Total Posts:57|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

POE and Calvinism

joneszj
Posts: 1,202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2012 4:50:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
@jharry

Problem of Evil- how could evil exist in a reality created by an omni-being specifically an omnibenevolent being. There are many ways to address this but I will in two: reality, and salvation.

1) Reality- the POE is often objected unto a reality that evil exists. But simply because evil exists does not mean its creator is not omnibenivolent. Omnibenevolence does not necessitate that an evil action not occur, only that its occurrence have a good reason. To say otherwise is to attack a straw man. Calvinists believe that all evil happens is ordained by God for a good reason. A good example of this would be Joseph: "You meant it for evil; God meant it for good" (Gen. 50:20). Scripture is rather adamant about the sovereignty of God:
In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will, so that we who were the first to hope in Christ might be to the praise of his glory. (Ephesians 1:11-12)

Our God is in the heavens; he does all that he pleases. (Psalm 115:3)

"I know that You can do everything, And that no purpose of Yours can be withheld from You." (Job 42:2)

It is clear that throughout the Bible that everything happens because God ordains it to. This ordination does not violate the will of the creature (I would argue that in some particular instances in scripture God does indeed force a mans will against what he would have done otherwise, ex Abelemech Gen 20:6 but not definitively). When I say ordain I do not mean to cause or be the author of, but instead to determine or set sure. Calvinism teaches that evil happens because God ordained it for good. Arminianism on the other hand (to my understanding) teaches that evil happens because man wills it to alone. Essentialy it teaches that evil happens with no other reason. In which case I would say POE is a problem for Arminians. Being that POE is a very philosophically oriented it may be easier to say that Calvinism is to Compatibilism as Arminianism is to Free Will philosophically.

2) Salvation
Again I am pressed with time. Sorry.
People in general (in context a single writer: ) "assumes omnibenevolence must mean unibenevolence: that is, that if God is all-loving, then He will not possess the capacity His creatures rightly possess: discrimination in the matter of love. We are not only not unibenevolent, as image bearers of God we, like Him, are able to possess, and express, different kinds of love. I do not love my cat as I love my children (and I think anyone who does is simply wacked). I have and properly express all different kinds of "love," from loving my wireless laser mouse to loving my Tablet PC to loving my Felt F65 road bike---but none of those kinds of love come close to my love for God's truth, God's people, my family, my friends. If faced with a choice, I am going to choose based upon discrimination in my love. I am going to save the mother of my children before I save a stranger. I am called to love my wife as Christ loved the church. And my ability to do this is clearly reflected in God's own actions. The love He showed Israel he did not show the Canaanites, the Egyptians, the Assyrians, or the Babylonians. This is a simple biblical fact. All the "God loves you!" smiley face t-shirts do not change revelational reality.
Hence, I reject the assertion that omnibenevolence equals unibenevolence, i.e., having one equal, undifferentiated, indiscriminate warm fuzzy. There is no biblical basis for thinking otherwise." http://www.aomin.org...
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2012 1:06:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/26/2012 4:50:40 PM, joneszj wrote:
@jharry

Problem of Evil- how could evil exist in a reality created by an omni-being specifically an omnibenevolent being. There are many ways to address this but I will in two: reality, and salvation.

1) Reality- the POE is often objected unto a reality that evil exists. But simply because evil exists does not mean its creator is not omnibenivolent. Omnibenevolence does not necessitate that an evil action not occur, only that its occurrence have a good reason. To say otherwise is to attack a straw man. Calvinists believe that all evil happens is ordained by God for a good reason. A good example of this would be Joseph: "You meant it for evil; God meant it for good"

That can also mean that Joseph was faithful to God and chose to follow His ways even when he was suffering terrible evil at the hand of his brothers. If we take another look at this verse it doesn't make sense if TULIP is true. The first word out of the mouth of Joseph is YOU. He wasn't talking to God, but under TULIP he was. If God made Josephs brothers sell him as a slave then the brothers were not meaning any evil against Joseph, God was. And if Joseph had faith it wasn't Joseph. It was God. Taking this deeper it turns out. if TULIP is true, that nothing really happens. Reality as we know it doesn't exist. I don't do certain things because of my Faith in God, I do them because God makes me. A murder doesn't murder because he rebels against God, he murders because God makes him.

TULIP destroys the very concept of Faith. Every person written into Scriptures from Adam to Jesus is nothing more then a farce, a play or movie where the actors do nothing more then what is in the Script or we can even say Scriptures in this case. There is no reason for evil if good is only a cue when God says action. There is nothing to learn, there is no growth. There is literally nothing. Every Bible story we learned in Sunday school is nothing more the a movie we can catch on Friday night. David didn't have faith when he faced Goliath. Noah didn't have faith in God when he built the Ark. God didn't want to cleanse the earth of the wicked, He just wanted a climatic event for His cosmic script.

If TULIP is true Jesus didn't even matter, the elect would be elected and the damned would be damned. Writing Jesus into the script was another event that turned a dull part in the book into a page turner.

TULIP undermines, if not destroys, every concept Jesus tried to teach us 2000 years ago.

(Gen. 50:20). Scripture is rather adamant about the sovereignty of God:
In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will, so that we who were the first to hope in Christ might be to the praise of his glory. (Ephesians 1:11-12)

Our God is in the heavens; he does all that he pleases. (Psalm 115:3)

"I know that You can do everything, And that no purpose of Yours can be withheld from You." (Job 42:2)

It is clear that throughout the Bible that everything happens because God ordains it to. This ordination does not violate the will of the creature (I would argue that in some particular instances in scripture God does indeed force a mans will against what he would have done otherwise, ex Abelemech Gen 20:6 but not definitively). When I say ordain I do not mean to cause or be the author of, but instead to determine or set sure. Calvinism teaches that evil happens because God ordained it for good. Arminianism on the other hand (to my understanding) teaches that evil happens because man wills it to alone. Essentialy it teaches that evil happens with no other reason. In which case I would say POE is a problem for Arminians. Being that POE is a very philosophically oriented it may be easier to say that Calvinism is to Compatibilism as Arminianism is to Free Will philosophically.

Calvinism is quite possible the worst proponent of POE. Not only does it accept it but it confirms that there is no problem with evil, evil is intended and handed out by God for no other reason then to amuse Himself.


2) Salvation
Again I am pressed with time. Sorry.
People in general (in context a single writer: ) "assumes omnibenevolence must mean unibenevolence: that is, that if God is all-loving, then He will not possess the capacity His creatures rightly possess: discrimination in the matter of love. We are not only not unibenevolent, as image bearers of God we, like Him, are able to possess, and express, different kinds of love. I do not love my cat as I love my children (and I think anyone who does is simply wacked). I have and properly express all different kinds of "love," from loving my wireless laser mouse to loving my Tablet PC to loving my Felt F65 road bike---but none of those kinds of love come close to my love for God's truth, God's people, my family, my friends. If faced with a choice, I am going to choose based upon discrimination in my love. I am going to save the mother of my children before I save a stranger. I am called to love my wife as Christ loved the church. And my ability to do this is clearly reflected in God's own actions. The love He showed Israel he did not show the Canaanites, the Egyptians, the Assyrians, or the Babylonians. This is a simple biblical fact. All the "God loves you!" smiley face t-shirts do not change revelational reality.
Hence, I reject the assertion that omnibenevolence equals unibenevolence, i.e., having one equal, undifferentiated, indiscriminate warm fuzzy. There is no biblical basis for thinking otherwise." http://www.aomin.org...

This is where John 3:16 comes into play. But we are still dealing with that at the moment.

But, by using your reasoning then God should always save His "elect"? You stated you would save a loved on over a stranger, is this also true for God?

So the the shirts should say "God, might Love you. If you are apart of His chosen"?
But in reality not even the elect know if they are the elect, not that it even matters anyway.

How do you now you are among the "elect"?

Calvinism and the doctrine of TULIP make Jesus a liar and two faced. He didn't die for any one, the people He died for only needed some one to save them from God. If God causes me to sin in twenty minutes what is the point of forgiveness? Am I held accountable for something God made me do? Under Calvinism Jesus didn't save anyone, He just played a role. There was no problem He needed to fix or anything to make new, what was is what is supposed to be if determined by God.

I look forward to your reply.
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
joneszj
Posts: 1,202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2012 1:56:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/27/2012 1:06:51 PM, jharry wrote:
At 1/26/2012 4:50:40 PM, joneszj wrote:
@jharry

Problem of Evil- how could evil exist in a reality created by an omni-being specifically an omnibenevolent being. There are many ways to address this but I will in two: reality, and salvation.

1) Reality- the POE is often objected unto a reality that evil exists. But simply because evil exists does not mean its creator is not omnibenivolent. Omnibenevolence does not necessitate that an evil action not occur, only that its occurrence have a good reason. To say otherwise is to attack a straw man. Calvinists believe that all evil happens is ordained by God for a good reason. A good example of this would be Joseph: "You meant it for evil; God meant it for good"

That can also mean that Joseph was faithful to God and chose to follow His ways even when he was suffering terrible evil at the hand of his brothers. If we take another look at this verse it doesn't make sense if TULIP is true. The first word out of the mouth of Joseph is YOU. He wasn't talking to God, but under TULIP he was. If God made Josephs brothers sell him as a slave then the brothers were not meaning any evil against Joseph, God was. And if Joseph had faith it wasn't Joseph. It was God. Taking this deeper it turns out. if TULIP is true, that nothing really happens. Reality as we know it doesn't exist. I don't do certain things because of my Faith in God, I do them because God makes me. A murder doesn't murder because he rebels against God, he murders because God makes him.

TULIP destroys the very concept of Faith. Every person written into Scriptures from Adam to Jesus is nothing more then a farce, a play or movie where the actors do nothing more then what is in the Script or we can even say Scriptures in this case. There is no reason for evil if good is only a cue when God says action. There is nothing to learn, there is no growth. There is literally nothing. Every Bible story we learned in Sunday school is nothing more the a movie we can catch on Friday night. David didn't have faith when he faced Goliath. Noah didn't have faith in God when he built the Ark. God didn't want to cleanse the earth of the wicked, He just wanted a climatic event for His cosmic script.

If TULIP is true Jesus didn't even matter, the elect would be elected and the damned would be damned. Writing Jesus into the script was another event that turned a dull part in the book into a page turner.

TULIP undermines, if not destroys, every concept Jesus tried to teach us 2000 years ago.

(Gen. 50:20). Scripture is rather adamant about the sovereignty of God:
In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will, so that we who were the first to hope in Christ might be to the praise of his glory. (Ephesians 1:11-12)

Our God is in the heavens; he does all that he pleases. (Psalm 115:3)

"I know that You can do everything, And that no purpose of Yours can be withheld from You." (Job 42:2)

It is clear that throughout the Bible that everything happens because God ordains it to. This ordination does not violate the will of the creature (I would argue that in some particular instances in scripture God does indeed force a mans will against what he would have done otherwise, ex Abelemech Gen 20:6 but not definitively). When I say ordain I do not mean to cause or be the author of, but instead to determine or set sure. Calvinism teaches that evil happens because God ordained it for good. Arminianism on the other hand (to my understanding) teaches that evil happens because man wills it to alone. Essentialy it teaches that evil happens with no other reason. In which case I would say POE is a problem for Arminians. Being that POE is a very philosophically oriented it may be easier to say that Calvinism is to Compatibilism as Arminianism is to Free Will philosophically.

Calvinism is quite possible the worst proponent of POE. Not only does it accept it but it confirms that there is no problem with evil, evil is intended and handed out by God for no other reason then to amuse Himself.


2) Salvation
Again I am pressed with time. Sorry.
People in general (in context a single writer: ) "assumes omnibenevolence must mean unibenevolence: that is, that if God is all-loving, then He will not possess the capacity His creatures rightly possess: discrimination in the matter of love. We are not only not unibenevolent, as image bearers of God we, like Him, are able to possess, and express, different kinds of love. I do not love my cat as I love my children (and I think anyone who does is simply wacked). I have and properly express all different kinds of "love," from loving my wireless laser mouse to loving my Tablet PC to loving my Felt F65 road bike---but none of those kinds of love come close to my love for God's truth, God's people, my family, my friends. If faced with a choice, I am going to choose based upon discrimination in my love. I am going to save the mother of my children before I save a stranger. I am called to love my wife as Christ loved the church. And my ability to do this is clearly reflected in God's own actions. The love He showed Israel he did not show the Canaanites, the Egyptians, the Assyrians, or the Babylonians. This is a simple biblical fact. All the "God loves you!" smiley face t-shirts do not change revelational reality.
Hence, I reject the assertion that omnibenevolence equals unibenevolence, i.e., having one equal, undifferentiated, indiscriminate warm fuzzy. There is no biblical basis for thinking otherwise." http://www.aomin.org...

This is where John 3:16 comes into play. But we are still dealing with that at the moment.

But, by using your reasoning then God should always save His "elect"? You stated you would save a loved on over a stranger, is this also true for God?

So the the shirts should say "God, might Love you. If you are apart of His chosen"?
But in reality not even the elect know if they are the elect, not that it even matters anyway.

How do you now you are among the "elect"?

Calvinism and the doctrine of TULIP make Jesus a liar and two faced. He didn't die for any one, the people He died for only needed some one to save them from God. If God causes me to sin in twenty minutes what is the point of forgiveness? Am I held accountable for something God made me do? Under Calvinism Jesus didn't save anyone, He just played a role. There was no problem He needed to fix or anything to make new, what was is what is supposed to be if determined by God.

I look forward to your reply.

From many MANY of your heated remarks I do believe you are confusing Calvinism with Hyper Calvinism. I will demonstrate so hopefully as early as Saturday and will have my response linked with it. I am booked for the remainder of this evening.
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2012 3:45:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I apologize if my comments seemed heated, I didn't intend them to seem that way.

I know saying God "made" me do something isn't exactly the best way to describe but it is still true.

Lets look at the second point of TULIP.

"Unconditional election
": This doctrine asserts that God has chosen frometernity
 those whom he will bring to himself not based on foreseen virtue, merit, or faith in those people; rather, it is unconditionally grounded in God's mercy alone. God has chosen from eternity
 to extend mercy to those He has chosen and to withhold mercy from those not chosen. Those chosen receive salvation through Christ alone. Those not chosen receive the just wrath that is warranted for their sins against God[9]

It states here we are all born without the capacity to accept Gods ways and can only rebel against Him. It also states that the only way to change this is if God allows you to.

Under this statement, the only reason I sin is because God allows it. This belief system ensures us that all the evil in the world is only because He allows it.

Every human is born full of trouble, to this I agree. But I do not believe I remain in this sin because God chose to with hold Mercy that He could freely give me without my accepting it. If I didn't have the free will to accept or reject this mercy then I didn't do anything but say I do when given the cue.

It goes even further when we look at God allowing evil to be in this world. How is He glorifying Himself by allowing suffering to fall upon Job? If Job was only following God because God gave him the ability then Job didn't really do anything. Let's say the plagues were to show Egyptians the power of God. Why? If the Egyptians can't do anything but rebel against God it would be for nothing. They wouldn't be able to see the greatness of God if they are not capable of chosing Him. And if He gave them Mercy and allowed them to accept Him than the plagues wouldn't be needed in the first place.

All the times Israel rebelled and were banished are nothing at all. If they were predetermined then it shows no more then God playing with His followers for His own amusement. If the heathens can not do anything but rebel then showing them Gods power it pointless. When
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
joneszj
Posts: 1,202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2012 4:05:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
That can also mean that Joseph was faithful to God and chose to follow His ways even when he was suffering terrible evil at the hand of his brothers. If we take another look at this verse it doesn't make sense if TULIP is true. The first word out of the mouth of Joseph is YOU. He wasn't talking to God, but under TULIP he was. If God made Josephs brothers sell him as a slave then the brothers were not meaning any evil against Joseph, God was. And if Joseph had faith it wasn't Joseph. It was God. Taking this deeper it turns out. if TULIP is true, that nothing really happens. Reality as we know it doesn't exist. I don't do certain things because of my Faith in God, I do them because God makes me. A murder doesn't murder because he rebels against God, he murders because God makes him.

Calvinists do not believe the first 'you' is in reference to God. We take it as Joseph speaking to his brothers. Calvinists do NOT teach the first you was in reference to God! The rest of your comment is you attacking somehing that is NOT Calvinism. As for the part where and after you say "Taking this deeper it turns out" Y=you continue to attack Calvinism with docrnes and teachings that are NOT Calvinism. Specificaly where you say: "I don't do certain things because of my Faith in God, I do them because God makes me. A murder doesn't murder because he rebels against God, he murders because God makes him." you are attackng something that sounds much more like hyper Calvinism then Calvinism.

TULIP destroys the very concept of Faith. Every person written into Scriptures from Adam to Jesus is nothing more then a farce, a play or movie where the actors do nothing more then what is in the Script or we can even say Scriptures in this case. There is no reason for evil if good is only a cue when God says action. There is nothing to learn, there is no growth. There is literally nothing. Every Bible story we learned in Sunday school is nothing more the a movie we can catch on Friday night. David didn't have faith when he faced Goliath. Noah didn't have faith in God when he built the Ark. God didn't want to cleanse the earth of the wicked, He just wanted a climatic event for His cosmic script.

Your whole comment here is not Calvinism. Calvinism does not teach that men are robots, or (especially) that God makes the decisions of man that are evil! INSTEAD Calvinism teaches that man has a will that is free only to sin. When man does good it is because God wills it in man. Taking this and flipping it to say that God wills both the good and evil in man 1) makes God the author of evil and 2) would make men 'robots'. But that is simply not Calvinism rendering your argument a straw man.

If TULIP is true Jesus didn't even matter, the elect would be elected and the damned would be damned. Writing Jesus into the script was another event that turned a dull part in the book into a page turner.

Excuse me? Jesus is the central person in any Christian theology. The elect are the elect because God chose them to be. The Damned are the damned because they chose to be. The difference in Calvinism and Hyper-Calvinism is not in predestining but in HOW God predestines. Hyper Calvinism teaches that just as God "actively intervenes" to save the elect He also "actively intervenes" to prevent the reprobate from saving faith. This is NOT Calvinism. Calvinsism teaches that God "actively intervenes" to save the elect and "passively choses" to not interfere with the reprobates "free choice" to reject God. There is a major difference there and you are confusing the two :(

TULIP undermines, if not destroys, every concept Jesus tried to teach us 2000 years ago.

With your straw man attack yes it would.

Calvinism is quite possible the worst proponent of POE. Not only does it accept it but it confirms that there is no problem with evil, evil is intended and handed out by God for no other reason then to amuse Himself.

Where is it taught anywhere in Calvinism that evil is not a problem? Get your theology straight please.

This is where John 3:16 comes into play. But we are still dealing with that at the moment.

But, by using your reasoning then God should always save His "elect"? You stated you would save a loved on over a stranger, is this also true for God?

Yes, perhaps I can demonstrate this in Romans 9? Before either Jacob or Esau could commit good or bad God says He "Jacob I loved, Esau I hated." 15-18 ""I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills."

How could this possibly be reconciled with free will? Arminians have to go against the "natural reading of the passage" using presuppositions.

So the the shirts should say "God, might Love you. If you are apart of His chosen"?
But in reality not even the elect know if they are the elect, not that it even matters anyway.

I have been presented with this question in the past. What you are really asking is: how can anyone prove they are the elect? For Arminians are poised with the same question. Calvinists would say as Arminians would that they are the elect because they believe. All theologies believe in election, the means is the only thing that is different.

How do you now you are among the "elect"?

How would any Christian answer this? Because they believe! It is the same whether you are Arminian or Calvinsit.

Calvinism and the doctrine of TULIP make Jesus a liar and two faced. He didn't die for any one, the people He died for only needed some one to save them from God. If God causes me to sin in twenty minutes what is the point of forgiveness? Am I held accountable for something God made me do? Under Calvinism Jesus didn't save anyone, He just played a role. There was no problem He needed to fix or anything to make new, what was is what is supposed to be if determined by God.

God does not cause anyone to sin. Jesus is not a two faced liar :( Unfortunatly you have a complete misunderstanding of what Calvinism is. May I recommend you some sourses that might clear some things up for you? here: http://www.ligonier.org...

I look forward to your reply.

I hope you get to learn a bit more about my theology and not simply jump to conclussions it has faught to destroy.
joneszj
Posts: 1,202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2012 7:35:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/27/2012 3:45:07 PM, jharry wrote:
I apologize if my comments seemed heated, I didn't intend them to seem that way.

I know saying God "made" me do something isn't exactly the best way to describe but it is still true.

Lets look at the second point of TULIP.

"Unconditional election
": This doctrine asserts that God has chosen frometernity
 those whom he will bring to himself not based on foreseen virtue, merit, or faith in those people; rather, it is unconditionally grounded in God's mercy alone. God has chosen from eternity
 to extend mercy to those He has chosen and to withhold mercy from those not chosen. Those chosen receive salvation through Christ alone. Those not chosen receive the just wrath that is warranted for their sins against God[9]

It states here we are all born without the capacity to accept Gods ways and can only rebel against Him. It also states that the only way to change this is if God allows you to.

^^ True, but the latter half of your statement should be against Total Depravity and not Unconditional Election.

Under this statement, the only reason I sin is because God allows it. This belief system ensures us that all the evil in the world is only because He allows it.

Can anything happen without God having a decision in it? If God is sovereign then the answer would be no, nothing can happen without God having a choice in the matter. If man freely chose's to do evil and God is sovereign it is because God allowed such a person to do so =/= God making that person do so.

Every human is born full of trouble, to this I agree. But I do not believe I remain in this sin because God chose to with hold Mercy that He could freely give me without my accepting it. If I didn't have the free will to accept or reject this mercy then I didn't do anything but say I do when given the cue.

Actually, Calvinism does not teach that we do not have the free will to reject Gods mercy. It teaches that we do of our own free will reject Gods mercy.

It goes even further when we look at God allowing evil to be in this world. How is He glorifying Himself by allowing suffering to fall upon Job? If Job was only following God because God gave him the ability then Job didn't really do anything. Let's say the plagues were to show Egyptians the power of God. Why? If the Egyptians can't do anything but rebel against God it would be for nothing. They wouldn't be able to see the greatness of God if they are not capable of chosing Him. And if He gave them Mercy and allowed them to accept Him than the plagues wouldn't be needed in the first place.

For God to give Job the capacity to glorify Him it is Job doing the glorification, enabled by God. This however would move more closely into whether or not Sanctification is monergistic or synergistic.

I can only quote from Romans: What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory—even

God glorifies Himself by displaying His glory to the vessels of mercy which He prepared before hand. God does this in many ways. However, in Romans 9 He says that one way He does this is by showing His power, and patience with the vessels of wrath so that the vessels or mercy may know Him and glorify Him.

All the times Israel rebelled and were banished are nothing at all. If they were predetermined then it shows no more then God playing with His followers for His own amusement. If the heathens can not do anything but rebel then showing them Gods power it pointless. When

I can see you ran out of space. To say that man cannot do what is required of him is not to remove mans responsibility. Mans will is often thought that it cannot do good by means of lacking ability, instead Calvinism teaches that mans will is so wicked that the issue is not ability but instead it will not choose good yet it does have the ability. I do not see Gods desire to save the elect and pass over the reprobate as 'playing with His followers'.
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2012 9:14:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I don't think you are understanding what I am saying.

Let's say I had a pack of dogs that only believed or knew that they could only move in a five foot area and all it took was for me to show mercy and tell the dogs they can move outside of that area, I will be the cause. If I have the ability to change something but don't then I am responsible,in this situation.

The dogs will only be able to defecate in that one area. It would be cruel for me to punish these dogs for doing the only thing they can do.

Again, under Calvinism we are objects.

Imagine we have a piece of steel. When I get this steel rod I place it in a smelting pot. It begins to melt and be destroyed. The steel rod is absolutely incapable of escaping that pot on it's own. The only thing that can save it if the forger pulls it out. If the steel is destroyed it is the forger that destroyed it.

I'm not talking about suffering or dying. Each of these is temporal. I'm talking about eternal damnation.
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2012 9:58:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/27/2012 4:05:01 PM, joneszj wrote:

Calvinists do not believe the first 'you' is in reference to God. We take it as Joseph speaking to his brothers.

It doesn't matter what Calvinists believe it, it is what is implied.

Calvinists do NOT teach the first you was in reference to God! The rest of your comment is you attacking somehing that is NOT Calvinism.

Then please explain how the brother meant it to be evil if they can't chose any other way.

As for the part where and after you say "Taking this deeper it turns out" Y=you continue to attack Calvinism with docrnes and teachings that are NOT Calvinism. Specificaly where you say: "I don't do certain things because of my Faith in God, I do them because God makes me. A murder doesn't murder because he rebels against God, he murders because God makes him." you are attackng something that sounds much more like hyper Calvinism then Calvinism.

Hyper Calvinism simply comes out and admits their true doctrines, where Calvinism tries to hide the truth behind a wild goose chase.

Your whole comment here is not Calvinism. Calvinism does not teach that men are robots, or (especially) that God makes the decisions of man that are evil! INSTEAD Calvinism teaches that man has a will that is free only to sin.

If it free only to sin then it is not free at all. If it is not free it is controlled.

When man does good it is because God wills it in man.

If God is able to will every man to do only good but doesn't then He is responsible for any sin that proceeds.

making this and flipping it to say that God wills both the good and evil in man 1) makes God the author of evil and 2) would make men 'robots'. But that is simply not Calvinism rendering your argument a straw man.

You said Calvinism teaches that men will only sin with God willing them to do good. And I explained how He is responsible for any sin that is caused by not willing all men to do good.

If TULIP is true Jesus didn't even matter, the elect would be elected and the damned would be damned. Writing Jesus into the script was another event that turned a dull part in the book into a page turner.

Excuse me? Jesus is the central person in any Christian theology.

And?

The elect are the elect because God chose them to be. The Damned are the damned because they chose to be.

Wait a minute? You just totally flip floped here. Above you said men can nothing but sin unless God wills it. If God doesn't will them to then they will sin regardless if they want to or not. Calvinism removes the will to decide.

The difference in Calvinism and Hyper-Calvinism is not in predestining but in HOW God predestines. Hyper Calvinism teaches that just as God "actively intervenes" to save the elect He also "actively intervenes" to prevent the reprobate from saving faith. This is NOT Calvinism. Calvinsism teaches that God "actively intervenes" to save the elect and "passively choses" to not interfere with the reprobates "free choice" to reject God. There is a major difference there and you are confusing the two :(

If doing good is not an ability without God then there is no "free choice" to reject God. It's automatic.

TULIP undermines, if not destroys, every concept Jesus tried to teach us 2000 years ago.

With your straw man attack yes it would.

It is not a straw man. But no this statement I made is wasted due to this response. So I will re post it.

TULIP undermines, if not destroys, every concept Jesus tried to teach us 2000 years ago.

Jesus taught to have faith and hope. Both of these are destroyed if I can't decide if I want to or not. Faith is meaningless and so is Hope.


Calvinism is quite possible the worst proponent of POE. Not only does it accept it but it confirms that there is no problem with evil, evil is intended and handed out by God for no other reason then to amuse Himself.

Where is it taught anywhere in Calvinism that evil is not a problem? Get your theology straight please.

Calvinism doesn't have to teach it, it is in the doctrine. You may not see it but it is there. If God can but will every man to do good and doesn't then He is responsible for all sin.

This is where John 3:16 comes into play. But we are still dealing with that at the moment.

But, by using your reasoning then God should always save His "elect"? You stated you would save a loved on over a stranger, is this also true for God?

Yes, perhaps I can demonstrate this in Romans 9? Before either Jacob or Esau could commit good or bad God says He "Jacob I loved, Esau I hated." 15-18 ""I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills."

That has nothing to do with what I asked you. If you love your loved ones then you would not destroy them for something the couldn't control. In John 3:16 it plainly states that God loves the world. Now, would you punish your loved ones for doing something they could not control?

Going back to Esu and Jacob. Let's say I know each and every person for all time, before they are even born. Let's say I knew Hitler would be born and the things he would chose to do. I could hate him and love the people that stopped him. There is nothing that would require me to decide if Hitler would do that or not.

The heart of Pharaoh was hardened by his own free will. He chose to rebel against God because he saw himself as a god. Every time he refused God his people were punished, instead of yielding the Pharaohs heart was hardened by God. The only thing God caused was showing Pharaoh that he could not win. And this enraged the Pharaoh and it caused his heart to become hard.

How could this possibly be reconciled with free will? Arminians have to go against the "natural reading of the passage" using presuppositions.

How is that?

So the the shirts should say "God, might Love you. If you are apart of His chosen"?
But in reality not even the elect know if they are the elect, not that it even matters anyway.

Exactly, if Calvinism is true it doesn't matter. God's only glory would be that He can control all of us like puppets. Not that He is such a great God that people love Him even in bad times. They would love Him because He willed them too. Other would rebel because He allowed them to remain in their sin because they have no free will to chose otherwise.

I have been presented with this question in the past. What you are really asking is: how can anyone prove they are the elect? For Arminians are poised with the same question. Calvinists would say as Arminians would that they are the elect because they believe. All theologies believe in election, the means is the only thing that is different.

I don't know about Armenians, I'm Catholic. But we were saved, being saved and will be saved.

How do you now you are among the "elect"?

How would any Christian answer this? Because they believe! It is the same whether you are Arminian or Calvinist.

There are no "elect" in Catholicism as there is in Calvinism. We depend on the Grace and Mercy of God to help us in our way, and it requires a response and following His way.

God does not cause anyone to sin. Jesus is not a two faced liar :( Unfortunatly you have a complete misunderstanding of what Calvinism is)

Please explain it. If God can will every man to do only good but does not then He is the source and cause of all sin.

I look forward to your reply.

I hope you get to learn a bit more about my theology and not simply jump to conclussions it has faught to destroy.

I'm
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2012 10:07:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Deut 30

11 Now what I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach. 12 It is not up in heaven, so that you have to ask, "Who will ascend into heaven to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?" 13 Nor is it beyond the sea, so that you have to ask, "Who will cross the sea to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?" 14 No, the word is very near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart so you may obey it.
15 See, I set before you today life and prosperity, death and destruction. 16 For I command you today to love the LORD your God, to walk in obedience to him, and to keep his commands, decrees and laws; then you will live and increase, and the LORD your God will bless you in the land you are entering to possess.

17 But if your heart turns away and you are not obedient, and if you are drawn away to bow down to other gods and worship them, 18 I declare to you this day that you will certainly be destroyed. You will not live long in the land you are crossing the Jordan to enter and possess.

19 This day I call the heavens and the earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live 20 and that you may love the LORD your God, listen to his voice, and hold fast to him. For the LORD is your life, and he will give you many years in the land he swore to give to your fathers, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2012 10:11:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Joshua 24
14 "Now fear the LORD and serve him with all faithfulness. Throw away the gods your ancestors worshiped beyond the Euphrates River and in Egypt, and serve the LORD. 15 But if serving the LORD seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your ancestors served beyond the Euphrates, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you are living. But as for me and my household, we will serve the LORD."

22 Then Joshua said, "You are witnesses against yourselves that you have chosen to serve the LORD."

"Yes, we are witnesses," they replied.

23 "Now then," said Joshua, "throw away the foreign gods that are among you and yield your hearts to the LORD, the God of Israel."

24 And the people said to Joshua, "We will serve the LORD our God and obey him."

25 On that day Joshua made a covenant for the people, and there at Shechem he reaffirmed for them decrees and laws. 26 And Joshua recorded these things in the Book of the Law of God. Then he took a large stone and set it up there under the oak near the holy place of the LORD.

27 "See!" he said to all the people. "This stone will be a witness against us. It has heard all the words the LORD has said to us. It will be a witness against you if you are untrue to your God."

28 Then Joshua dismissed the people, each to their own inheritance.
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
joneszj
Posts: 1,202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2012 1:56:30 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I am glad you can provide some verses to support what you believe. But lets get one thing understood. Calvinism does not teach that man does not have the ability to choose. Instead that our ability to choose is tainted with sin and as a result we freely choose what we desire, namely sin.

Duet 30:19 God declares to choose life. This is not any different from any other command God gives. He demands we choose what is morally right. God demanding from us =/= us having the capacity to fulfill the demand. To say otherwise is to flat out ignore many verses that say we cannot for example:
Romans 8:7
7 For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot.

In context Paul defines two kinds of people: those who's minds are set on the flesh, and those who's minds are set on the Spirit. Obviously, those who's mind is set on the flesh are not Christians and those who's mind is set on the Spirit are. So from this we can logically determine that 1) non-Christians cannot choose life (submit to Gods law), and 2) only Christians can choose life (submit to Gods law).

Also, God demanding that anyone choose life does not necessitate that they can/will. It can be interpreted from the text but not determined. Instead the verse should be interpreted with what the rest of scripture says about human ability to choose: "Man's heart is "deceitful and desperately wicked" (Jeremiah 17:9), and the thoughts of his heart are "continually evil" (Genesis 6:5). The Bible also teaches us that man is born dead in transgression and sin (Psalm 51:5, Psalm 58:3, Ephesians 2:1-5). The Bible teaches that because unregenerate man is "dead in transgressions" (Ephesians 2:5), he is held captive by a love for sin (John 3:19; John 8:34) so that he will not seek God (Romans 3:10-11) because he loves the darkness (John 3:19) and does not understand the things of God (1 Corinthians 2:14). Therefore, men suppress the truth of God in unrighteousness (Romans 1:18) and continue to willfully live in sin. Because they are totally depraved, this sinful lifestyle seems right to men (Proverbs 14:12) so they reject the gospel of Christ as foolishness (1 Corinthians 1:18) and their mind is "hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is unable to do so" (Romans 8:7). " http://www.gotquestions.org...

Lets examine Joshua 24:22, here we see that Israel chose to serve God. This would seem contrary to the teaching of Total Depravity, no? Logically if anyone does submit to the law of God it must be that their minds are set on the things of the Spirit (Romans 8:1-7). How can one attain a mind that is set on the Spirit? If you say by will, that would conflict with many parts of scripture for example Romans 9:16 "So then it (those who receive mercy) depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.", or Romans 8:7, or the verses listed above. If you say God, then you would be in agreement with many verses for example: John 1:12-13, Romans 9:16, etc. also known as regeneration.

It is to my understanding that Calvinists have the doctrine of Regeneration which is 'specific' and 'effectual' to the individual leading unto salvation (http://en.wikipedia.org... Article 'Objections to the doctrine'). Arminians, recognizing the truth of Original sin and its mark on human nature have the Doctrine of Prevenient Grace which is 'universal' and 'effectual' only to the point of removing the 'scar' of the fall that was left on humanity's will.

Everyone believe's that the fall left humanity's will broken in sin . Arminians and Calvinists both agree on this (http://en.wikipedia.org... Article 'Objections to Total Depravity' P3). The difference is how God remedy's it, not over Total Depravity. What verses are their for Prevenient Grace? It is here where Arminianism "reads into" (@ my buddy Gil) scripture:

"But the biggest problem with Arminian "prevenient grace" is that there is no clear Biblical support for it. Not once does Scripture speak of prevenient grace that "enables" salvation without also assuring salvation. The doctrine seems nice to Arminians, but can be found nowhere in the Bible." http://www.biblelighthouse.com...
joneszj
Posts: 1,202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2012 2:12:14 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/27/2012 9:14:44 PM, jharry wrote:
I don't think you are understanding what I am saying.

Let's say I had a pack of dogs that only believed or knew that they could only move in a five foot area and all it took was for me to show mercy and tell the dogs they can move outside of that area, I will be the cause. If I have the ability to change something but don't then I am responsible,in this situation.

You would be the cause for letting them know they can move outside the 5 foot area. In that situation you would be responsible as the determining factor whether or not they move beyond the 5' area is monergistic and is squarely on you. But this is not the situation God is 'in' under Calvinism (below).

The dogs will only be able to defecate in that one area. It would be cruel for me to punish these dogs for doing the only thing they can do.

It would be cruel for dogs as in the context they are undeserving. But in the Biblical context man is not undeserving of wrath dogs. God can and clearly states that He has mercy on whom He has mercy. God passing over the reprobate is no cruel, it is just. God giving mercy to those He chooses is mercy (non-justice). He has every right to do so.

Again, under Calvinism we are objects.

Under Calvinism we are sinners. Completely deserving wrath, and completely undeserving of mercy.

Imagine we have a piece of steel. When I get this steel rod I place it in a smelting pot. It begins to melt and be destroyed. The steel rod is absolutely incapable of escaping that pot on it's own. The only thing that can save it if the forger pulls it out. If the steel is destroyed it is the forger that destroyed it.

Humans are not a piece of steel. We are in the position we are in because we freely choose to be. We were not "placed" in it by some cosmic blacksmith! Point being: your argument is against Hyper-Calvinism and not Calvinism.

I'm not talking about suffering or dying. Each of these is temporal. I'm talking about eternal damnation.

Why revert to your philosophical understanding of love and fairness? I am swayed only by scripture, not emotion. Your objections to Calvinism at least in this post are purely emotional.
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2012 2:35:52 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/28/2012 1:56:30 AM, joneszj wrote:
I am glad you can provide some verses to support what you believe. But lets get one thing understood. Calvinism does not teach that man does not have the ability to choose. Instead that our ability to choose is tainted with sin and as a result we freely choose what we desire, namely sin.

If it is tainted and we have no way out of it then there is NO freedom. If God can remove this tainting at will and does not then He is just as accountable for our sins as we are. Bottom line.

Duet 30:19 God declares to choose life. This is not any different from any other command God gives. He demands we choose what is morally right. God demanding from us =/= us having the capacity to fulfill the demand. To say otherwise is to flat out ignore many verses that say we cannot for example:

Seriously? He commands something He knows we can not do? That is cruel and unjust.
Romans 8:7

And here is the rest of that verse.
9 You, however, are not in the realm of the flesh but are in the realm of the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, they do not belong to Christ. 10 But if Christ is in you, then even though your body is subject to death because of sin, the Spirit gives life[d] because of righteousness.
7 For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot.

And how do we live in the spirit?
1 Peter 3 21
21 and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God.[e] It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

That has a choice written all over it.

In context Paul defines two kinds of people: those who's minds are set on the flesh, and those who's minds are set on the Spirit. Obviously, those who's mind is set on the flesh are not Christians and those who's mind is set on the Spirit are. So from this we can logically determine that 1) non-Christians cannot choose life (submit to Gods law), and 2) only Christians can choose life (submit to Gods law).

I already covered this.

Also, God demanding that anyone choose life does not necessitate that they can/will. It can be interpreted from the text but not determined. Instead the verse should be interpreted with what the rest of scripture says about human ability to choose: "Man's heart is "deceitful and desperately wicked" (Jeremiah 17:9), and the thoughts of his heart are "continually evil" (Genesis 6:5). The Bible also teaches us that man is born dead in transgression and sin (Psalm 51:5, Psalm 58:3, Ephesians 2:1-5). The Bible teaches that because unregenerate man is "dead in transgressions" (Ephesians 2:5), he is held captive by a love for sin (John 3:19; John 8:34) so that he will not seek God (Romans 3:10-11) because he loves the darkness (John 3:19) and does not understand the things of God (1 Corinthians 2:14). Therefore, men suppress the truth of God in unrighteousness (Romans 1:18) and continue to willfully live in sin. Because they are totally depraved, this sinful lifestyle seems right to men (Proverbs 14:12) so they reject the gospel of Christ as foolishness (1 Corinthians 1:18) and their mind is "hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is unable to do so" (Romans 8:7). " http://www.gotquestions.org...

You copy paste from some sight? You did this in the other thread too. This is why this becomes so difficult, you spread the same verses for all topics. All the verses can be brought into line with Free Will and a loving God. To support Calvinism they are taken out of context and left to stand alone and you refuse to allow any verse to challenge them.

Lets examine Joshua 24:22, here we see that Israel chose to serve God. This would seem contrary to the teaching of Total Depravity, no? Logically if anyone does submit to the law of God it must be that their minds are set on the things of the Spirit (Romans 8:1-7). How can one attain a mind that is set on the Spirit? If you say by will, that would conflict with many parts of scripture for example Romans 9:16 "So then it (those who receive mercy) depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.", or Romans 8:7, or the verses listed above. If you say God, then you would be in agreement with many verses for example: John 1:12-13, Romans 9:16, etc. also known as regeneration.

That still does not negate Free Will in any way. Every example simply shows that God will use us against ourselves. God was not unjust in electing one son over the other. God knew before they were born which would serve Him faithfully and who would not. God did not cause Esu to be as he was, Esu was who he was because Esu chose to be that way.

It is to my understanding that Calvinists have the doctrine of Regeneration which is 'specific' and 'effectual' to the individual leading unto salvation (http://en.wikipedia.org... Article 'Objections to the doctrine'). Arminians, recognizing the truth of Original sin and its mark on human nature have the Doctrine of Prevenient Grace which is 'universal' and 'effectual' only to the point of removing the 'scar' of the fall that was left on humanity's will.

Again, I'm not Arminian. I'm Catholic.

Everyone believe's that the fall left humanity's will broken in sin . Arminians and Calvinists both agree on this (http://en.wikipedia.org... Article 'Objections to Total Depravity' P3). The difference is how God remedy's it, not over Total Depravity. What verses are their for Prevenient Grace? It is here where Arminianism "reads into" (@ my buddy Gil) scripture:

"But the biggest problem with Arminian "prevenient grace" is that there is no clear Biblical support for it. Not once does Scripture speak of prevenient grace that "enables" salvation without also assuring salvation. The doctrine seems nice to Arminians, but can be found nowhere in the Bible." http://www.biblelighthouse.com...

John 3:16. God loved the world enough to give up His son for it. He wills all men to be saved. Under Calvinism both of these verses are flat out lies.

I have asked you many questions. I have given you many examples of what you claim call truth. You have not address any of them. You have simply thrown out of context verses, half verses and links at this discussion.

I think your understanding of Scriptures are tainted. AS Gil has told you, Calvin complied verses after first setting up the Scriptures as the only rule of faith. The Scriptures are not what you think they are. The Epistles are simply that, letters. If you were telling some one about Calvinism in a couple of letters to a friend but you only covered LIP would people a thousand years from no be able to disregard T and U because they were not included in Scripture? If someone only asked you about LIP would you send them everything, and remember paper is worth more then gold att hat time. And it was fragile and not accepted as Canon, there were no Bibles at that time. Your letters would be just that, letters.

If your doctrine do not line up with truth then they fall. If God loved the enough to give up His Son but only saves a few in the world ONLY because He doesn't want then you make Him out to be a liar. And that is exactly what Calvinism does.
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
joneszj
Posts: 1,202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2012 2:51:35 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Calvinists do not believe the first 'you' is in reference to God. We take it as Joseph speaking to his brothers.

It doesn't matter what Calvinists believe it, it is what is implied.

Excuse me? That is a complete admission of ignorance. Your attacking Calvinism calling it Hyper-Calvinism.

Calvinists do NOT teach the first you was in reference to God! The rest of your comment is you attacking somehing that is NOT Calvinism.

Then please explain how the brother meant it to be evil if they can't chose any other way.

Because: they had the capacity to chose good but they willing chose what THEY desired. Why did they desire to chose such? Total Depravity. This does NOT place the responsibility of their sin on God.

As for the part where and after you say "Taking this deeper it turns out" Y=you continue to attack Calvinism with docrnes and teachings that are NOT Calvinism. Specificaly where you say: "I don't do certain things because of my Faith in God, I do them because God makes me. A murder doesn't murder because he rebels against God, he murders because God makes him." you are attackng something that sounds much more like hyper Calvinism then Calvinism.

Hyper Calvinism simply comes out and admits their true doctrines, where Calvinism tries to hide the truth behind a wild goose chase.

Wow... I see no point in continuing to discussion this if you are unwilling to at least understand Calvinism.

Your whole comment here is not Calvinism. Calvinism does not teach that men are robots, or (especially) that God makes the decisions of man that are evil! INSTEAD Calvinism teaches that man has a will that is free only to sin.

If it free only to sin then it is not free at all. If it is not free it is controlled.

Free will is what? The ability to chose what one desires. Would you disagree with this? Total Depravity does not limit ones will but instead determines ones desires. Meaning that man has a will that is free to carry out the desires of his heart. What does the bible say about the heart (rhetorical)?

When man does good it is because God wills it in man.

If God is able to will every man to do only good but doesn't then He is responsible for any sin that proceeds.

Responsible in what way? Morally, or determination? God determines (ordains) ALL things. Do you disagree with this? If not, either your god is not omniscient and/or omnipotent. Because man freely chooses to sin and God determines or sets sure that the choice is made does NOT make God the author of it.

making this and flipping it to say that God wills both the good and evil in man 1) makes God the author of evil and 2) would make men 'robots'. But that is simply not Calvinism rendering your argument a straw man.

You said Calvinism teaches that men will only sin with God willing them to do good. And I explained how He is responsible for any sin that is caused by not willing all men to do good.

And your explanation is faulty. (Above, and in another post)

If TULIP is true Jesus didn't even matter, the elect would be elected and the damned would be damned. Writing Jesus into the script was another event that turned a dull part in the book into a page turner.

Excuse me? Jesus is the central person in any Christian theology.

And?

I am getting the impression you are way too emotionally engaged on the topic to really discuss it maturely.

The elect are the elect because God chose them to be. The Damned are the damned because they chose to be.

Wait a minute? You just totally flip floped here. Above you said men can nothing but sin unless God wills it. If God doesn't will them to then they will sin regardless if they want to or not. Calvinism removes the will to decide.

I never flip flopped Jharry. I have said over and over that what you are saying is Calvinism is actually Hyper-Calvinism. Calvinism does not remove the will to decide, it determines the desire of will.

The difference in Calvinism and Hyper-Calvinism is not in predestining but in HOW God predestines. Hyper Calvinism teaches that just as God "actively intervenes" to save the elect He also "actively intervenes" to prevent the reprobate from saving faith. This is NOT Calvinism. Calvinsism teaches that God "actively intervenes" to save the elect and "passively choses" to not interfere with the reprobates "free choice" to reject God. There is a major difference there and you are confusing the two :(

If doing good is not an ability without God then there is no "free choice" to reject God. It's automatic.

Define free choice... We see it as being able to chose what you desire. Therefor, rejecting God is a free choice because it is what is desired after the fall.

TULIP undermines, if not destroys, every concept Jesus tried to teach us 2000 years ago.

With your straw man attack yes it would.

It is not a straw man. But no this statement I made is wasted due to this response. So I will re post it.

TULIP undermines, if not destroys, every concept Jesus tried to teach us 2000 years ago.

It is a straw man because you are arguing against Hyper-Calvinism while calling it Calvinism.

Jesus taught to have faith and hope. Both of these are destroyed if I can't decide if I want to or not. Faith is meaningless and so is Hope.

You can decide what you want. In fact, you do. That is what a free choice is. Calvinism specifically Total Depravity excluding any form of prevenient grace does not remove the will to chose. It determines the desires made at the moment of decision. Making it a completely free choice. Examine this article: http://www.ligonier.org...

Calvinism is quite possible the worst proponent of POE. Not only does it accept it but it confirms that there is no problem with evil, evil is intended and handed out by God for no other reason then to amuse Himself.

Where is it taught anywhere in Calvinism that evil is not a problem? Get your theology straight please.

Calvinism doesn't have to teach it, it is in the doctrine. You may not see it but it is there. If God can but will every man to do good and doesn't then He is responsible for all sin.

Doctrine = Teaching. If it is not taught it is not doctrine. Your logic has a false premise. If you don't get it by now I don't think you will by me repeating it over and over.

This is where John 3:16 comes into play. But we are still dealing with that at the moment.

(sigh, continued)
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2012 3:02:52 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/28/2012 2:12:14 AM, joneszj wrote:
At 1/27/2012 9:14:44 PM, jharry wrote:
I don't think you are understanding what I am saying.

Let's say I had a pack of dogs that only believed or knew that they could only move in a five foot area and all it took was for me to show mercy and tell the dogs they can move outside of that area, I will be the cause. If I have the ability to change something but don't then I am responsible,in this situation.

You would be the cause for letting them know they can move outside the 5 foot area. In that situation you would be responsible as the determining factor whether or not they move beyond the 5' area is monergistic and is squarely on you. But this is not the situation God is 'in' under Calvinism (below).

The dogs will only be able to defecate in that one area. It would be cruel for me to punish these dogs for doing the only thing they can do.

It would be cruel for dogs as in the context they are undeserving. But in the Biblical context man is not undeserving of wrath dogs. God can and clearly states that He has mercy on whom He has mercy. God passing over the reprobate is no cruel, it is just. God giving mercy to those He chooses is mercy (non-justice). He has every right to do so.

The only reason man deserves his punishment is because he chooses to rebel. If the dogs can only defecate in the circle because I only allow them to then it is my fault that they defected there. If can can simply allow me to leave the area of sin as the dogs could then I would not deserve the punishment.

How is that just. God says He is Just. If I will not allow those dogs to leave the area and then punish them for breaking a commandment then I am unjust. Calvinism makes God out to be a liar.

Again, under Calvinism we are objects.

Under Calvinism we are sinners. Completely deserving wrath, and completely undeserving of mercy.

But He loves us and wants us to be saved. Under Calvinism the only thing holding us back from what He wants is God. We are sinners and we do deserve wrath, but not because God doesn't allow us the free gift of salvation, it is because we chose to rebel against the free, gracious and undeserved gift.

If I allowed the dogs to leave their state (the area, or for us our sinfull state) and then the dog went on to defecate in the area I made off limits then they would deserve the punishment. That would be just. God has shown man what He wants from Adam to Jesus.


Imagine we have a piece of steel. When I get this steel rod I place it in a smelting pot. It begins to melt and be destroyed. The steel rod is absolutely incapable of escaping that pot on it's own. The only thing that can save it if the forger pulls it out. If the steel is destroyed it is the forger that destroyed it.

Humans are not a piece of steel. We are in the position we are in because we freely choose to be. We were not "placed" in it by some cosmic blacksmith! Point being: your argument is against Hyper-Calvinism and not Calvinism.

If God can will us to sin no more and He doesn't then He has chosen our state of being for us. We can not choose it if there is no free will to do otherwise. In the example of the dogs you agreed that I would be unjust if I did not make it possible for the dogs to leave the area if I could. Under Calvinism God does make it possible for some to leave the area but not others. This shows that He CAN AND DOES allow some to leave the area, he would be unjust if He doesn't make this option free to everyone at the same level.

I'm not talking about suffering or dying. Each of these is temporal. I'm talking about eternal damnation.

Why revert to your philosophical understanding of love and fairness? I am swayed only by scripture, not emotion. Your objections to Calvinism at least in this post are purely emotional.

There was no emotion in my last sentence. Calvinism makes God out to be unjust, something the Scriptures says He is not. And again, you seem to have a poor understanding of Scriptures and what they are. The way you regurgitate verses over and over leads me to believe your only knowledge is in the verses you have been handed when you accepted that God is a liar.

I see no injustice in God allowing me to suffer and even die if it brings Him glory. But part of His Glory is in His righteous Justice. But to allow a man (a man that is loved by God according to Scriptures) to suffer eternal damnation only because he was not called to Jesus is not justice. Not only is it not justice but it turns everything into nothing. It destroys faith and love on every level.

Jesus spoke many parables about forgiveness and mercy. God will judge us according to the mercy we show our brother. If we do not show mercy we will not receive mercy, this is just and true. But to not show mercy when you can is nt and you will be punished for it. Jesus also spoke about removing a plank so you can see clearly enough to remove a speck from your brothers eye.

Jesus has no plank or speck. That is what makes Him the only ONE that can justly judge us. He showed mercy even when mercy was not given onto Him. But you want me to accept that He will not show mercy only because He chooses not to?

I do believe that God will not call a man to Jesus that He knows will never submit himself to Our Lord, but it is ONLY because God has the knowledge that this man will reject the Good News on his own accord. NOT because God decided to without Mercy. It is not Scriptural.

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2012 3:24:37 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/28/2012 2:51:35 AM, joneszj wrote:
Calvinists do not believe the first 'you' is in reference to God. We take it as Joseph speaking to his brothers.

It doesn't matter what Calvinists believe it, it is what is implied.

Excuse me? That is a complete admission of ignorance. Your attacking Calvinism calling it Hyper-Calvinism.

I have used your own words many times to show the errors in your doctrine. Claiming that I do not understand Calvinism will not work.

Calvinists do NOT teach the first you was in reference to God! The rest of your comment is you attacking somehing that is NOT Calvinism.

Then please explain how the brother meant it to be evil if they can't chose any other way.

Because: they had the capacity to chose good but they willing chose what THEY desired. Why did they desire to chose such? Total Depravity. This does NOT place the responsibility of their sin on God.

If the only thing that keeps them in total depravity is God then yes, He is responsible. You claim that being called is irresistible, if it is then God not choosing to call all men puts the blame on Him. They are only in total depravity because God wills them to be there.

Hyper Calvinism simply comes out and admits their true doctrines, where Calvinism tries to hide the truth behind a wild goose chase.

Wow... I see no point in continuing to discussion this if you are unwilling to at least understand Calvinism.

You are the one that has been explaining it to me. I can't read the comments of a link and understand it. That requires questions and answers. You are in charge of explaining the links and what is in them.

If it free only to sin then it is not free at all. If it is not free it is controlled.

Free will is what? The ability to chose what one desires. Would you disagree with this? Total Depravity does not limit ones will but instead determines ones desires. Meaning that man has a will that is free to carry out the desires of his heart. What does the bible say about the heart (rhetorical)?

If the only thing that determines what is in the heart is God then He is responsible for us being there. If He can call one then He can call us all, if it truly is irresistible.

When man does good it is because God wills it in man.

If God is able to will every man to do only good but doesn't then He is responsible for any sin that proceeds.

Responsible in what way? Morally, or determination? God determines (ordains) ALL things. Do you disagree with this? If not, either your god is not omniscient and/or omnipotent. Because man freely chooses to sin and God determines or sets sure that the choice is made does NOT make God the author of it.

If a man freely chooses to sin then He is responsible. If God does not make a way for us to truly chose then He is held responsible. God will not the son responsible for the sins of the father, every man is completely free to make his own way.



You said Calvinism teaches that men will only sin with God willing them to do good. And I explained how He is responsible for any sin that is caused by not willing all men to do good.

And your explanation is faulty. (Above, and in another post)

I replied to that already, so as of now my statement stands.

If TULIP is true Jesus didn't even matter, the elect would be elected and the damned would be damned. Writing Jesus into the script was another event that turned a dull part in the book into a page turner.

Excuse me? Jesus is the central person in any Christian theology.

And?

I am getting the impression you are way too emotionally engaged on the topic to really discuss it maturely.

That is only dodging the statement. If God can at any time call a person to Him and this person has no choice but to follow then He could have done this since Adam and there would be no need for Jesus. If He only does it for His glory then He really isn't showing Glory. The people that Glorify Him have no choice, and the people that rebel also have no choice. King David was told that He would not be damned after he chose to confess his sins. This was before Jesus. Jesus made it possible for David to finally and truly SEE God when He went into Hades. You make God out to be a narcissistic God.

The elect are the elect because God chose them to be. The Damned are the damned because they chose to be.

Wait a minute? You just totally flip floped here. Above you said men can nothing but sin unless God wills it. If God doesn't will them to then they will sin regardless if they want to or not. Calvinism removes the will to decide.

I never flip flopped Jharry. I have said over and over that what you are saying is Calvinism is actually Hyper-Calvinism. Calvinism does not remove the will to decide, it determines the desire of will.

Can a man that has not been called by God do anything but sin?

The difference in Calvinism and Hyper-Calvinism is not in predestining but in HOW God predestines. Hyper Calvinism teaches that just as God "actively intervenes" to save the elect He also "actively intervenes" to prevent the reprobate from saving faith. This is NOT Calvinism. Calvinsism teaches that God "actively intervenes" to save the elect and "passively choses" to not interfere with the reprobates "free choice" to reject God. There is a major difference there and you are confusing the two :(

If doing good is not an ability without God then there is no "free choice" to reject God. It's automatic.

Define free choice... We see it as being able to chose what you desire. Therefor, rejecting God is a free choice because it is what is desired after the fall.

Unless God calls you to do other wise?

TULIP undermines, if not destroys, every concept Jesus tried to teach us 2000 years ago.

With your straw man attack yes it would.

It is not a straw man. But no this statement I made is wasted due to this response. So I will re post it.

TULIP undermines, if not destroys, every concept Jesus tried to teach us 2000 years ago.

It is a straw man because you are arguing against Hyper-Calvinism while calling it Calvinism.

No I am not. Again, Hyper Calvinism does not hide what it truly beleived. Unlike Calvinism.

Can a man that has not been called by God do anything but sin? If God chooses to not intervene then God chooses to allow this person to sin, not because the man chooses to sin by their own will. The choose to sin becasue God has chosen not to allow him to chose otherwise.

Jesus taught to have faith and hope. Both of these are destroyed if I can't decide if I want to or not. Faith is meaningless and so is Hope.

You can decide what you want. In fact, you do. That is what a free choice is. Calvinism specifically Total Depravity excluding any form of prevenient grace does not remove the will to chose. It determines the desires made at the moment of decision. Making it a completely free choice.

If it is determined then it is not free.

Calvinism doesn't have to teach it, it is in the doctrine. You may not see it but it is there. If God can but will every man to do good and doesn't then He is responsible for all sin.

Doctrine = Teaching. If it is not taught it is not doctrine. Your logic has a false premise. If you don't get it by now I don't think you will by me repeating it over and over.

Can a man do anything but sin unless he is called by God?
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
joneszj
Posts: 1,202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2012 3:33:23 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
This is where John 3:16 comes into play. But we are still dealing with that at the moment.

But, by using your reasoning then God should always save His "elect"? You stated you would save a loved on over a stranger, is this also true for God?

Yes, perhaps I can demonstrate this in Romans 9? Before either Jacob or Esau could commit good or bad God says He "Jacob I loved, Esau I hated." 15-18 ""I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills."

That has nothing to do with what I asked you. If you love your loved ones then you would not destroy them for something the couldn't control. In John 3:16 it plainly states that God loves the world. Now, would you punish your loved ones for doing something they could not control?

Sola scriptora friend. Its not that humanity (loved ones) can't control what they will but simply they don't want to. They desire to reject God. Oh wait. Your Catholic so that means that Mans will is not dead like it is mentioned in Eph 2, just wounded. If we can't discuss on the grounds of scripture alone we will simply have to agree to disagree.

Take the way you are using world and fit it into "Jacob I love, and Esau I hated". It does not fit. It does however fit in " from every nation, tribe, people and language" Rev 7:9 which fits with Limited Atonement.

Going back to Esu and Jacob. Let's say I know each and every person for all time, before they are even born. Let's say I knew Hitler would be born and the things he would chose to do. I could hate him and love the people that stopped him. There is nothing that would require me to decide if Hitler would do that or not.

This would be true but Paul specifies that God made this determination "before they were born having done nothing good or bad". Why would Paul say this if it were not meant to be that God made this decision regardless of how they would live their life? That is something I would like you to answer.

The heart of Pharaoh was hardened by his own free will. He chose to rebel against God because he saw himself as a god. Every time he refused God his people were punished, instead of yielding the Pharaohs heart was hardened by God. The only thing God caused was showing Pharaoh that he could not win. And this enraged the Pharaoh and it caused his heart to become hard.

How could this possibly be reconciled with free will? Arminians have to go against the "natural reading of the passage" using presuppositions.

How is that?

Romans 9:16 (So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.) is what I was specifically referring to. As for how you explain God hardening Pharaohs heart I completely agree but a natural reading of the text would not conclude that. I think a natural reading of the text would lead towards Hyper-Calvinism; it takes a sense of knowledge of the context of the whole Bible to explain "God hardened Pharaohs heart" in a manner that shows that all God had to do was remove any influence of Himself and Pharaoh would freely harden his own heart. This is exactly how Reformed theology would teach it.

So the the shirts should say "God, might Love you. If you are apart of His chosen"?
But in reality not even the elect know if they are the elect, not that it even matters anyway.

Exactly, if Calvinism is true it doesn't matter. God's only glory would be that He can control all of us like puppets. Not that He is such a great God that people love Him even in bad times. They would love Him because He willed them too. Other would rebel because He allowed them to remain in their sin because they have no free will to chose otherwise.

I have been presented with this question in the past. What you are really asking is: how can anyone prove they are the elect? For Arminians are poised with the same question. Calvinists would say as Arminians would that they are the elect because they believe. All theologies believe in election, the means is the only thing that is different.

I don't know about Armenians, I'm Catholic. But we were saved, being saved and will be saved.

How do you now you are among the "elect"?

How would any Christian answer this? Because they believe! It is the same whether you are Arminian or Calvinist.

There are no "elect" in Catholicism as there is in Calvinism. We depend on the Grace and Mercy of God to help us in our way, and it requires a response and following His way.

Yea, I get that.

God does not cause anyone to sin. Jesus is not a two faced liar :( Unfortunatly you have a complete misunderstanding of what Calvinism is)

Please explain it. If God can will every man to do only good but does not then He is the source and cause of all sin.

You present a false dichotomy, on a false premise attacking Hyper-Calvinism while declaring the to are equal when they are clearly not.

Alright last time. The difference between Calvinism and Hyper-Calvinism. They both determine that the will of man is dead in sin. How is it dead in sin? Its desire is for that of sin and sin alone. They both teach that God is sovereign above all things including the decisions of His creation. His creation freely makes choices based on the desires of their hearts. By sovereign we mean He has ordained all things. This is where Calvinism and hyper-Calvinism split. In Hyper Calvinism the usage of ordain is different from that of Calvinism. Calvinism is basically the theological equivalent of Compatibilism. There are Primary and Secondary causes for everything that happens. God, being sovereign over everything is the primary cause in the sense that He determined that what would happen, would happen. The decisions of His creation, would happen (determined to be so). There are what is called secondary causes. Secondary causes are where the will would fall under. The decisions of the creation. When Hyper-Calvinism uses the term ordain they are claiming that God Himself made/chose the primary and secondary causes which as you point out would make Him responsible. Calvinism teaches that God determined (not made/chose) the Primary cause, but not the secondary cause which leaves the responsibility on the creature.

I look forward to your
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2012 3:55:26 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/28/2012 3:33:23 AM, joneszj wrote:

Sola scriptora friend. Its not that humanity (loved ones) can't control what they will but simply they don't want to. They desire to reject God. Oh wait. Your Catholic so that means that Mans will is not dead like it is mentioned in Eph 2, just wounded. If we can't discuss on the grounds of scripture alone we will simply have to agree to disagree.

If God is the only reason they desire to reject Him then their will is not free. The Fall separated us from God, we no longer can walk with Him as Adam does. We fell from His direct presence, now we can only hope for that full connection again. The connection that Jesus made possible.

Take the way you are using world and fit it into "Jacob I love, and Esau I hated". It does not fit. It does however fit in " from every nation, tribe, people and language" Rev 7:9 which fits with Limited Atonement.

I addressed Jacob and Esua, you ignored it. God knew before Esau was born that he would rebel. He knew Jacob would not. God selected Jacob because he knew he would follow. You say it is because God called him, I say it is because Jacob chose to.

Rev. 7:9 has nothing to do with this. It just shows that all were allowed to see God because of what Jesus did on the Cross.

This would be true but Paul specifies that God made this determination "before they were born having done nothing good or bad". Why would Paul say this if it were not meant to be that God made this decision regardless of how they would live their life? That is something I would like you to answer.

God knew what they would do after they were born. God has this knowledge. Before they were born they were chosen, Jacob over his brother because Jacob would freely chose to follow where his brother would not.

How could this possibly be reconciled with free will? Arminians have to go against the "natural reading of the passage" using presuppositions.

How is that?

Romans 9:16 (So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.) is what I was specifically referring to. As for how you explain God hardening Pharaohs heart I completely agree but a natural reading of the text would not conclude that. I think a natural reading of the text would lead towards Hyper-Calvinism; it takes a sense of knowledge of the context of the whole Bible to explain "God hardened Pharaohs heart" in a manner that shows that all God had to do was remove any influence of Himself and Pharaoh would freely harden his own heart. This is exactly how Reformed theology would teach it.

Any one that thinks God hardened his heart without effecting his free will needs to pray and read A LOT more. The only reason Pharaoh rebelled is because he chose to, he had the free choice to accept but he did not. God knew the Pharaoh would rebel, he used his freely choice to rebellion was used to Glorify God. If God didn't allow the Pharaoh an opportunity to decide then there would be no glory in it.

Yea, I get that.

Yes it, is scriptural.

God does not cause anyone to sin. Jesus is not a two faced liar :( Unfortunatly you have a complete misunderstanding of what Calvinism is)

Please explain it. If God can will every man to do only good but does not then He is the source and cause of all sin.

You present a false dichotomy, on a false premise attacking Hyper-Calvinism while declaring the to are equal when they are clearly not.

Can God will every man to follow him? Is it irresistible?

Alright last time. The difference between Calvinism and Hyper-Calvinism. They both determine that the will of man is dead in sin. How is it dead in sin? Its desire is for that of sin and sin alone. They both teach that God is sovereign above all things including the decisions of His creation. His creation freely makes choices based on the desires of their hearts.

Can God makes the desires change? Without the man being able to chose?

By sovereign we mean He has ordained all things.

Can He ordain all men to follow Him? Regardless of their free will?

This is where Calvinism and hyper-Calvinism split. In Hyper Calvinism the usage of ordain is different from that of Calvinism. Calvinism is basically the theological equivalent of Compatibilism. There are Primary and Secondary causes for everything that happens. God, being sovereign over everything is the primary cause in the sense that He determined that what would happen, would happen. The decisions of His creation, would happen (determined to be so). There are what is called secondary causes. Secondary causes are where the will would fall under. The decisions of the creation. When Hyper-Calvinism uses the term ordain they are claiming that God Himself made/chose the primary and secondary causes which as you point out would make Him responsible. Calvinism teaches that God determined (not made/chose) the Primary cause, but not the secondary cause which leaves the responsibility on the creature.

What is the Primary cause? Give some examples and details on this cause.

Adams sons. Did able follow God because he chose to? Or did he follow God because God determined that he would?

Did Cain rebel because he chose to or did God ordain him to?

Can God will every man to follow Him? Is it irresistible?
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
joneszj
Posts: 1,202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2012 4:02:16 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
This discussion really is not going anywhere. The post is getting too large to manage. I keep saying your confusing Calvinism with Hyper-Calvinism and you say you are not. You say the verses I use cannot be interpreted as Calvinists interpret them, I say they do. You propose philosophical arguments on why Calvinism cannot be true and I quote verses that support that it is, and then you give another philosophical argument and then a verse that supports your philosophical argument. I have asked for scripture that supports belief in free will, you gave two. I explained how Calvinists would interpret them. Instead of providing a counter argument you simply state that a Calvinist God would be cruel and unjust. You say I have skipped questions, I do not know where. With respect, I will not continue this discussion. At least not in the format we are presently engaged.
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2012 4:09:13 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/28/2012 4:02:16 AM, joneszj wrote:
This discussion really is not going anywhere. The post is getting too large to manage. I keep saying your confusing Calvinism with Hyper-Calvinism and you say you are not. You say the verses I use cannot be interpreted as Calvinists interpret them, I say they do. You propose philosophical arguments on why Calvinism cannot be true and I quote verses that support that it is, and then you give another philosophical argument and then a verse that supports your philosophical argument. I have asked for scripture that supports belief in free will, you gave two. I explained how Calvinists would interpret them. Instead of providing a counter argument you simply state that a Calvinist God would be cruel and unjust. You say I have skipped questions, I do not know where. With respect, I will not continue this discussion. At least not in the format we are presently engaged.

Well then lets keep in simple then.

What is the Primary cause? Give some examples and details on this cause.

What is a secondary cause? Give some examples and details involving this cause.

Adams sons. Did able follow God because he chose to? Or did he follow God because God determined that he would?

Did Cain rebel because he chose to or did God ordain him to?

Can God will every man to follow Him? Is it irresistible?

Please feel free to delete you first paragraph to save space.
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2012 4:25:06 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/28/2012 3:33:23 AM, joneszj wrote:


There are no "elect" in Catholicism as there is in Calvinism. We depend on the Grace and Mercy of God to help us in our way, and it requires a response and following His way.

Yea, I get that.

Yes, it is scriptural.


I made a mistake and deleted a section of jones post. These posts are getting huge and Im having to delete a lot to keep going. This is what it was supposed to say.
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
joneszj
Posts: 1,202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2012 11:47:18 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Sorry guys my friends kidnapped me and held me at the fair all day yesterday. I really hate having to answer to 50 different questions and objections in 1 post as it can take hours to reply and that's hours I can't be doing other things. So I am going to make an attempt to compile the questions and objections you have made:

A. If God allows/ordains sin to occur then He is responsible as much as the creature is
B. Hyper-Calvinism really just reveals true teachings of Calvinism
C. If mans only choice is to sin then he is not acting on free will
D. Verses used by Calvinists cannot be understood as they are by Calvinists

I ask that if there are more point that you would list them in a response. I will comment on the points above once we agree that those are the points in question. From here I will respond to your previous post:

Well then lets keep in simple then.

What is the Primary cause? Give some examples and details on this cause.

Below

What is a secondary cause? Give some examples and details involving this cause.

Below

Adams sons. Did able follow God because he chose to? Or did he follow God because God determined that he would?

Below

Did Cain rebel because he chose to or did God ordain him to?

This would be a good place to show Primary and Secondary causation. When Calvinists say man does not have free will what we are saying is that we do not have free will as defined by Arminianism. In Arminianism Free Will is: is the ability of agents to make choices free from certain kinds of constraints. (http://en.wikipedia.org...). In Calvinism Free Will is: a freedom to act according to one's determined motives. (http://en.wikipedia.org...). So what we are saying is that man has a will that is free to act on it's desires. That is what can be considered the Secondary Cause, that is the decision of the creature. This cause is not forced on the creature as Hyper-Calvinism would say but instead is freely chosen and worked by the creature. When we say Primary cause we are saying that God determined that the secondary cause would happen. We do not mean by this that God forced the creature to commit the secondary cause but instead made it into reality. This is the only way a sovereign omni-God is compatible with free will.

Able:
Able submitted because he chose to (secondary cause). But, because of how Protestants (Calvinisms and Arminians) interpret the verses that give us the doctrine of Total Depravity, Able would not have had the desire to submit to God. So in order for Able to willingly submit to God God must do something. This is where Arminians as well as Catholics come to the doctrine of Prevenient Grace. Calvinists came to the doctrine of Regeneration. Unless God regenerated Able's heart (Special Grace), a Primary Cause Able would never had willingly chosen to submit. Able willingly submitted to God because God changed the desires of Able's heart.

Cain:
Cain rebelled because he chose to (secondary cause). God did not force him to rebel. God made Cains choice a reality (primary cause).

Can God will every man to follow Him? Is it irresistible?

Yes, God could will that every man follow Him. Is it irresistible? Depends, God has what is known as Common grace and Special grace. Common is resistible, Special is irresistible. Now, you have often objected to saying that if God does not decide to save everyone though He has the power to then God is responsible for those He does not save. To demonstrate how your objection is false I will use a scenarios:

1. Ten people are on a bridge and are standing on the rail desiring to commit suicide. Falling is definite death. A person comes to the scene and forces some off the rail into safety. He then reasons with the others demanding them not to jump off the bridge and to choose life. They decided to chose death. The person could have forced them off the bridge as he did the others but he did not and those who jumped off the bridge did so of their own free will. Does this make the man responsible for those people's deaths?

The above actually address's and counter's your objections for points A, B, and C. If you object using a different premise then what is used in Calvinism we will simply have to agree to disagree. I fell like I have done an adequate job marking the differences between Calvinism and Hyper-Calvinism. Where the real meat though is in point D.

Please feel free to delete you first paragraph to save space.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2012 12:51:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/29/2012 11:47:18 AM, joneszj wrote:
Sorry guys my friends kidnapped me and held me at the fair all day yesterday. I really hate having to answer to 50 different questions and objections in 1 post as it can take hours to reply and that's hours I can't be doing other things. So I am going to make an attempt to compile the questions and objections you have made:

A. If God allows/ordains sin to occur then He is responsible as much as the creature is
B. Hyper-Calvinism really just reveals true teachings of Calvinism
C. If mans only choice is to sin then he is not acting on free will
D. Verses used by Calvinists cannot be understood as they are by Calvinists

I ask that if there are more point that you would list them in a response. I will comment on the points above once we agree that those are the points in question. From here I will respond to your previous post:

Well then lets keep in simple then.

What is the Primary cause? Give some examples and details on this cause.

Below

What is a secondary cause? Give some examples and details involving this cause.

Below

Adams sons. Did able follow God because he chose to? Or did he follow God because God determined that he would?

Below

Did Cain rebel because he chose to or did God ordain him to?

This would be a good place to show Primary and Secondary causation. When Calvinists say man does not have free will what we are saying is that we do not have free will as defined by Arminianism. In Arminianism Free Will is: is the ability of agents to make choices free from certain kinds of constraints. (http://en.wikipedia.org...). In Calvinism Free Will is: a freedom to act according to one's determined motives. (http://en.wikipedia.org...). So what we are saying is that man has a will that is free to act on it's desires. That is what can be considered the Secondary Cause, that is the decision of the creature. This cause is not forced on the creature as Hyper-Calvinism would say but instead is freely chosen and worked by the creature. When we say Primary cause we are saying that God determined that the secondary cause would happen. We do not mean by this that God forced the creature to commit the secondary cause but instead made it into reality. This is the only way a sovereign omni-God is compatible with free will.

Able:
Able submitted because he chose to (secondary cause). But, because of how Protestants (Calvinisms and Arminians) interpret the verses that give us the doctrine of Total Depravity, Able would not have had the desire to submit to God. So in order for Able to willingly submit to God God must do something. This is where Arminians as well as Catholics come to the doctrine of Prevenient Grace. Calvinists came to the doctrine of Regeneration. Unless God regenerated Able's heart (Special Grace), a Primary Cause Able would never had willingly chosen to submit. Able willingly submitted to God because God changed the desires of Able's heart.

Cain:
Cain rebelled because he chose to (secondary cause). God did not force him to rebel. God made Cains choice a reality (primary cause).

Can God will every man to follow Him? Is it irresistible?

Yes, God could will that every man follow Him. Is it irresistible? Depends, God has what is known as Common grace and Special grace. Common is resistible, Special is irresistible. Now, you have often objected to saying that if God does not decide to save everyone though He has the power to then God is responsible for those He does not save. To demonstrate how your objection is false I will use a scenarios:

1. Ten people are on a bridge and are standing on the rail desiring to commit suicide. Falling is definite death. A person comes to the scene and forces some off the rail into safety. He then reasons with the others demanding them not to jump off the bridge and to choose life. They decided to chose death. The person could have forced them off the bridge as he did the others but he did not and those who jumped off the bridge did so of their own free will. Does this make the man responsible for those people's deaths?

The above actually address's and counter's your objections for points A, B, and C. If you object using a different premise then what is used in Calvinism we will simply have to agree to disagree. I fell like I have done an adequate job marking the differences between Calvinism and Hyper-Calvinism. Where the real meat though is in point D.

Please feel free to delete you first paragraph to save space.

I have been ready your discussion here with Jharry and your replies boil down to "you do not understand what Calvinism is."

Yet, I see errors in your own responses.
I have studied calvinism for nigh on a decade.

Take for example:
Common grace resistible and special grace irresistable.

That is factually innaccurate.
Common grace examples:
You were born: Irresistible
You are give life sustaining sustenance: Resistible through suicide.

Special Grace:
The Bible - Resistible
The church - Resistible

So really birth is the only common grace article that is impractical to resist, the classification does not match.

On Calvinism everything is irresistible for the elect and resistible for the non-elect.

Can we buckle down and say "Calvinism as you understand it states ____"
Your teachings do not match my experience with Calvinistic teachings. I have interacted and trained under 4 point, 5 point and Hyper.

Jharry is correct to state, no matter what "Calvinism" states the practical action is what is being judged and measured by him.

A personal example:
I dealt with a 4 point calvinist church with election pre-determined and sin/works was irrelevant.

The friend from my youth was evangelized into this church. Being an alcoholic he found the 'drinkers' in the church. He went out partying with them.

I approached this group to warn them. They told me not to judge my friend and that drinking was not a sin.
I explained for him it was a sin. Being a drunk is a biblical sin. He was an alcoholic.
They retorted and stated all my friend has to do is name and cite the sin before God.

I explained that may be all well and good, but he will at least destroy his temporal life.
They ignored my friends plight and would not stop their own sinning to save my friends life.

Needless to say, his alcoholism has taken everything from him, just not his life.

It does not really matter what was taught at certain points.
Many preachers will preach sin does not matter to the elect and then turn around, preach out of the other side of their mouth and state we must not sin, then spin and say but if you do just cite it before God, no big deal and pivot again, but God does not like it..... on and on.

I recommend you state a belief point that is backed by Calvinism then deal with it from there. It will mean your replies can be succinct and take less time.
joneszj
Posts: 1,202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2012 2:07:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago

I have been ready your discussion here with Jharry and your replies boil down to "you do not understand what Calvinism is."

Yet, I see errors in your own responses.
I have studied calvinism for nigh on a decade.

Take for example:
Common grace resistible and special grace irresistable.

That is factually innaccurate.
Common grace examples:
You were born: Irresistible
You are give life sustaining sustenance: Resistible through suicide.

Your wrong here. Examine:
"[Common grace] curbs the destructive power of sin, maintains in a measure the moral order of the universe, thus making an orderly life possible, distributes in varying degrees gifts and talents among men, promotes the development of science and art, and showers untold blessings upon the children of men," (Berkhof, p. 434, summarizing Calvin's position on common grace). The various aspects of God's common grace to all mankind may be generally gathered under four heads:
-Providential care in creation - God's sustaining care for his creation, called divine providence, is grace common to all. The Bible says, for instance, that God through the Son "upholds the universe by the word of his power" (Heb. 1:2-3; John 1:1-4). God's gracious provision for his creatures is seen in the giving of the seasons, of seedtime and harvest. It is of this providential common grace that Jesus reminds his hearers when he said God "makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust" (Matt. 5:45). We also see evidence of God's common grace in the establishment of various structures within human society. At a foundational level, God has ordained the family unit. Even pagan parents typically know that they should nurture their children (Matt. 7:9-10) and raise them to become responsible adults.
-Providential restraint of sin - In the Bible, Paul teaches that civil authorities have been "instituted by God" (Rom. 13:1) to maintain order and punish wrong-doing. Although fallible instruments of his common grace, civil governments are called "ministers of God" (Rom. 13:6) that should not be feared by those who do good. God also sovereignly works through circumstances to limit a persons sinful behavior (Gen. 20:6, 1 Sam. 25:26).
-In man's conscience - The apostle Paul says that when unbelieving Gentiles "who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, . . . They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them" (Rom. 2:14-15, ESV). By God's common grace fallen mankind retains a conscience indicating the differences between right and wrong. This may be based on the fact that human beings, though fallen in sin, retain a semblance of the "image of God" with which they were originally created (Gen. 9:6: 1 Cor. 11:7).
-Providential blessings to mankind - Human advancements that come through the unredeemed are seen as outcomes of God's common grace. For example, medical and other technological advancements that improve the lives of both the redeemed and unredeemed are seen as initiated by common grace.
In summary, common grace is seen in God's continuing care for his creation, his restraining human society from becoming altogether intolerable and ungovernable, his making it possible for mankind to live together in a generally orderly and cooperative manner, and maintaining man's conscious sense of basic right and wrong behavior. (http://en.wikipedia.org...)

Special Grace:
The Bible - Resistible
The church - Resistible

Special grace, in Reformed theology, is the grace by which God redeems, sanctifies, and glorifies his people. Unlike common grace, which is universally given, special grace is bestowed only on those whom God elects to eternal life through faith in Jesus Christ. This special grace is frequently linked with the five points of Calvinism as irresistible grace or efficacious grace. Common Grace is God working in the heart of the sinner to emulate the Christian life but not effectually saving that sinner. This is a most important distinctive of Historical Calvinism as it is a distinctive made by John Calvin in his book the Institutes of the Christian Religion and by a number of Confessions of faith for Calvinistic denominations originally in Europe. It is also the distinctive made by later theologians such as Abraham Kuyper of the Netherlands and Louis Berkhof and R. C. Sproul. Following Kuyper, Berkhof sees three categories of common grace:
Universal Common Grace, a grace that extends to all creatures;
General Common Grace, that is grace which applies to mankind in general and to every member of the human race;
Covenant Common Grace, a grace that is common to all those who live in the sphere of the covenant, whether they belong to the elect or not.[1]
(http://en.wikipedia.org...)

So really birth is the only common grace article that is impractical to resist, the classification does not match.

On Calvinism everything is irresistible for the elect and resistible for the non-elect.

No. You make an umbrella statement that is not true. In Calvinism many believe Salvation and Sanctification are monergistic while many other believe Salvation alone is monergistic.

Can we buckle down and say "Calvinism as you understand it states ____"
Your teachings do not match my experience with Calvinistic teachings. I have interacted and trained under 4 point, 5 point and Hyper.

Evidently your 'experience' with Calvinistic teaches are flawed.

Jharry is correct to state, no matter what "Calvinism" states the practical action is what is being judged and measured by him.

You cannot declare a teaching to be false because people abuse it!

A personal example:
I dealt with a 4 point calvinist church with election pre-determined and sin/works was irrelevant.

The friend from my youth was evangelized into this church. Being an alcoholic he found the 'drinkers' in the church. He went out partying with them.

I approached this group to warn them. They told me not to judge my friend and that drinking was not a sin.
I explained for him it was a sin. Being a drunk is a biblical sin. He was an alcoholic.
They retorted and stated all my friend has to do is name and cite the sin before God.

I explained that may be all well and good, but he will at least destroy his temporal life.
They ignored my friends plight and would not stop their own sinning to save my friends life.

Needless to say, his alcoholism has taken everything from him, just not his life.

It does not really matter what was taught at certain points.
Many preachers will preach sin does not matter to the elect and then turn around, preach out of the other side of their mouth and state we must not sin, then spin and say but if you do just cite it before God, no big deal and pivot again, but God does not like it..... on and on.

No preacher I know what teach that!

I recommend you state a belief point that is backed by Calvinism then deal with it from there. It will mean your replies can be succinct and take less time.

No offence Gil but your simply and wrong in regards to the Reformed doctrines on Common and Special grace and others. Your carpet bombing Calvinism with your experience of people who claim to be Calvinists. The topics of Common, Special grace, and General/Special revelation, Sanctification, etc. can be clearly found in the Institutes of the Christian Religion, or more compactly in the Westminster Confession of Faith. I don't want to waste my time defending Calvinism when neither of you seem to understand it. How are you going to say what I believe is not what I believe?!? I have provided sources to at least back up my claims. You simply say your arguments are from 'experience'.
joneszj
Posts: 1,202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2012 2:24:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Bible which teachings are resistible is not considered Special Grace, it is considered Special Revelation. Providence is considered Common Grace with the exception of Regeneration with is Special Grace and is irresistible. Your 'experience' with Calvinism has led you to hold false views on Calvinistic doctrine.
joneszj
Posts: 1,202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2012 4:24:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
@Jharry and Gil

I recently have been listening to a discussion between an Arminian and a Calvinist on the White Horse Inn podcast called "For or Against Calvinism" 2 parts. I suggest you both listen to it. Both positions state what they believe. I want to stress the first part podcast because when the Calvinist speaks he states what Calvinism teaches AND reveals many of the teaches that are misunderstood as Calvinism. You will notice that the arguments brought against Calvinism from both of you are rejected totally by him AND the Arminian (in part 2). Also, in part 2 they address the questions raised in this discussion. Its very interesting and I think would be beneficial for each of us.

If you are interested: http://www.whitehorseinn.org...
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2012 6:23:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Jones,

Im afraid you made things more complex and difficult.

Would you agree that sinning can be falling short or missing the mark? Do I have to know it is a sin for it to be sin in reality?
Just so I understand I will try to interpret what you said about Cain and Able.

Cain and Able both started at the same point?

Primary Cause is the fall?

The only reason Able didn't rebel is because God changed his heart?
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
joneszj
Posts: 1,202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2012 6:51:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/30/2012 6:23:17 PM, jharry wrote:
Jones,

Im afraid you made things more complex and difficult.

Would you agree that sinning can be falling short or missing the mark? Do I have to know it is a sin for it to be sin in reality?
Just so I understand I will try to interpret what you said about Cain and Able.

Sinning is falling short and missing the mark. No I do not believe one needs to know what sin is for it to be a reality. I believe in Romans when Paul says ch 1 "18 For kthe wrath of God lis revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. " that he is saying that everyone knows that sin is sin whether or not they know to call it sin.

Cain and Able both started at the same point?

Yes, they both have a will that has been effected by the fall. Catholics say that mans will was only damaged but Protestants believe that mans will was broken and dead. Difference between Arminians and Calvinists is whether or not God restored mans will universally to allow obedience to His commands or He regenerates certain people in such a manner that the desires of their will is changed utterly and they then willingly obey Gods command while battling the desires of the flesh.

Primary Cause is the fall?

The Fall and with everything else where a will is involved between God and a creature has a Primary cause and a Secondary cause. The Primary cause is that God being sovereign must either permit or deny any action that happens. Since God is omniscient them anything anywhere is subject to Gods sovereign will. Nothing can happen outside of Gods will and that includes the fall and human freedom. When we say that God was the primary cause of the fall we are not saying that he willed and moved in Adam and Eve usurping their wills to sin. What we are saying is simply that God had the decision to either determine that it happen or determine that it would not. The fall had a secondary cause and that is AnE willingly choosing to rebel against God. God did not force them to do this, God ordained that it would happen because Adam and Even chose it.

The only reason Able didn't rebel is because God changed his heart?

God changed the nature and desire of His heart, yes.

Compatibilism is not an easy thing to explain and I apologize for not being able to articulate it well. Did you happen to listen to the For or Against Calvinism podcast I left a link to? The two go over there very points we have been and is very interesting.
joneszj
Posts: 1,202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2012 6:56:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Let me put it this way:

The Fall: AnE willed to sin freely (secondary cause). God ordained that their actions 'would come to pass' (primary cause). It is in this sense that we mean God determined everything that happens, including the fall.
wiploc
Posts: 1,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2012 2:12:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/26/2012 4:50:40 PM, joneszj wrote:
Problem of Evil- how could evil exist in a reality created by an omni-being specifically an omnibenevolent being. There are many ways to address this but I will in two: reality, and salvation.

1) Reality- the POE is often objected unto a reality that evil exists. But simply because evil exists does not mean its creator is not omnibenivolent.

Right. It means the creator is not omnibenevolent and omniscient and omnipotent.

Omnibenevolence does not necessitate that an evil action not occur, only that its occurrence have a good reason.

I suppose you could come up with some weird definitions for "evil" and "omnibenevolence," that could make that work. But so long as benevolence is opposition to evil, and omnibenevolence is total opposition to evil, then an omnibenevolent being would not tolerate evil so long as he had the power to prevent it. And an omnipotent being would have the power to prevent evil if he only wanted to.

Thus, if an omnipotent and omnibenevolent being exists (and let's throw in omniscience, so that nobody will argue that god has the power to prevent evil but is too stupid to use it) then evil does not exist. And if evil exists, then no tri-omni god exists.

To say otherwise is to attack a straw man.

No. It may not be attacking you, but it attacks exactly what it intends to. If you don't believe in a tri-omni god, then you shouldn't be arguing against the PoE.

Calvinists believe that all evil happens is ordained by God for a good reason.

Then one of these is true:
1. Calvinists don't believe god is omnipotent.
2. Calvinists don't believe god is omniscient.
3. Calvinists don't believe god is omnibenevolent.
4. Calvinists don't believe evil exists.
5. Calvinists don't believe in logic. Or,
6. Calvinists are clearly wrong: their belief that god ordains evil is contradictory.

2) Salvation
...
People in general (in context a single writer: ) "assumes omnibenevolence must mean unibenevolence: that is, that if God is all-loving, then He will not possess the capacity His creatures rightly possess: discrimination in the matter of love.

Nonsense. Benevolence is wanting good, opposing evil. Nothing in the definition says you lack discrimination.

We are not only not unibenevolent, as image bearers of God we, like Him, are able to possess, and express, different kinds of love.

Fine, we have a choice. To the extent that we choose evil, we are malevolent. To the extent that we choose good, we are benevolent.

If we always choose good, we are omnibenevolent.

If we do not always choose good, then we are not omnibenevolent.

Couldn't be simpler.

If faced with a choice, I am going to choose based upon discrimination in my love. I am going to save the mother of my children before I save a stranger.

Sure you will, because you are not omnipotent. You have to choose which one to save. You lack the power to prevent all evil.

If your god is not omnipotent, then you don't have a problem with the PoE. Don't say the PoE attacks a strawman just because it doesn't attack your god. Just admit that the PoE god is proven not to exist, but your god is actually possible.

I am called to love my wife as Christ loved the church. And my ability to do this is clearly reflected in God's own actions.

So, sometimes you drown her but put her kids on an ark? Sometimes you torture her in fire? And you do this because you gots discrimination?

The love He showed Israel he did not show the Canaanites, the Egyptians, the Assyrians, or the Babylonians. This is a simple biblical fact.

Simple biblical fact that god is not all-loving. Got it.

And you've got it too, so why are you talking about the problem of evil?

An all-loving god does not exist, right? You know that, and the PoE knows that. Admit that you are in agreement with the PoE, and move on.