AssemblyBoard

Brent, on another thread, made a statement about something I've been thinking about.
I have noticed that many who left the Geftakys work(s) years ago have moved completely away from a "free-will" position to one very much more allied with reformed theology.  I find myself increasingly in this boat as well.

I'm wondering what some of you may think about this and why.

I was afraid this would happen....

Thank you Lord.  Bring it on.  I can't put this off any longer.

Brent

Hi Tim, this issue has been much upon my mind as well.

Ever since I got out of the assembly, I have been gravitating--slowly, gently and yet undeniably drawn--towards the blessed assurance that we have in Jesus.  I have become more and more convinced that He is in far more control of my life than I am.  He's God, I'm not.  He knew all things in advance before they were created.  Not only did he know, but he also has all the power to act upon that knowledge.  And not only does he know all things and have all power, but he has a will--a purpose and direction--that he wants to accomplish.  All these things make me think that he's got things under control and he does as he pleases--consequently, I have absolutely no worries about being snatched from his hands, and I should thank God that he has been mericful to me.  All he says I need to do is believe on him.  Over and over and over again he says "believe".  And you know what that means to me?  It means "Stop being so proud and look to God instead of yourself--for saftey, provision, comfort, everything...and yes--justification and cleansing from sin!"  

What a wonderful savior is Jesus my Lord, who loved me so much that he'd die for me (sinful, bound for eternal punishment me)--how could I add to that?  Indeed not!  "I do not frustrate the grace of God, for if righteousness came through the law then Christ is dead in vain!"

I am becomming more and more convinced that the Geftakys teaching was dangerous and harmful and only served in getting Christians to be afraid and doubt what God has already assured us for the purpose that George might keep us under his leash to do his bidding (how heinous is that?)

I grew up in a Reformed church, but had questions about how could Christians be not living like Christians--what is this about "not inheriting the kingdom"?  At first the Geftakys teaching seemed to have the answers.  But now I see that they were over-simplified and not true.  And now finally, after all these years, I am getting true answers to my questions.  The remarkable thing is that I had to go through some painful experiences before I could realize the truth of these answers.  Again I am at the place where it seems I've only just begun.  

Arthur

    After being completely opposed to Reformed theology for about a year, I decided to read about it for myself.  Though I don't agree with all aspects of its doctrine, I am increasingly comforted and not intimidated by it anymore.  
    Christians should study church history and know sound doctrine.  We were taught to listen to the assembly leaders and read George's books. We were spiritually arrogant and looked down on other believers. (We were THE saints--they were brethren or Christians...)  Anyway, many of us didn't have a Christian upbringing and the "heavenly vision/new testament gathering/simple group of Christians way of doing things is all we ever knew."  We were lumps of clay just waiting to be molded by someone.
    In addition, pastors who had a "cemetary" degree were to be dismissed and ridiculed. We wouldn't have just walked into some denominational church and asked them for counseling.  If we were spiritually curious, we went to the saint who anchored us. Or we met privately with the leading brothers.  Theological discussions were not encouraged, especially in a public forum.  Why? Because most of the assembly leaders were totally ignorant of Church history.  Sure, they knew the flag charts, the S in the center diagrams, etc....  Yes, they had myriads of Bible verses memorized but very often, the head knowledge superceded the heart knowledge.
     I think we're all guilty of that.  Ask any parent. We tried to teach John 3:16 to our little ones and then moments later were harsh and exacting when they refused to put their heads down.  "Don't make me take you out of this meeting...be quiet or else..."  This threatening attitude demonstrates the assembly doctrine in a nutshell. Be a certain way and God will be pleased. Meet according to a specific pattern and God will be pleased. It was all about us and not about Him.  
     And so now many of us are out of the controlling environment of the assembly.  We are free to research these doctrinal issues on our own.  Aaron has always had a bent toward Reformed thinking and I have not.   But in the last year, I've been listening to some Reformed radio shows, reading some Reformed literature, etc.. (R.C.Sproul's works are very insightful & encouraging.) I'm not as intimidated by the whole concept as I was before. If anything, I've been comforted & encouraged.  
    Finally, in the assembly, there was an overriding emphasis on outward performance.  "Man looks at the outward appearance but God looks at the heart..." Well, that verse was usually forsaken in our midst. We were on a treadmill of doing, going, being....  Reformed theology focuses on the Lord & what HE has done, what HE will do, how HE has loved us, how HE will keep us.  
    As a Christian, it's wonderful and very sweet to look at our God as One who keeps His promises towards His people.  His grace IS sufficient and He is not a taskmaster.  When we fall, it's not up to us to memorize a verse and make an application of what WE will do next time.  We can rest in Him.  

As some of you know, a dear friend of mine tried his hardest to keep me out of the Assembly, back in 1983.

He was a 5 point Calvinist, and when I decided to join the Assembly, against his warnings, I also rejected Calvinism, or reformed theology, in favor of Geftakys theology.  The story is in my book, on the website.

Anyway, I have never made a thorough investigation of reformed theology, until now.  Even now, there are still parts of it that I am lazy about, namely the issue of Free will.

I am worse than a novice in this area, so I am really hoping we can get some people who know what they are talking about here, to help me.

Here's where I stand currently:

T-Total depravity. I am totally fine with this.

U-Unconditional electionI am 60% fine with this, but I have been very lazy in my study.  I really haven't learned enough to understand or challenge the implications of this pillar.

L-Limited atonementI am 50% OK on this, because in some ways, it is a moot point.  Some people are saved, and some are going to hell, which means that atonement is limited, in one very real sense.  Again, I am a novice.

I-Irresistible graceI am 60% cool with this

P-Perseverance of the saintI am cool with this

I guess this makes me a 3.8 point Calvinist.  The problem I with reformed theology, is that it is so logical it makes me nervous.  I like logical things, but on the otherhand, I am uncomforable with it in a spiritual sense, sometimes.

The great attraction I have to reformed theology is that the grace of God is so thoroughly, wonderfully manifest in their teaching, that I can't help but glorify God when I hear a reformed preacher really teach the gospel.  It is wonderful.  Also, reformed folks seem to be the most Christ centered, at least to me.

George Geftakys ridiculed reformed theology more than any other.  He hated dispensational theology as well, but he had special scorn for reformed, because it shot down his plane so convincingly.

With me, I think it's a pride thing, the reason I have neglected this long overdue exploration.  I would appreciate your prayers about this.  

I am going to start reading, and I'll post if I have any profound discoveries.

Brent

One person I know, who claims to be an atheist, calls Calvinism a heresy.  I am suspicious of anyone who claims to know for sure that God doesn't exist.  I think they are lying because to me it is so obvious that he does exist.  I suspect that anyone who claims to know for sure that God doesn't exist actually has something against God and is trying to turn people away from God.

HI Everyone!

Andrea, you won't get much disagreement from me on this one.  I have the same reservations you do, mostly.  As far as the logic thing, the fact that it is so logical that we perceive it as "putting God in a box," is precisely the uneasiness I confessed to in my last post.  Nevertheless,

What sayeth the scriptures?

Here are some of the thoughts I have been wrestling with:

If man is totally depraved, and will by nature ALWAYS rebell against God, by resisting the Holy Spirit, how can anyone be saved if not for Irresistable Grace?

If Christ's Atonement is NOT limited, but unlimited, than how is it that anyone go to hell?  If all their sins are atoned for, what is it that seperates them from God, and how can He have wrath towards them?   Please understand, the idea that some people CAN"T be saved does not sit well with me at all!

On the otherhand, most of the stuff I have read regarding Limited Atonement is far more taken up with the Atonement, and how we can fully put our trust in Christ for our righteousness, and has very little to do with the "limited" part.

Perseverance of the Saints----we had an awesome discussion about this in our home group 2 weeks ago.   People brought out the usual, "What if a person was saved, and fell into sin, and stayed there and died," argument.  We had different ideas put forth:

"They were never saved,"
"They were saved but lost their salvation,"
"It doesn't matter, even though they lived in sin, God will totally save them."

I don't see how a person can have the Holy Spirit, and spend their entire life in rebellion towards God.  I also don't see how they can become "unjustified" after being justified and made righteous in Christ.  I go for perseverance.

When I crunch the thing down, I find that it is impossible to have one point, without the other.  My sticking point is the free-will idea.

I think God can still be sovereign, and we can have free-will at the same time.  However, I really don't know what is meant by free-will. Somehow, I don't think they are talking about choosing chocolate or vanilla.

My problem is ignorance, which I am attempting to remedy at the present time.

Brent

Not to detract from the conversation in any way, but I believe Christ died for our sins-past, present and future.  I believe that if I sin (let's say I use a curse word), God isn't going to threaten me about my salvation.  I can simply utter "Oops!  Forgive me God!" and it's forgotten.  All this stuff about climbing the Heavenly ladder and praying the Selfer's Prayer is a big joke.  If a child disobeys his mother, there will be a consequence for what he has done, but the child should know that if he asks his mother to forgive him, he doesn't have to go thru the rigor morter's of atonement! The Selfer's Prayer stuff reminds me of bringing burnt offerings before the Lord.  Didn't Christ already give His life as an offering once and for all???  Or am I reading a different Bible from the one the Assembly reads?? ???

I'm commenting on this a little prematurely.  I haven't educated myself yet, as I had promised, but I am making progress!

The passages you list above are also ones I used in my arsenal against Reformed teaching in the past, and some of them are indeed difficult, which accounts for some of the reasons I am only a 3.8 pointer.

Here are a few quick thoughts:  Moses.  The fact that God "repented," or changed His mind does not in any way violate one of the five points.  If you do some reading about what each of the five points means, you won't find that this passage presents any problem whatsoever.

Hezekiah.  Again, this does not contradict anything.  Here is a simple explanation:  God wanted to get Hezekiah's attention, and knew exactly how to do it.  Hezekiah responded in a godly manner, just as God knew he would, and nothing about God's soverignty was altered in any way.  There are plenty of other ways to look at this as well.

The part about Pharoah is troubling to me, I must confess.  Again, the real hangup I have right now is the idea of free will, and I am not yet ready to come to the table with anything of substance.  

I'll be back.

Brent

Imagine playing chess with Garry Kasparov.  You have complete freedom to choose whatever moves you want to make, but you know for sure that you will lose.

Exactly!  
The fact that we perceive ourselves to have freewill, because we can choose between chocolate or vanilla, in no way contradicts the Sovreignty of God!

However, do we have the ability to resist the Grace of God?

If we do, then how can we be saved?  If we don't, then some people can never be saved.  There are other implications here as well.  Again, I'm still not ready to totally enter the fray here.

Brent

Eulaha,

     The problem was that, ultimately. GG & Co. were not so much reading the bible as trying to rewrite it.


Brent,

     Maybe you need to watch the movie "Free Willy"???

al H.

I watched it....and I cried...sniff.

I suspect that in this post Steve is alluding to what is known as the Middle Knowledge postition.

The idea is that God, knowing all possible futures, has chosen the one that best fits his purpose and glory.

In knowing all possible futures He foreknew the free, uncoerced choices to believe or to reject God that all individuals in that future would make.  He then chose that future to be actualized in time.

So, all events are predestined but the individuals are making uncoerced choices.

This idea had its origins with a 16th Century Jesuit named Molina.  It is espoused by some pretty heavyweight evangelical scholars, such as J. P. Moreland, W. L. Craig and Norman Geisler.

Extreme Calvinists get pretty upset with these guys, but in my opinion their attempts to refute them fail.  

Take a look at Geisler's "Chosen but Free".

Thomas Maddux

M,
Don't feel bad, it seems that Tom Maddux is missing the point as well.  It seems like such an obvious illustration of God's sovereignty that I'm mystified as to why someone wouldn't understand.  In terms of Calvinism, it illustrates irresistible grace.  In chess, the objective is to checkmate the opponent's king.  God's objective is to win our hearts.  He won't fail to attain his objective.

Tom,
I searched the internet and found a review of Norman Geisler's "Chosen but Free."  Based on what the review says, I don't agree with Geisler.  The teachings of R. C. Sproul seem a whole lot closer to being right.  The following is a link to the review:

http://www.flash.net/~thinkman/articles/geisler.htm

Steve,

Here are the first two paragraphs of the article you referenced:

"Norman Geisler is presently the President of Southern Evangelical Seminary in Charlotte, North Carolina. He has previously taught at Dallas Theological Seminary among other evangelical institutions. He is the author of hundreds of articles and dozens of books. Many have found great help in his writings, this author included. Alas, even exceptional intellects are subject to the limitations of humanity. With one Prominent Exception, our race is an unbroken line of fallible beings whose thinking processes are marred by personal and ancestral histories, undetected prejudices, and undiscovered blind spots which prevent us from the objectivity that we desire in regard to our intellectual pursuits. This human frailty is more or less obvious according to the individual and the subject matter with which he is dealing. In Dr. Geisler's case, it is readily apparent that, for him, the doctrine of election in particular, and Calvinism in general, is subject to this frailty.

Dr. Geisler's latest production is entitled, Chosen But Free: A Balanced View of Divine Election (CBF). It does not take long, however, for the theologically literate reader,(NB I guess this doesn't include Geisler), to understand that this particular work is anything but a "balanced" view of election. Beginning with the self-evident contradiction in the title itself, it should be evident to any objective reader that balance was not the aim in its production. Rather, CBF sets out to present its viewpoint, which is simply a form of Arminianism cloaked under another name, as being so obviously correct that the reader must wonder how exegetes and theologians of the stature of John Calvin, John Owen, B.B. Warfield, John Murray, etc., did not see it. "


This is pretty stock material coming out of the extreme Calvinist camp. In reality, these paragraphs only say two things: First, they are little more than an ad hominem attack on Geisler's intellect and scholarship.  This is a common ploy of extreme Calvinists...simply attack THE MAN in an arrogant, superior and dismissive tone.

They have a long history of this...in his "Institutes" Calvin called those who disagree with him, "ignorant swine" and "virulant dogs".
Oink Oink, Bow Wow.

Second, they use straw man arguments, misrepresenting the man's position, and proceed to refute THEIR version of his argument.  Geisler's book was a reply to another book called, "The Potter's Freedom" which espouses an extreme Calvinist view.  He devoted AN ENTIRE CHAPTER to misrepresentations of his own, (Geisler's) views.

Calling Giesler's views "simply another form of Arminianism" grossly misrepresents what Geisler teaches.  Geisler is BOTH a theologian and an philosopher.  He points out  fundamental theological and logical flaws at the very root of extreme Calvinist thought.

If you don't think men like Sproul are extreme, listen to this.  I have a cassette tape, given to me by Dave Sable, that comes from Sproul's Ligonier Ministries.  On it, Sproul clearly and openly claims that Charles Ryrie is an apostate and is "under the curse of God".

This is because of his preaching, "another Gospel", that is, that a man can accept or reject Christ.   If he's right, that means men like J. Vernon McGee, Billy Graham, Dwight L. Moody AREN'T EVEN CHRISTIANS!!  And, of course, neither am I.  I once played this for an adult Sunday School class.  They were shocked!  Many of them were reading from Ryrie Study Bibles.

So, I would suggest that one do some careful study before following the logic of a position to any such extreme, no matter who is teaching it.

Sorry for the long post.

Thomas Maddux

Tom,

I'm beginning think that I misread your description of the "Middle Knowledge" position.  It seems to be poorly phrased.  If I have misread this, I wonder whether others, such as the reviewer, in an analogous manner failed to understand the book.  The thing that is confusing is that the second paragraph talks about knowing what people would choose, and then immediately seems to say that God chose that, thereby seeming to be merely God's endorsement of people's free will choices.  This is only a cosmetic change of the Arminian position.  So at first glance, it seems to say exactly what the reviewer said that the book said.

But, on closer examination, it looks like you might have intended to say something which would be better stated with your above phrases in a different order.  To make it clearer, I will try to rephrase it in differnt words.

People's choices naturally tend to be affected by circumstances, so that among all possible futures, in some a person will choose one way and in others the person will choose differently.  So if God chooses a subset, out of all possible futures, which consists of those futures in which the people he has chosen are the ones who choose him, then his sovereign will is accomplished.

This description better fits the analogy of the chess game than what your description seemed to me to be describing.

Some time, I will have to find and read the book to see what it actually says.

Steve,

BINGO!  That is exactly it.

The key understanding is that BOTH election and freedom are REAL.  Our decisions are uncoerced, as they seem to us to be.  

The extreme Calvinist position boils down to a view very close to complete determinism of all human choices.  In other words, no one makes choices.  God either makes the choices for you or sets up conditions in you that preclude any real freedom.

This has real problems.  One is that God, ultimately, is the source of all evil.  If you ask a question like, "Why would God hold people guilty for committing acts that HE compelled them to commit?", their answers aren't very good.  

They either tell you that you are not allowed to ask questions like that, or they attempt to intimidate the questioner by calling you names.   My aforementioned "filthy swine" and "virulent dogs" are direct quotes from Calvin.  There is much more of this in his writings.

I don't find myself intimidated or impressed.

God bless,

Tom M.
Oink Oink, Bow Wow

I have been looking into this issue for a few weeks now, and was awarded the rather daunting task of teaching on Roman's 9 last Wednesday.

I read two commentaries, one that said basically, "Man was created in God's image, and part of that was free will."  The way this author framed the argument was like this:

"Either we have free will, or God made us all robots."

The other said that God chose everyone before the foundation of the world, and that there are elect, on the face of the earth today, that aren't saved yet, but they will be, because God chose them.  The author of this version explained it like this:

Free will and volition are different.  All humans have volition.  They can choose to stand or sit, blink their eyes or shut them, and prefer chocolate or vanilla, etc.   However, in spite of the fact that we have volition, we don't have free will, in that without God's intervention, we can never choose righteousness, or life, or salvation.  In our unregenerate state we are God's enemies, no matter what our volition.

The example used to explain this was that of a man locked in a 10x10 cell, without food or water.  He is free to stand or sit, scream out or sing, but he is not free to leave, let alone obtain that which will allow him to live.  He is at the mercy of another, for his sustenance.

In a similar manner, although we are free to see a movie, or dig a hole in the backyard, we are not free to escape our sinful condition, without God's unmerited Grace.

I know this is not the most cogent argument on the topic, and that there is much more to say, and way more variables to consider, but it did help me get my feet wet.  I was always under the impression that "no-free-willer's"  were trying to tell me that we are all puppets and robots.  Even though they might plead with me that they were NOT saying that, and that they didn't believe that, I just couldn't hear them, or understand them.  

Also, Romans 9 must be read in context with the rest of the book, Romans 8 and Romans 10, which most people really like.

Brent

A critique of my rephrasing of Tom's description of the "Middle Knowledge" position:

If a person's choices can be affected by circumstances in such a way as to choose the Lord, then it would seem that the person is not quite totally depraved.  This would contradict the first point of Calvinism.  This fault could perhaps be repaired by expanding the set of possible futures to include the possibility of the Lord changing the person.  Of course, that brings back the criticism of a lack of free will.  Another defect of this model is that it portrays us as being an intrinsic part of the universe, effectively denying the existence of our spirit.
A critique of the chess game analogy:

Total depravity is portrayed, since the player is trying to hinder God's purpose.  The last move presents a problem since at that point, the player has no move: there is no more free will.  This analogy is not all that different from the traditional Calvinist position.  There is the very tiny probability that someone might make all the right moves and avoid losing, meaning that grace is not quite fully irresistable, but of course a different game could be chosen that doesn't have that problem.  So while there is no free will about the outcome of the game, there is free will about the line of play that leads to the inevitable outcome, thus Brent likened it to the choice between chocolate and vanilla.  This model is better than the previous because our spirit is seen as playing the game, but it is still defective because even after losing the game, we are still the same.  After all, it's only a game.
Since the physical aspect of our being in this universe is finite and Eccl. 3:11 says "... he hath set eternity in their heart, ..." our spirit must not be a part of this universe, and therefore not subject to its laws including time, since time is a part of this universe.  This confounds attempts to identify how cause and effect work in the spiritual realm.
A few links that I found:

http://members.truepath.com/lenzi/intro.html                 about Arminianism
http://andstuff.org/OmniscienceVsFreeWill                     a rather peculiar sort of message board
http://www.nd.edu/~afreddos/papers/molinism.htm         about middle knowledge

Some links about about Calvinism:

http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/topic/calvinism.html

"The Bondage of the Will" by Luther (http://www.truecovenanter.com/truelutheran/luther_bow.html)
"The Freedom of the Will" by Jonathan Edwards can be found here (http://www.graciouscall.org/books/edwards/will/freedom.html), here (http://www.mbrem.com/calvinism/on_freedom_of_the_will/will.htm) or here (http://www.biblicaltheology.com/classics/Jonathan%20Edwards/Edwards98.html).

Could I bring along a computer?

 ;)

     The bottom line is:  We will believe what we want to believe.  If we are willing to set self-preference aside and accept God's point of view, we will not be disappointed.  If we insist on knowing all about something (anything) regarding the Lord, that very pursuit may come between us and knowing him! "But ye have not so learned Christ..." (Eph.4:20).

al Hartman

The hardest part for me to accept about Calvinism (though
I believe most of it whole-heartedly) is reprobation. As Arthur had pointed out on another thread I believe it says
that God has "appointed" some vessels to honour and
some to dishonour, becoming "vessels of wrath".

When I've read the explanations, such as "Reprobation Asserted" by John Bunyan I've tried to accept it. The main argument is that God is Sovereign, and what he chooses to do he can do because he is God.

They teach that God has not created anyone for damnation, but he has the right to create these people but "pass them up" and let them choose their own way. This is where I have the problem. Isn't "passing up" on these people by not giving them Grace to draw them to himself as good as having created them to damn them? True---we are all sinners, and should ALL go to hell because of our sins. If not for the work of Jesus Christ on the cross we would all
definitely go to hell. When I say I have a "problem"--I mean in understanding it.

The argument is that we ALL were going to hell so if God "passes up" on the vessels meant for wrath he has not created them for wrath, they have chosen wrath themselves. But--if God calls to all to repent, but doesn't give some the Grace to do that very thing, aren't they in a sense created to be damned?

Like I say---maybe I just don't understand the teaching at all and am just confused. But since you are on the subject of Calvinism and Free Will etc. I thought I'd ask if there is someone who DOES understand it.

Thanks, Joe

     2Peter3:9 says that God is "not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance."
     When i flick the wall switch, i am ever so grateful that i don't have to understand everything that the volts and amperes and ohms are doing between the dam and my house before the lights will come on.  "God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise..." 1Cor.1:27.
     These remarks in no way demean sound bible teaching.  But sometimes, when i wonder how such a simpleton as i can ever comprehend the deep things of God, such thoughts comfort me...

al Hartman

Steve,

You wrote,

"
If a person's choices can be affected by circumstances in such a way as to choose the Lord, then it would seem that the person is not quite totally depraved.  This would contradict the first point of Calvinism.  This fault could perhaps be repaired by expanding the set of possible futures to include the possibility of the Lord changing the person.  Of course, that brings back the criticism of a lack of free will.  Another defect of this model is that it portrays us as being an intrinsic part of the universe, effectively denying the existence of our spirit."

Two comments:

1.  Regarding your understanding that a person "is not quite totally depraved".  The doctrine of total depravity does not mean that all men are as bad as they can possibly be.  It means that the fall has affected every aspect of a man body, soul, and spirit.  Some Calvinists take this to mean that man is completely paralyzed...can't do ANYTHING of spiritual profit.  This bunch denies the usefullness of apologetics, since they don't think that any information can be usefull in changing a depraved mind.

Most Calvinists, however, are more moderate in their views on the extent of depravity.  Remember Steve, even Wesleyan Arminians believe in total depravity.  They, as well as Calvinists believe that it is only through grace that a man can respond to God.  The difference is that the Wesleyans believe that God gives grace sufficient to respond to all men.

2. On your idea that if we are "an intrinsic part of the universe" we cannot have a spiritual nature.  I don't see how Molinism, which is a theory about how God "thinks", implies this.  The last time I looked out the window I was living in the universe and was made out of the same stuff, as to my physical nature.  How would that mean that I have no spirit???  

Thomas

Here is a little John Calvin for his fans.

"But because many are the species of blasphemy which these virulent dogs utter against God, we, as far as the case admits, give an answer to each.  Foolish men raise many grounds of quarrel with God, as if they held him subject to their accusations.  First, they ask why God is offended with his creatures who have not provoked him by any previous offense; for to devote to destruction whomsoever he pleases, more resembles the caprice of a tyrant than the legal sentence of a judge; and, therefore, there is reason to expostulate with God, if at his mere pleasure men are, without any desert of their own, predestinated to eternal death.  If at any time thoughts of this kind come into the minds of the pious, they will be sufficiently armed to repress them, by considering how sinful it is to insist on knowing the causes of the divine will, since it is itself, and justly ought to be, the cause of all that exists.  For if his will has any cause, there must be something antecedent to it, and to which it is annexed; this it were impious to imagine.  

The will of God is the supreme rule of righteousness,  so that everything which he wills must be held to be righteous by the mere fact of his willing it.  Therefore, when it is asked why the Lord did so, we must answer, Because he pleased.  But if you proceed farther to ask why he pleased, you ask for something greater and more sublime than the will of God., and nothing such can be found.  Let humam temerity then be quiet, and cease to inquire after what exists not..."

A few observations on this passage;
1. God, according to John C, chooses to cast men into hell and torment them eternally simply because he is "pleased" to do so.  That apparently means that he likes or enjoys it! ???

2. If this doesn't seem quite right to you it is, according to John C, because you are a "virulant dog".  If you were "pious", you would suppress such questions.  IN OTHER WORDS if you disagree with Johnny C it is because there is something wrong with YOU!  Somehow, that sounds familiar....where have I heard that before?

3. The answer, says Johnny C, is that damning these people is quite allright because if God does it it is ok.  If it seems a little harsh to you it is because you are audaciously wicked.  God, it seems, is sort of a 900 pound gorilla who, as we know, can sit wherever he wants to.

4. Johnny's position is called Volunteerism, and he has expressed it well.  However, there is another opinion on this.  It is called Essentialism.  God's essential nature is such that he is loving and just AS WELL AS  all powerful and sovereign.  He is not limited by a law above himself...but he only acts according to his own nature and he is by nature just.

5. It seems a little peculiar to me that a being who would torment men in hell for eternity because he just wants to would then turn around and lecture the rest of the folks on being loving, merciful, and just.  

I guess that makes me a virulent dog.

Thomas Maddux

Tom,
     GRrrr...  WOOF WOOF!!!       er,    Amen!!!

al

Verne,

Yes, it is true that all men are sinners and are guilty.  But Calvin's teaching goes far beyond this.  For example:

"By predestination we mean the eternal decree of God, by which he determined with himself whatever HE WISHED to happen with regard to EVERY man.  All are not created on equal terms, but some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and, accordingly, as each HAS BEEN CREATED for one or the other of these ends, we say that he has been predestined to life or to death."

Or;

"We say, then, that Scripture clearly proves this much, that God by his eternal and immutable counsel determined once for all those whom it was HIS PLEASURE one day to admit to salvation, and those whom, on the other hand, it was HIS PLEASURE to doom to destruction."

Af few observations;
1. Calvin expressly denies that election has anything to do with good or evil works by the subjects of his decree.  It is not that men are condemned FOR sin.  Men are condemned TO sin, judgement, and condemnation on the basis of God's "pleasure".  

2. Men are created for the purpose of being condemned and lost. It is not that God creates men and then judges them if they reject Him and choose evil.  They are created FOR THE PURPOSE of sinning and suffering the wrath of God.  Calvin believed that this somehow "glorifies" God.  

3. Note in the second quote that Calvin believed that God took just as much pleasure in condemning as in saving!!!! :o

It seems to me that a good cure for Calvinism is a little Calvin.

Thomas Maddux

[/quote]

Our church is having a Bible Conference this weekend, the guest speaker is Dr. James White.
Has anyone heard of, or read any of his books?
He's the director of Alpha and Omega Ministries, based in Phoenix, Arizona.
Some of his books are:  
The King James Only Controversy
The Forgotten Trinity
The Potter's Freedom
The God Who Justifies

James White is a very strong TULIP Calvinist.  The Potter's Freedom is a book he wrote in an attempt to refute Norman Geisler's book, Chosen but Free: A Balanced View of Divine Election.

Geisler put out a second edition with a reply to White.  After several pages in which he replies to specific points in White's book, Giesler says:

"All in all, The Potter's Freedom is a good critique, but unfortunately it is not a critique of my view.  It often misunderstands, misrepresents, and mischaracterizes the moderate Calvinistic presentation of Chosen but Free."

I read the King James Only Controversy several years ago.  It was quite good.

Thomas Maddux

Does anyone know of any Bible conferences/retreats happening in the East?

Regarding the question of "free will", the Lord Jesus Christ clearly taught that sinful man is not free:

"Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, [then] are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. They answered him, We be Abraham's seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free? Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin. And the servant abideth not in the house for ever: [but] the Son abideth ever. If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed."
(John 8:31-36)

He also clearly taught that no man can come to Him unless the Father draws them:

"No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day." (John 6:44)
"And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father." (John 6:65)

That sure doesn't sound like "free will" to me!