Calvinism vs. The Truth: Predestination

[kangaroojack]

Aug 29, 2010 20:30:42 GMT -5 MoGrace2U said:

Roo wrote:
"The analysis of Calvinism you give is a caricature. He chose you. Fall down before Him for it."

Of course my analysis is an exaggeration - but such hyperbole can be used to make a point. How ludicrous is it to see that Calvin himself had a wrong view of what God required of him when Michael Servetus dared to contradict his Institutes? How right is his doctrine if it leads him in such a direction?

If I were to lift your words like Calvin did Paul's in Romans, should I think that you meant I ought to fall down before Calvin because he chose me?

Calvin's sins often come up when debating Calvinism. This means of course that we should reject the apostle Paul's teachings because he once consented to Christians being put to death.

Mograce said:

If I were to lift your words like Calvin did Paul's in Romans, should I think that you meant I ought to fall down before Calvin because he chose me?

May I assume that you are indeed grateful to God because He chose not to leave you in your sins but chose to save you out of condemmnation?

Roo

[kangaroojack]

didymus said;

There are two things in Scripture that are plainly taught. 1. God is Sovereign, and 2. Man has a free will.

Then why did Paul say that he was a slave to sin (Rom. 7)?

For the law is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold as a slave to sin Romans 7:14

Did a slave have free choice? Or was he under the rule of his master?

Roo

[kangaroojack]

Aug 30, 2010 11:17:35 GMT -5 @mellontes said:

Aug 30, 2010 11:05:20 GMT -5 @kangaroojack said:

Calvin's sins often come up when debating Calvinism. This means of course that we should reject the apostle Paul's teachings because he once consented to Christians being put to death.

Mograce said:
May I assume that you are indeed grateful to God because He chose not to leave you in your sins but chose to save you out of condemmnation?

Roo

Actually Roo, to use a pre-regenerative state to prove what you were saying in regard to the Apostle Paul (formerly Saul) would not be correct in its application to Calvin (post-regenerative state).

Calvin has, however, often been criticized with undue severity as though the responsibility rested upon him alone, when as a matter of fact Servetus was given a court trial lasting over two months and was sentenced by the full session of the civil Council, and that in accordance with the laws which were then recognized throughout Christendom. And, far from urging that the sentence be made more severe, Calvin urged that the sword be substituted for the fire, but was overruled. Calvin and the men of his time are not to be judged strictly and solely by the advanced standards of our twentieth century, but must to a certain extent be considered in the light of their own sixteenth century. We have seen great developments in regard to civil and religious toleration, prison reform, abolition of slavery and the slave trade, feudalism, witch burning, improvement of the conditions of the poor, etc., which are the late but genuine results of Christian teachings. The error of those who advocated and practiced what would be considered intolerance today, was the general error of the age. It should not, in fairness, be permitted to give an unfavorable impression of their character and motives, and much less should it be allowed to prejudice us against their doctrines on other and more important subjects.

The Protestants had just thrown off the yoke of Rome and in their struggle to defend themselves they were often forced to fight intolerance with intolerance. Throughout the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries public opinion in all European countries justified the right and duty of civil governments to protect and support orthodoxy and to punish heresy, holding that obstinate heretics and blasphemers should be made harmless by death if necessary. Protestants differed from Romanists mainly in their definition of heresy, and by greater moderation in its punishment. Heresy was considered a sin against society, and in some cases as worse than murder; for while murder only destroyed the body, heresy destroyed the soul. Today we have swung to the other extreme and public opinion manifests a latitudinarian indifference toward truth or error. During the eighteenth century the reign of intolerance was gradually undermined. Protestant England and Holland took the lead in extending civil and religious liberty, and the Constitution of the United States completed the theory by putting all Christian denominations on a parity before the law and guaranteeing them the full enjoyment of equal rights.

www.reformed-theology.org/html/books/calvinism-history/10.htm

Don't judge Calvin apart from the historical context. Remember too that the Catholics persecuted people also and they believed in "free will."

So Mograce's suggestion that Calvinism is wrong because it produced some bad fruit in history applied to "free willers" also.


Roo

[Once4all]

Aug 30, 2010 10:57:28 GMT -5 @kangaroojack said:

Bev said:

Romans 1 says that God gave them over because of their idolatry and sin. It sounds similar to the OT verses about hearts being hardened. Everyone who turns away from God is at risk.

Bev,

God indeed chooses to leave some men in their sin. This is called reprobation. Other's He sovereignly chooses to save out of their sin. This is called unconditional election.

Roo

Nope, don't buy it.

[Once4all]

Aug 30, 2010 11:29:55 GMT -5 @kangaroojack said:

didymus said;

There are two things in Scripture that are plainly taught. 1. God is Sovereign, and 2. Man has a free will.

Then why did Paul say that he was a slave to sin (Rom. 7)?

Because he was not talking about himself as a Christian. In Romans 6, he said that those who have died with Christ have been freed from sin and are no longer slaves to sin.

Romans 6:6-8 NASB
(6) knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin;
(7) for he who has died is freed from sin.
(8) Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him,

[kangaroojack]

Aug 30, 2010 14:25:51 GMT -5 Once4all said:

Aug 30, 2010 10:57:28 GMT -5 @kangaroojack said:

Bev said:
Bev,

God indeed chooses to leave some men in their sin. This is called reprobation. Other's He sovereignly chooses to save out of their sin. This is called unconditional election.

Roo

Nope, don't buy it.

Bev,

You don't buy what? You said yourself that God "gives men over because of their idolatry and sin." This is what I said first. Why doesn't He give all men over to their sin? Is it because some men are more worthy?

Roo

[kangaroojack]

Aug 30, 2010 14:30:42 GMT -5 Once4all said:

Aug 30, 2010 11:29:55 GMT -5 @kangaroojack said:

didymus said;
Then why did Paul say that he was a slave to sin (Rom. 7)?

Because he was not talking about himself as a Christian. In Romans 6, he said that those who have died with Christ have been freed from sin and are no longer slaves to sin.

Romans 6:6-8 NASB
(6) knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin;
(7) for he who has died is freed from sin.
(8) Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him,

Bev,

Exactly! Paul was talking about himself as an illustration of the unsaved man who is a slave to sin. So how can it be said that the non-christian man has a free will? A slave does not have a free will. A slave MUST do the will of his master.

You correctly speak when you say that those who died with Christ were set free from sin.

If the Son therefore shall make you free you shall be free indeed.

To admit that the non-christian is a slave to sin is to deny that he has a free will. You can't have it both ways. A man cannot be both a slave and free at the same time.

Roo

[Once4all]

Aug 30, 2010 15:35:23 GMT -5 @kangaroojack said:

Aug 30, 2010 14:25:51 GMT -5 Once4all said:

Nope, don't buy it.

Bev,

You don't buy what? You said yourself that God "gives men over because of their idolatry and sin." This is what I said first. Why doesn't He give all men over to their sin? Is it because some men are more worthy?

Roo

No. Some men repent.

[Once4all]

Aug 30, 2010 15:47:16 GMT -5 @kangaroojack said:

Aug 30, 2010 14:30:42 GMT -5 Once4all said:

Because he was not talking about himself as a Christian. In Romans 6, he said that those who have died with Christ have been freed from sin and are no longer slaves to sin.

Romans 6:6-8 NASB
(6) knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin;
(7) for he who has died is freed from sin.
(8) Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him,

Bev,

Exactly! Paul was talking about himself as an illustration of the unsaved man who is a slave to sin. So how can it be said that the non-christian man has a free will? A slave does not have a free will. A slave MUST do the will of his master.

You correctly speak when you say that those who died with Christ were set free from sin.

If the Son therefore shall make you free you shall be free indeed.

To admit that the non-christian is a slave to sin is to deny that he has a free will. You can't have it both ways. A man cannot be both a slave and free at the same time.

Roo

Romans 6:16-18 NASB
(16) Do you not know that when you present yourselves to someone as slaves for obedience, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin resulting in death, or of obedience resulting in righteousness?
(17) But thanks be to God that though you were slaves of sin, you became obedient from the heart to that form of teaching to which you were committed,
(18) and having been freed from sin, you became slaves of righteousness.

It's a choice. And until they turn their heart toward God, they are slaves to their own desires.

James 1:14-15 NASB
(14) But each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust.
(15) Then when lust has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and when sin is accomplished, it brings forth death.

Deuteronomy 30:17-20 NASB
(17) "But if your heart turns away and you will not obey, but are drawn away and worship other gods and serve them,
(18) I declare to you today that you shall surely perish. You will not prolong your days in the land where you are crossing the Jordan to enter and possess it.
(19) "I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. So choose life in order that you may live, you and your descendants,
(20) by loving the LORD your God, by obeying His voice, and by holding fast to Him; for this is your life and the length of your days, that you may live in the land which the LORD swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to give them."

(Please don't use red text, it is very hard to read.)

[kangaroojack]

Aug 30, 2010 16:01:11 GMT -5 Once4all said:

Aug 30, 2010 15:35:23 GMT -5 @kangaroojack said:

Bev,

You don't buy what? You said yourself that God "gives men over because of their idolatry and sin." This is what I said first. Why doesn't He give all men over to their sin? Is it because some men are more worthy?

Roo

No. Some men repent.

They repent because God did not give them over to their lusts. Those whom God reprobates no longer have the ability to repent. Paul said that they are "impentinent." Note that he did not say that they are unrepentant.

The difference between impentinence and unrepentance;

Impentinence: UNABLE to repent

Unrepentance: UNWILLING to repent

God finds ALL men unrepentant. Some He gives over to their unrepentance (reprobation). Others He sovereignly chooses to give repentance:

25 in humility correcting those who are in opposition, if God perhaps will grant them repentance, so that they may know the truth, 2 Timothy 2:25 NKJV

It says that we must in humility correct those who oppose the truth that God PERHAPS might give them repentance. God may grant repentance or He may leave them in their unrepentant state. If God leaves them in their unrepentance they become impentinent (unable to repent) after that.

Roo

[kangaroojack]

Bev said:

Romans 6:16-18 NASB
(16) Do you not know that when you present yourselves to someone as slaves for obedience, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin resulting in death, or of obedience resulting in righteousness?
(17) But thanks be to God that though you were slaves of sin, you became obedient from the heart to that form of teaching to which you were committed,
(18) and having been freed from sin, you became slaves of righteousness.

It's a choice. And until they turn their heart toward God, they are slaves to their own desires.

Bev,

If it is man's choice as you say, then why does Paul say, "But thanks be to God?" Shouldn't Paul have patted them on the back for making the right "choice?" Salvation is all God's doing. Note that Paul said, "Thanks be to God you were the slaves of sin but became obedient...."

Explain how you can thank God for your becoming obedient and take some credit at the same time.

Bev:

Please don't use red text, it is very hard to read.)

Okay

Roo

[Once4all]

Thanks go to God whenever something is done according to His will. Throughout scripture, believers are instructed/encouraged/persuaded to do the will of God. What is the purpose of such instruction if we do not have a choice?

It is similar to this verse:

1 Thessalonians 2:13 NASB
(13) For this reason we also constantly thank God that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but for what it really is, the word of God, which also performs its work in you who believe.

[didymus]

For any and all Calvinists,

I have a question. If God predetermined who would have eternal life before the foundation of the world, then why did Christ have to go to the cross?

[kangaroojack]

Aug 30, 2010 21:39:36 GMT -5 Once4all said:

Thanks go to God whenever something is done according to His will. Throughout scripture, believers are instructed/encouraged/persuaded to do the will of God. What is the purpose of such instruction if we do not have a choice?

It is similar to this verse:

1 Thessalonians 2:13 NASB
(13) For this reason we also constantly thank God that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but for what it really is, the word of God, which also performs its work in you who believe.

Thanks to God because He does the WHOLE work in salvation. In chapter 7 Paul said,

"That which I hate I do."

and,

"It is no more I that do it, but sin that dwells in me."

and,

Who shall deliver me from this body of death."

You have agreed that this was Paul's life before he was a christian. Do his statements above reflect that he had "free choice?" Is a man who does what he hates a free man? Is a man who cries out, "Who shall deliver me from this body of death" a free man?


Where some christians get the idea that non-christians have a free will is totally beyond me.


Roo

[wandashort]

Aug 29, 2010 21:08:15 GMT -5 @didymus said:

Calvinists that I have encountered, with few exceptions, are very militant.

I prefer the term "steadfast" vs. "militant" my friend!

I also liked where someone (sorry can't recall who) said that Calvinists shouldnt bother debating the issue since the person was pre-ordained to oppose it...that is awesome! Made me laugh...very witty!

Actually, the main reason I do not debate it is because of how vehement the discussion always becomes (not specifically here as we are all brothers/sisters in Christ but elsewhere)...but I LOVE discussing why I am so steadfast in my embracing of God's soveriegnty and the depth of peace I feel daily for His gift of grace!

Blessings, I am popping in every now and again to see what havoc my friend Didy is wreaking! (email me and let me know how you are doing!) w

[didymus]

Wanda,

There is a difference between militant and steadfast. I had Calvinist tell me I'm going to Hell. Is that steadfast or militant?

I don't believe I have ever made that judgment. My pay scale is not high enough to take on that responsibility.

Good to hear from you again. I hope you are doing well.

D

- morning coffee

[wandashort]

Well...I would never say anyone is bound for hell! Eternal Conscious Torment, sure...just kidding!

I think that you have just come across some crazy people period.

Doing very well, how is Florence doing?

[didymus]

If they are crazy, and Calvinist, does that mean they were predetermined to be krazy?

Sorry, I am not going to discuss my family in this forum..

[didymus]

Wow! I finally found out why my Calvinistic friends have always said I was Arminian. I have been reading up on Jacobus Arminius, and Arminianism. What I have discovered is that Jacob Arminius agreed with me before I was even born. I have to say it that way as I never researched Jacob Arminius before, so it can not be said that I agreed with him.

Apparently, he also taught that predestination and election is based on God's foreknowledge. That salvation is conditional on faith in Christ Jesus. That the atonement of Christ is universal. That God's grace can be resisted. That saints can persevere as long as they have faith in Christ.

Jacob Arminius and I have something in common. He was led into Calvinism by those who taught him, as I was. Through his own Bible study he saw through Calvinism, as I did. He came under attack by his Calvinistic colleagues, as I have been attacked by my Calvinistic friends at the time I broke away from it.

Considering all this, if Calvinism be true, God predestined me to be an Arminian.