so how is there a distinction between the two unless you just come right out and admit that God's perfect will is thwarted every minute of every day by virtue of His own decree! It's so twisted it makes you dizzy!

Secondly, and more importantly, the fact that Calvinists disagree with the assertion that God is the author of sin is a waste of time thing to even say. Of course they disagree with it! No one is suggesting that Calvinists openly state that God is the author of sin. They do not openly state it but it is the actual meaning, and the logically inescapable conclusion, of their doctrines. For many pew sitting Calvinists, their blindness to this fact is not willful. For them, the issue never comes up and it never occurs to them as an issue. They simply believe what they've been taught to believe and make no effort to "figure it all out". But for those who teach and those who proclaim themselves as educated in matters of doctrine, those like Nang, b57 and perhaps yourself, there is no excuse. If the Calvinist doctrines of predestination and sovereignty are true then God is the author of sin, whether the Calvinist choose to acknowledge it or not. They can blow the logical implications of their doctrines off as "antinomy" all they like but that only tacitly acknowledges the incongruity that exists between their doctrines and the righteousness of God and serves to convict them of their blasphemy rather than excuse them of it.

Clete

 

[Clete]

Some Calvinists would agree with the above first line. I do not. Adam sinned because a wrench was thrown into the works (the serpent entered the Garden).

How can you not see that this only backs the problem up one step?

Who threw the wrench into the works, Lon?

Who was responsible for their being a serpent in the Garden?

 

[ttruscott]

Calvinism says that God would rather go through all the trouble of creating those whom He has elected to first live a life of sin on Earth before they could be saved and be with Him. He could have just created them to be with Him from the beginning as He did the angels.

It is inconceivable to me that HE created anyone to first live a life of sin so they could later be saved. Nor could HE ever create anyone in a life in sin and then deny them salvation, ie to be non-elect.

IMCO:
No one was created in sin.
No one inherited another's sin as a part of their being created...the idea is absurd for a GOD who is love and righteous justice incarnate.
All sin was created by a free will choice to rebel against GOD's command or guidence.

This gives a strong ideological base to accepting the face value of Job 38:7 (about the creation of the physical universe) ...while the morning stars sang together and ALL the Sons of GOD shouted for joy? In light of Romans 1 contending that the truth of GOD's glory and power were plainly seen by everyone by what was made, created, (V20) and some accepted HIM and others loved sin more and so replaced the truth with a lie to their eternal destruction, we can see the fall happened before the wondrous act of creation. This makes sense as no one would reject the Deity of YHWH after they saw this proof of HIS divinity and power.

If you deny that He has the ability to do this, then you deny that He has all power. If He were to do this rather than predestine them to sin, He would not have to send HIs son to die for them. So according to Calvinism, God would prefer to watch His son die a miserable death for an elect group that He predestined to live on Earth and sin rather than just create the elect to be with Him from the get go. Why would He go through having to watch His son be tortured and murdered when in His Sovereignty, He could just have just skipped all this devastation?

YES!

Inherited sin is a blasphemy against HIS loving justice.
Believing HE knew before their creation who would end in hell but creating them anyway is blasphemy against HIS goodness.
Believing HE chose some to be elect for no reason found in them and passed over the reprobate for election to salvation for no reason found in them is a blasphemy against HIS loving kindness.