AssemblyBoard

Dear Tom,
I suggest we move our discussion of Calvin and Calvinism to a new thread, here. I think it is a more appropriate place than "Quotes to Ponder."
H

Dear Tom,
before I start to respond to your thoughts on Calvinism, I want to make a few comments to clarify my position. I personally do not want to label myself as a Calvinist because I am not committed to Calvinism, but to God and His Word. To the extent that Calvinists teach what the Bible teaches, I agree with them. When they teach something that the Bible doesn't teach, I disagree with them. I do not agree with everything Calvin taught or did, and I am a follower of Christ, not Calvin. One thing that should be kept in mind is that there are all kinds of people that describe themselves (or are labelled by others) as "Calvinists", some of whom are dear brothers (and sisters!) in Christ who I am in substantial agreement with, while others may not even be true children of God but rather unregenerate religious fanatics. I certainly do not want to be associated with the latter type!

Well, I have to go now. More later!
H

One point I'll bring up.  I have "debated" Calvinism before, and a common assumption that comes up is that someone is either Calvinist or Armenianist (spelling?).  There are many evangelicals that will agree wholeheartedly with some of Calvin's points, partially with others, and disagree with others.

Basically, it is important that if someone disagrees with a Calvin point, that doesn't automatically mean they disagree with everything Calvin said.

For example, I do not agree with Calvin on his description of election.  I believe it is based partially on scripture, and partially based on logical fallicy.  But, I don't agree with the armenian viewpoint, either.  There are verses that clearly speak of God's election.  However, there are also other scriptures that exhort us to make choices.  When we see passages that appear to be contradictory, the answer isn't to try and twist some of them to fit the others, but to try to understand the whole.

The way I answer it is that we of God's elect, however he has also given us the choice.  I think our difficulty in understanding how both can be true is related to Tom's description of the dimension of God.  God is beyond our limited understanding of time, space, and whatever else there is.

Logic is fine, but when it brings us to conclusions that are contrary to scripture, then we've done something wrong.

Dave

It should be spelled Arminian because Armenian is a nationality.

Armenian Research Center (http://www.umd.umich.edu/dept/armenian/)

I posted the following on the "Quotes to Ponder" thread, but I'm reposting it here to make it easier for those who want to repond to it to quote it:

1.Without knowledge of self there is no knowledge of God

Our wisdom, in so far as it ought to be deemed true and solid Wisdom, consists almost entirely of two parts: the knowledge of God and of ourselves. But as these are connected together by many ties, it is not easy to determine which of the two precedes and gives birth to the other. For, in the first place, no man can survey himself without forthwith turning his thoughts towards the God in whom he lives and moves; because it is perfectly obvious, that the endowments which we possess cannot possibly be from ourselves; nay, that our very being is nothing else than subsistence in God alone. In the second place, those blessings which unceasingly distil to us from heaven, are like streams conducting us to the fountain. Here, again, the infinitude of good which resides in God becomes more apparent from our poverty. In particular, the miserable ruin into which the revolt of the first man has plunged us, compels us to turn our eyes upwards; not only that while hungry and famishing we may thence ask what we want, but being aroused by fear may learn humility. For as there exists in man something like a world of misery, and ever since we were stript of the divine attire our naked shame discloses an immense series of disgraceful properties every man, being stung by the consciousness of his own unhappiness, in this way necessarily obtains at least some knowledge of God. Thus, our feeling of ignorance, vanity, want, weakness, in short, depravity and corruption, reminds us, that in the Lord, and none but He, dwell the true light of wisdom, solid virtue, exuberant goodness. We are accordingly urged by our own evil things to consider the good things of God; and, indeed, we cannot aspire to Him in earnest until we have begun to be displeased with ourselves. For what man is not disposed to rest in himself? Who, in fact, does not thus rest, so long as he is unknown to himself; that is, so long as he is contented with his own endowments, and unconscious or unmindful of his misery? Every person, therefore, on coming to the knowledge of himself, is not only urged to seek God, but is also led as by the hand to find him.

2.Without knowledge of God there is no knowledge of self

On the other hand, it is evident that man never attains to a true self-knowledge until he have previously contemplated the face of God, and come down after such contemplation to look into himself. For (such is our innate pride) we always seem to ourselves just, and upright, and wise, and holy, until we are convinced, by clear evidence, of our injustice, vileness, folly, and impurity. Convinced, however, we are not, if we look to ourselves only, and not to the Lord also - He being the only standard by the application of which this conviction can be produced. For, since we are all naturally prone to hypocrisy, any empty semblance of righteousness is quite enough to satisfy us instead of righteousness itself. And since nothing appears within us or around us that is not tainted with very great impurity, so long as we keep our mind within the confines of human pollution, anything which is in some small degree less defiled delights us as if it were most pure just as an eye, to which nothing but black had been previously presented, deems an object of a whitish, or even of a brownish hue, to be perfectly white. Nay, the bodily sense may furnish a still stronger illustration of the extent to which we are deluded in estimating the powers of the mind. If, at mid-day, we either look down to the ground, or on the surrounding objects which lie open to our view, we think ourselves endued with a very strong and piercing eyesight; but when we look up to the sun, and gaze at it unveiled, the sight which did excellently well for the earth is instantly so dazzled and confounded by the refulgence, as to oblige us to confess that our acuteness in discerning terrestrial objects is mere dimness when applied to the sun. Thus too, it happens in estimating our spiritual qualities. So long as we do not look beyond the earth, we are quite pleased with our own righteousness, wisdom, and virtue; we address ourselves in the most flattering terms, and seem only less than demigods. But should we once begin to raise our thoughts to God, and reflect what kind of Being he is, and how absolute the perfection of that righteousness, and wisdom, and virtue, to which, as a standard, we are bound to be conformed, what formerly delighted us by its false show of righteousness will become polluted with the greatest iniquity; what strangely imposed upon us under the name of wisdom will disgust by its extreme folly; and what presented the appearance of virtuous energy will be condemned as the most miserable impotence. So far are those qualities in us, which seem most perfect, from corresponding to the divine purity.

John Calvin (in Book 1, Chapter 1 of "Institutes of the Christian Religion")
http://www.smartlink.net/~douglas/calvin/bk1ch01.html

P.S. Tom, is there anything in these 2 sections that you disagree with? And by the way, have you finished reading the article on I John 2:2 that I linked to?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Verne me lad,

You said,
"I guess I am just too simple to do anything but read and believe.

(For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)
It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.
As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.  

Unless I completely miss Paul's meaning here Tom, the truth of the proposition you presented is not left to our speculation but is explicitly stated here."

You have the believing part just fine, its the reading part that needs a little work.

1. This passage is dealing with national histories and peoples, not individuals.

In Romans 9 Paul talks about the Jews, the Gentiles, Jacob and Esau, and Pharaoh.

2. Well, aren't those guys individuals?

Check your references.  Verse 12 quotes Genesis 25:23.

That verse says,
"The Lord said to her, Two NATIONS are in your womb, And two PEOPLES are separated from your body; and one PEOPLE shall be stronger than the other; and the older shall serve the younger.

Now,  as far as I remember the Bible doesn't mention any acts of service to Jacob by Esau.

However, David conquered Edom, (Esau's descendants) and made them a tributary state to the United Kingdom.  They rebelled after the division into Israel and Judah.

They were an idolatrous, wicked people.  They stabbed Judah in the back, (read Obadiah) and were cursed by God.

2. Now as to the "Jacob have I loved, Esau have I hated" verse, that comes from Malachi 1:2 which was written in the 5th century BC.  That was AFTER all the above events happened.

3. What about Pharaoh?  God hardened him didn't He?

Check Exodus 10:1-2.

"The the Lord said to Moses, "God to Pharaoh, for I have hardened his heart and the heart of his servants that I may perform these signs of Mine among them,
and that you may tell in the hearing of your son and of your grandson, how I made a mockery of the Egyptians and how I performed My signs among them, that you may know that I am the Lord."

Pharaoh, was the man in the saddle, but the nation (and its gods) was the purpose.

By the way, to be pharaoh, you first had to commit all the abominations of Romans 1, PLUS claim to be the son of Ra.

That was Pharaoh's spiritual condition BEFORE he was hardened by God.

Notice also that individual Egyptians could escape the judgements if they feared Yahweh.  Gen. 9:18-21.

Verne, do not misunderstand me.  I am not denying divine election and predestination.  

What I am saying is that NO MAN understands what goes on in God's mind, therefore we don't know what he thinks about when he does things.

God bless,
Thomas Maddux
Virulent Dog 1st class-with bronze leaf.

Verne,

You wrote,
"p.s Virulent??!! I have been called similar things but Calvin could not have had you in mind my friend... "

Here is the quote, "These observations would be amply sufficient for the pious and modest, and such as remember that they are men.  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...."

Now without typing extensive quotes, I will just note that what Calvin is "refuting" here is people that ask questions like, "Just how is God "just" if he eternally fries people for doing things he made them do?"

In other words, me.  Now, I am merely saying that that doesn't make any sense to me.  Calvin condemns me for asking the question at all.

Good try John, but you can't cash that check at my bank.  Its the same as saying , "I don't know so don't ask".

God bless,

Thomas Maddux
Virulent Dog 1st Class with bronze leaf

Dear Tom,
I respectfully disagree with your assessment of Verne's reading ability.  I am familiar with the "it's not talking about individuals, it's talking about nations" argument, and I don't find it at all convincing.  It doesn't really deal with verse 11. The national election of Israel is obviously in the context of the passage, but the whole point that Paul is making is that "they [are] not all Israel, which are of Israel" (v.6), in other words, not all those who are part of the elect nation are elect individuals. Besides which, the election of Israel as a nation was a result of the election of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as individuals (cf. Deut. 4:37). And Paul plainly says in v. 18 "Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will [have mercy], and whom he will he hardeneth."

I'll let this suffice for now.
H

I knew the quote Tom; I was just saying that I think you are a great guy!  :)


I suppose a reference to a National identity is possible Tom. It does seem to me the statement that God elected before these boys had done either good or bad is speaking about personal, individual conduct. I don't know about you Tom, but looking at the way Jacob sometimes behaved certainly has me scratching my head as to why God would choose a fellow like that.
Even more incredible, considering what I know about myself, I wonder why He would choose a fellow like me!!  :)

Let not conscience make you linger
Nor of fitness, fondly dream
All the fitness He requireth
Is you feel your need for Him...

I have to say that this is one of those cases that I apply the adage "when the plain sense of Scritpure makes good sense, seek no other sense"
I fail to find the rationale for assuming a National reference here except for the sole purpose of fashioning an argument against unconditional election. Note how Paul responds to the anticipated opprobrium of the human heart to this concept:

Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?  Romans 9:20

Paul seems to anticipate that the notion of God sovereignly choosing, and not on the basis of what we have or have not done to merit that choice, good or evil, would do great violence to the human sense of fairness - and indeed it does! This is really the core of what troubles  those who object to unconditional election is it not? That it just does not seem fair for God to do something like this?!
Paul is unapologetic! His meaning could not be clearer.
While I agree there are some things about God that we cannot know, we can know that which He reveals about HImself. I believe the Scripture has revealed that He maintains the soevereign right to choose!
Let us be careful here and not assume that this negates in any way, the simultaneous teaching of God's Word, that He also holds men accountable for their choices.
I believe the area where we discover our own ability to plumb these matters is not on the question of if both of these concepts are true. Both are clearly taught by the Bible.
I believe where I agree with you that human knowledge becomes unequal to the task of fashioning logical arguments is when we try to answer the questions why and how two apparently contradictory teachings of the Scriptrue can both be accepted. That is where I bow the knee in humble adoration. At this point I am happy to confess:
I don't understand, but I believe...

Further, please note that when Scripture makes a reference to Essau's line the term Edom is generally employed. There is no New Testament Scriptural case I know of, where his name is used without reference to a historical record of the man himself. (Hebrews 11:20. 12:16)
Verne

p.s.
The notion of a national reference to election is as pointed out correctly by H, absolutely bruatlized by Paul when he states with great certitude:
"All Israel is not Israel"
It drives home the immutability of God's sovereign right to choose even more forcefully. Think about it!

 I am having a great time! I hope you guys are too!!  :)  :)  

H,

If you have an argument to make, do so.  "I disagree" is a statement about your opinion, and is, if true, legitimate.  However, it is not an argument.

The point I made in my earlier post about the relationship of God's transendance of time, omniscience, and inscrutability, if unanswered, put the term "unconditional" election in question as to having any meaning at all.

Merely saying, "He has mercy/hardens whom He desires" is actually a way of sidestepping the issue.  The issue is "Why does God have these particular desires?"

In other words, what is going on in God's mind when he makes such choices?  

If you don't know, you cannot know if it is unconditional or not.

Regarding your lengthy quotations of authors.  Please summarize the arguments and state them, rather than quoting page after page.   It really makes the discussion clearer and easier for all.

In reading Calvin, I noticed the time problem years ago.  I read Boethius' "Consolation of Philosophy" when I was in college in the 60's.  He wrote in the 5th century AD, and dealt quite extensively with the time problem in relation to determinism/free will issues.

His book was a standard required text during the middle ages, so I cannot imagine that Calvin did not know of these things.

Nevertheless, Calvin's arguments fail to deal with this issue, and in some places he argues on the basis of God's being bound to our time dimension and acting sequentially as we must.

God bless,

Thomas Maddux
Virulent Dog 1st Class with bronze leaf.

Dear Tom,
I am very, very sorry to have offended you.  :'(  Please forgive me.
I have sent an email to the address on your profile asking for your forgiveness and revealing my identity. Hope you get it and respond. I have also edited my post and removed the offending statements. I would very much appreciate it if you would edit your post accordingly. I will try my best to stick to discussing ideas in the future.
May the Lord richly bless you and your family!
H

Tom I know H quite well. He is a person of great integrity and loves Jesus Christ deeply. I believe his response to the concerns you expressed about the post that offended you proves that. Please forgive him.
I myself occasionaly get carried away in he heat of debate and will sometimes mis-speak. We are men of like passions... :)
Verne

Quote from Verne earlier in this thread:

I look at this from the standpoint of God's justice.  Earlier in the book of Romans, Paul carefully, and completely lays out the case that God is absolutely just in condemning sinners.  He is not unrighteous in the least, and each of us deserves hell fire as the only just wages for our sin.

So, this passage about election hasn't to do with God's fairness, it would have been perfectly fair if all of us were going to hell.  This passage has to do with God's mercy.  In other words, He didn't choose us because we were worthy, He chose us because of His mercy.  There is nothing unfair about the fact that He didn't choose everyone, but there is wonderment over why He chose anyone!

Now, Tom and H (you really should tell everyone who you are H) please, please do not stop discussing this topic.  I am reading every word here, with rapt attention.  I don't know where I stand on this issue, and I have been wrestling with it for over a year now.  I am not easily convinced by either camp, because they both have good points.

Brent

H,

Praise the Lord! All is forgiven, shaken down and running over.  

How refreshing, how joyful.

HOW DIFFERENT from some of the folks who post here!

God bless,

Tom

Dr. James White recently was at a Bible Conference here in Spfld, Ill.  Though I enjoyed leasoning to him speak on topics as; The Defence of the Trinity... Why Is It Important?, KJV Only Controversy, There Realy is a Difference... Comparison of Calvinistic & Arminian Theologies, and Biflical Sufficiency; I do not believe everything he teaches, but  these topics do give me food for thought.
In April, Dr. Norman L. Geisler will be one of meny speakers at, Saint Louis Conference on Biblical Discernment, hopefully I will be able to hear him, I'm sure I will have more food for though.  :)
As christians we must search the scripture for our selves and ask God to give us understanding according to His word, if we don't we will be taken captive by mans words and opinions.

P.S.
H.,  because of what has happened on this Board it would be nice if you would post who you are.

Hi folks,

   I have read this discussion with interest and wish to contribut my 2 cents.

The doctrine of predestination or election is beset with many difficulties.   Not difficulties in whether it is Truth but more in our abilities to debate on the basis on how our Lord elects.   It highlights the "secret things" of God. But if we take the revealed word of God as our guide, we must face the fact that these mysteries are far above our ways and understandings , and settle all our questionings in the humble, devout acknowledgment, "Even so, Father: for so it seemed good in thy sight."
 Otherwise, IMOHO, our destination is to define predestination by our own understandings and spend fruitless hours debating such topics.   We will offend and be offended and for what?...to come to the same conclusion that Salvation is by the Grace of  God alone.
   In these endeavors, we will find ourselves elevating the profit of a vain debate by supporting the positions of man, whether it be Calvin, Spurgeon, another BBS poster or in  the worst case, someone like George Geftakys!

Consider the following:
James 2:5  Listen, my beloved brethren: did not God choose the poor of this world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom which He promised to those who love Him?

   The term "unconditional" when in the context of Predestination, is, IMO,   just a word that puts God in a box.   Maybe many will think I'm too simple and I'm comfortable with that, but I rejoice in the fact that Grace has brought me safe thus far, and Grace will lead me Home.   In other words, I see election as a very grand fullfillment of a promise of my Sovereign Lord.

   Dear friends, this is just where I am personally with the doctrine of predestination and does not mean that I have a problem with the topic of this discussion.

It is well with my soul,
Tony Edwards

Dear Tom,
thanks for forgiving me!  :) And for editing your post.
And thanks for the email.
I confess I haven't given all that much thought to your question about God's transendance of time, omniscience, and inscrutability in connection with election, and maybe I should do so before continuing to discuss election.
May the Lord bless you and your family!

Dear Verne,
thanks for your friendship and support! And your posts.
May the Lord also bless you and your family!

Dear Brent,
thanks for your excellent post! I agree with everything you said about God's justice and mercy. "In other words, He didn't choose us because we were worthy, He chose us because of His mercy.  There is nothing unfair about the fact that He didn't choose everyone, but there is wonderment over why He chose anyone!" These 2 sentences of yours are an excellent summary of what I believe about election!
As for telling everyone who I am, I am still reluctant to post my name publicly, but I am willing to identify myself privately (in a PM or email). Verne, Tom, Mark C., Greg and Kimberley Tobin, Paul Hohulin, Rachel and Judy, Shelley & Pat Evert, Arthur, you and the Teaters already know who I am. If anybody else wants to know, they can just send me a PM.
And may the Lord bless you and your family as well!

In Christ,
H

Hey!! What about me buddy?  ;D

p.s. Brilliant point about the justice of God. The wonder indeed is that considering He has concluded all under sin, that any are saved. This is getting to the meat of what election truly means - He gets all the glory!!

Verne "The Joker" Carty

p.s.  Today I am really working on my sub-woofer. I can't decide whether to use the high-frequency by-pass or send the full signal range to my main speakrs....*sigh*...
Where's Burt when you need him?  ;D

By the way, Tom, since Brent has so helpfully summarized the main points of what I believe about election, I think I will let that suffice for the time being on that topic. Now why don't you tell us what you believe about election? I would be interested to know!
In Christ,
H

I knew you wouldn't stop posting Verne.....

Brent ;)

H and All

Can't say I agree with Calvin on his view on election. I agree that it is only because of God's mercy that any of us got saved, but why choose certain ones. Why not choose everyone?

John 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life.

Lord bless,
Marcia

The "calvinist" quotes Roman's 9,  The Arminian quotes Romans 10, but God wrote both chapters, through Paul.  Election in chapter 9 is followed by whoever call upon the Name of The Lord in chapter 10.  In some marvelous way, those that call on His Name are saved, and the elect call on His Name.  God chose us, and we chose to believe in Him.

Which comes first?  We love Him because He first loved us.

I'm still not a five pointer, but if I had to chose between zero points and all five, I say "gimme five!"

I like the idea that my friend's salvation isn't up to his choice,  (the guy has no love for God,) but that it is up to God.  If it was up to me to "lead" someone to the Lord, HEAVEN HELP THEM!!  However, God has used me in this way, which is an amazement to me.  

I think Tom is on to something when he talks about God's omniscience and not being bound by chronology, but how are we to ever know?

Keep it up!

Brent

 Re:Quotes to Ponder
« Reply #3 on: November 26, 2003, 09:43:36 am »      

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Verne,

Here are some thoughts on Calvinism.

The fundamental problem I have with Johnny C and friends is that they pontificate at great length about things that no man can know.  They seem to think that they do, in fact, understand that which cannot be understood.

Let's look, for example, at their ideas on election.  They claim that God does not take into account what people do in electing them.

Now, notice I said what people do, not what they will do.

That is because God has revealed Himself as an omniscient, omnipresent being.  He does not exist in the time plane of the universe.  He is transcendant over all space, matter, energy and time.  All time is present to Him.  He was, is, and will be...from OUR perspective...but He is all these things at once!  So He knows all things, as present.

Now, according to Calvinists, He does not take into account the actions of people when He elects.  First of all, remember that I said elects, not elected.  To us, it is elected. Because we live in linear time.
But, to God, He elects, because all time is present to Him.

Now, how does God's "time" if such a concept even applies to God, inersect with ours?

NO ONE KNOWS!

We have pretty good evidence that our universe was created with 9 spatial dimensions and one of time.
In order to create something so complex, God has to be even more complex.

Now, how much more?  NO ONE KNOWS!  Therefore any theory founded in a supposed understanding God's mind and ways is stumbling out of  the starting gate.

Why do I believe we don't know God's ways?  The Bible very clearly says so!

Romans 11:33 "Oh, the depth of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how UNSEARCHEABLE are His judgements and UNFATHOMABLE His ways."

Calvinistic ideas about election are based on an "understanding" of God's unfathomable ways.

Isaiah 55:9.  "For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts higher than your thoughts."

We don't understand how God thinks.

Deuteronomy 29:29 "The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our children."

We understand some of what has been revealed to us, but we don't even have absolute knowledge of that!  In addition, there is a realm of knowledge that is "secret" from our viewpoint.

Now, I am well aware that many Calvinists would take this as a challenge and weigh in with tome after tome of arguments.

So, I just hold up a question to be answered first.

How does a being that is all-knowing, all-present, all-powerful, all time transcending, and all-creating, think and do things?

If you don't know the answer to that question, you really don't have much to say about issues that fall into that category.

When I say "you" Verne, I don't mean you personally.  I mean anyone that attempts to expound these subjects.

So, I remain very skeptical of anyone of any theological persuasion who claims to understand what divine revelation clearly states is not understandable.

God bless,
Thomas Maddux

Virulent Dog 1st Class (a term used for people like me by John Calvin. Well, I did promote myself to first class.  I got tired of being just a run-of-the-mill virulent dog.)  

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
 

 I am quoting the above because there seems to be some misunderstanding about exactly what I am disagreeing with concerning Calvininsm.

Several people have responded to me as if I had just brought up the usual Calvinist/Arminian wrangling.  However, the objection I have stated is NOT the usual wrangling over the meaning of various verses.

What I have done is to give an argument that leads one to the conclusion that no one truly understands God's election of individuals.

Now, some have replied to me with the "stock" replies to Arminians.  That is missing the point.

I am not saying God does not elect.  I am saying that the Calvinist's TEACHING on election is not well grounded.

On the subject of Calvinist teaching, let me add one thing.  Are you foks aware that Calvin taught that God damns men for doing what He, (God) made them do?

Here's Johnny C.

 "They again object, Were not men predestinated by the ordination of God to that corruption which is now held forth as the cause of condemnation?  If so, when they perish in their corruptions they do nothing else than suffer punishment for that calamity, into which, by the predestination of God, Adam fell, and dragged all his posterity headlong with him.  Is not he, therefore, unjust in thus cruelly mocking his creatures?

Calvin answers- I ADMIT THAT BY THE WILL OF GOD  the sons of Adam fell into that state of wretchedness in which they are now involved; and this is just what I said at the first, that we must always return to the MERE PLEASURE OF THE DIVINE WILL, the cause of which is hidden in himself."

Do you understand what he is saying???  He is saying that God made Adam fall, which condition of fallenness makes men sin, and then God judges them for acting out of the condition of fallenness that He forced them into, and fries them for all eternity...and says He is just!!!   And he does it because he enjoys it!!

That is what Calvin taught.  That is what most Calvinists believe.

What I am saying, is that neither he nor they know what they are talking about.  

Again, what I am saying, is that Calvin has made some errors of logic.  Some of his premises are not true, therefore his conclusions cannot be true.

More later,

Thomas Maddux
Virulent Dog First Class-with bronze leaf.

OK

Rather than sticking to the topic of election, I will share some thoughts on Systematic Theology, of which election and predestination are sub-topics.

I used to think of "Calvinism" and "Arminianism" or "Reformed Theology" versus "Dispensationalism" as either/or or true/false issues.

I no longer see it that way.  The reason for this is my having come into contact with the concept of scientific models.

A scientific model works like this.  A body of data is developed by theory, observation, and experimentation.  An individual organizes the data into a model which explains a certain phenomena.  Other individuals organize the same data into other explanatory schemes, (models).  As time progresses one model proves to have withstood much more stringent testing than the others, and ends up becoming the consensus of most people in the field.

But it doesn't stop there.  Further study refines and focuses the model, producing greater understanding.  Newtonian Physics had to be adjusted because of Relativity.  Relativity is being accomodated to Quantum Physics.  String Theory seems to be providing the way to do this, and opening up new areas of study as well.

In recent years it has dawned on me that this is exactly how theological systems work as well.  The Reformed model has a lot of explanatory power in certain areas.  However, there are a number of verses and passages of scriputure that cannot be allowed to mean what they say because they lead one to conclusions that contradict other parts of the model.

The Dispensationsal model also has many strengths, but suffers from some of the same weaknesses.  Therefore, I do not view either one as having expressed all encompassing truth in a conclusive manner.

The theological enterprise of mining all possible truth from the texts of divine revelation is still in progress.  It behooves all parties in these discussions to maintain a humble attitude and to refrain from condemning people of other persuasions as VIRULENT DOGS!   ;)

God bless,

Thomas Maddux V.D. (with bronze leaf).

You are starting to scare me Tom. Exaxtly what do you mean by this statement? I trust what you are referring to is perhaps an error of translation? Or are you actually saying that the Word of God is self-contradictory?
I think you have be extremely careful in invoking scientific paradigms, which are after all the product of man's sinful, fallen, and finite intellect. It is one thing to say we don't  fully understand a passage of Scripture, it is another thing completely to conclude that God's Word contradicts itself.
Human logic would suggest that individual responsibility and Divine sovereignty are mutually exclusive truthful propositions. The Bible teaches them both. Is the Bible contradictory? Even a look at scientific paradigms would warrant great caution. For example in Quantum theory, is light particulate or wave-form? Even Superstring Theory does not provide final answers...
Verne

Tom is describing the perspective of the people he is describing. The error is in the model, not the verses of scripture (I hope that's what you mean, Tom).  This is common with certain systems of theology, that they develop certain models and perspective and then have to twist and distort certain verses to make them fit.  Although the model may be largely right, verses that contradict it show something is amiss.  Unfortunately, many stick to their theories too much.

We also have to be careful, since "Throw out your theology" was something that GG used to promote his weird ideas.  I would guess the theologies are more in need of fine tuning than complete replacement, since they largely present coherent views of scripture.

Dave

Tony,
I agree with you that "difficulties" grasping the truth are limited to our "abilities". The other day my 15 year old said to me,
"Dad I don't understand how God never had a beginning". I told her, "welcome to the club, that's why God  is God".
I do think it's good to ponder and probe these things for two reasons: 1 We pray for understanding, as a result a personal relationship developes between the individual and the Almighty. 2 I believe false teachers love when their followers take on the attitude of "blind faith" because it allows them to run unchecked.

I know that you disagree with what Romans Nine is referring to in this regard but it seems to me that  this is indeed the exact teaching of verse eleven. Even allowing for a National reference, this is exactly the point of principle Paul makes so personally I consider this position to be Scripturally warranted.



(For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)



As to how space-time relationships apply to Diety the answer is quite simple in my view - they don't; God is eternal. The incarnation of Christ somehow bridged a divide that I believe no human system of epistimology can ever fathom. I don't even try!
There is no space-time model, no matter how multi-dimensional, that can adequately describe the concept of eternity. The "elsewhere" (hyperspace)descriptor in Wheeler's treatment of  relativity is the closest thing I have seen to this idea but even that, for a number of reasons falls far short.





God has communicated to us in His physical creation, His written Word, and the Person of His dear Son. It is clear that there are some things He does want us to know and understand. If language means anything, He has made it clear in many a verse that the elects'  choice is not the causative agent determining their destiny, yet for the unrepentant sinner it is!
Do I understand all that is implied by the idea that God chooses apart from our personal choices? No I do not. Does the Bible teach that? Yes it does.


On this subject I am not prepared to go beyond Scripture. My Bible tells me that Adam knowingly made a choice to disobey. I am prepared to accept what God's Word teaches though. Some relevant verses in my view:

The Lord hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.
Psalm 16:4

 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
   Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
  What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,


Do these verses make me uncomfortable? Yes they do. Is that a good and sufficient reason to reject what they plainly say? Not in my opinion.

Verne

Verne,

It is true that scientific models are the product of man's sinful, fallen, finite intellect.

But remember...theological systems are ALSO the product of man's sinful, fallen finite intellect.

That includes John Calvin's theological system, and all others as well.

No Verne, I don't believe that God's word condtradicts itself.  What I am talking about  is the list of verses and passages that make statements so contradictory to a particular system of theology that  its adherents have to give long involved explanations about why it doesn't mean what it seems to.

An example of how Reformed folks do this would be Revelation 10:1-10.  You know, Satan bound, Christ reigning for a thousand years etc.

I first learned of their objections in the 70's.  I was reading a tract against dispensationalism, written by some reformed fellow.  When he dealt with this passage he tried to get around it by saying it was an "excessively wooden interpretation".  

My immediate question was, "If it doesn't mean what it seems to say, then what DOES it mean?  I have never run across any attempt to explain the "correct" meaning.  There must be one, somewhere, but I have never seen it.

I have a book on biblical interpretation written by three Calvinist scholars.  In the section on New Testament Apocalypses they just say, "In other cases , numbers seem just to indicat short or long units of measurement.  One thousand years is a long and wonderful "Golden Age" (20:4)".  That's all it says on the subject.  

That is hardly a satisfactory explanation of the passage.

A few years ago, I asked a Calvinist professor of theology in the context of this passage, "If we cannot access the meaning of this passage using word meaning and syntactical rules, just how DO we acccess its meaning?"

The answer was, "I don't know how to answer you, perhaps you should read...".

That is also hardly a satisfactory explanation of the passage.

Reformed folks have several such verses and passages.  Even John 3:16 has to be explained away.

Don't get me wrong.  Dispensational theology isn't free of this either.  People like Louis Sperry Chafer pretty much explained away the entire spoken ministry of Jesus!

Verne, you also said,

"Human logic would suggest that individual responsibility and Divine sovereignty are mutually exclusive truthful propositions. The Bible teaches them both. "

If you are speaking of salvation, this is not the reformed position at all, Verne.  

Reformed theology teaches that it works in this order.

1. Foreknowledge/election 2. Predestination 3. Operation of irrestible grace 4. Regeneration 5. Belief  6. Salvation.

The individual is the subject of an irresistible process, and has nothing at all to do with its outcome.

In the Wesleyian-Arminian system the soteriological order is

1. Foreknowledge, which includes knowlege of actions  2. Predestination 3. Operation of prevenient grace on all men (prevenient means "comes before").  4. Acceptance or rejection of grace by the individual 5. Salvation for those accepting the offer of grace.

Calvinist theologians talk about human responsibility in the process, but if grace is indeed irresistible, the outcome is totally caused by forces outside of the man.

The theological terms used in the discussion are synergism and monergism.

Nuff' for now.

God bless,

Thomas Maddux V. D. (with silver leaf).

Verne,

You also said,
" For example in Quantum theory, is light particulate or wave-form? Even Superstring Theory does not provide final answers..."

I know a lady who is a particle physicist.  Her answer to the particle/wave question, concerning photons,  was something like this.

It depends on the scale one is using to observe the photon.

At one scale of observation it appears to be a particle.  But at a more fundamental level it is a wave.  The "particle" is sort of "smeared" (her word) into the strongest part of the wave.

Tom

Hi All ! :)

 I follow with interest this discussion as I also have wrangled with these issues as well.
  We owe a great debt to the Reformers, and for their Protestant revolution as they dealt with a Roman Catholic church that clearly was miles away from the truth of the grace of God.
   I agree with Tom that there is much to be gained from studying the different theological systems that have come our way and to also acknowledge their failings.  
  It is where they agree, and where scripture is the most clear, that we need to focus because I think it is there we will truly hear the voice of God.  We run the risk of arguing "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" by trying to figure out God's inscrutable ways.
   Jesus is called "The Word of God", the expression of the mind of God, and in His incarnation, crucifixtion, and ress. we find the apex of light and life.  Not only do we see most clearly who God is in Christ we are provided with a very accesible means to gain a true understanding; God as man, timebound and living in the culture of that time, speaking to them and us in a very basic human way.
   In the cross we see that God is love, God is righteous, etc., and this vision trumps all theological systems or private interpretations of individual verses; this understanding is the ultimate interpretative tool in our really pulling together a theology.
   A child can come to Christ and find salvation, as the Gospel message is simple enough for the most unsophisticated, yet in the reception of the Lord we posess eternal life!  Regarding this there are no contradictions that can stand.
                                 God Bless,  Mark C.

I think it would be good to talk in some detail about the basics of Reformed Theology and the remarkable influence of the man John Calvin (recall the with so-called five points of Calvinism) but before that, I would like to stay with Romans a bit and see if we can agree on a tenet or two. So instead of the process by which one (elected or not) comes to his final state, why don't we consider God's purpose as stated in Romans Nine?
Romans Nine seems to teach us that the vessel of wrath is a necessary to and concomitant with the vessel of mercy.

 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,  


If I read the passage correctly, God cannot make known the riches of His glory in the vessels of mercy apart from the display of His wrath on vessels fitted to destruction. I will assume agreement on this one point.

The vessels of wrath are necessary for God's display of the  riches of His glory in the vessels of mercy.

Stated another way, there could be no display of the riches of His glory in the vessel of mercy, if the vessel of wrath did not exist.
Let us consider the vessels of mercy.
We are not looking now at process as you did in your previous post but rather at purpose, and clearly the latter must precede and direct the former. God is a God of order.
We are told of the vessels of mercy that God "afore prepared" them. What exactly does this mean? Can we by examining God's purpose in His work with vessels of mercy draw sound Scritprual conclusions regarding His purpose with regard to vessels of wrath? This  seems to me a more fruitful line of inquiry and also keeps us close to the Scripture as we cogitate. The fact is, everyone alive falls into one or the other of these two categories and a clear apprehension of God's purpose in my view really is the key to understanding  
the incredible question of how and why a man's destiny is discerned...
more to come...
Verne

 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.
 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

Continuing our focus on the vessels of mercy for the moment, I'd like to further examine the truth of the proposition that God's choice of necessity preceeded theirs. We have also previously posited that the existence of the vessel of mercy, requires the existence of the vessel of wrath. That the vessels of mercy exist is indeed self evident, witnessed not only by your faith and mine, but also the promises of God's Word.
There are a few "loaded" words in the above Scripture so I will avoid them for the moment. I want to make only this simple point. The foreknowledge and predestination  are not characteristics applied to the vessel of mercy in a vacuum. It is remarkable to me how many a bitter exchage will ensue over those two words, while the rest of the accompanying descriptors in the following verse are totally ignored.
There are five things  (not T.U.L.I.P.  :)) said regarding the vessel of mercy and they include:
foreknowledge, predestination, calling, justification, and glorification.

Failure to recognize the inextricable linkage, and seamless eternal completeness of these five Divine acts vis a vis the vessel of mercy, is the root cause of much of the confusion and contention on this topic!


Here is my point, allowing for our limited understanding of God's eternal state, the Holy Spirit nevertheless had Paul use a tense other that the present or future (all in aorist)to express what God had done. Think about it!
Verne

Those living among us who are vessels of wrath. Do they know they are vessels of wrath ?

If you are alive, and have not placed saving faith in the Lord Jesus Christ,  every breath you draw should serve as a reminder that you have absolutely no basis for concluding that you are anything but a vessel of God's wrath. All those outside the atoning work of the cross of Jesus Christ are by definition, vessels of God's wrath - fitted as it were for destruction. No one has paid for their sin and so when they stand before God they must. The wages of sin is death and must be paid in full! This is the twofold message of the gospel - God's goodness and God's severity!
Anyone reading these words who does not know Jesus Christ as personal Saviour and would like to change their status from vessel of wrath to vessel of mercy can! The Lord Jesus Christ rejects no one who comes to Him...


Come ye sinners
Poor and needy
Weak and wounded, sick and sore
Jesus ready stands to save you
Full of pity, love and power
He is able, He is able He is able
He is willing, doubt no more
He is willing, doubt no more!

Verne

Verne & BBers
In your opinion does Calvinism teach that those predestined for wrath have all made a very clear personal choice to be an enemy of God ?
If there are predestined vessels of wrath, would the teachings of Calvin support the gay communities claim that they have no choice because "they were born this way ?(fulfilling their destiny of wrath according to Calvin)
I truly appreciate those who have the ability to teach doctrine accurately in simple terms but sometimes in our quest, do we clutter & complicate the simple message of the Gospel ?
Do I need to become a lawyer to understand the word of God ?
Mark

Mark,

Your questions, especially the one about the self-knowledge of the vessels of wrath, bring into view one of Calvinism's most serious problems.

Calvinism, as taught by its founder, is a deterministic philosophy. In other words, Calvin, (and Luther as well), believed that there is no real freedom anywhere in the creation. Therefore God controls every act and every thought of every man.

 Johnathan Edwards believed that the way this worked was that the will followed desire.  Men "willed" but God manipulated the desires. That way, God was in charge of every act of man, but it appears to man that he makes the decisions.

This idea is very similar to Hinduism.  We, in both systems, live in a world of appearance.  We appear to be making choices and excercising free choice.  However, the reality is that it is all being determined by hidden forces that we cannot discern.  So, all that we call reality is an illusion.

Now, there is a difference.  Calvin believed the creation was real.  It was only in the area of human choice that the illusion operates.

Am I being fair?  Well, let's let John speak for himself.

"...the dispute is superfluous since life and death are acts of the divine will rather than of prescience.  If God merely forsaw human events, and did not also arrange and dispose of them at his pleasure, there might be room for agitating the question, how far his foreknowledge amounts to necessity; but since he forsees the things which are to happen, simply because he has decreed that they are to happen, it is vain to debate about prescience, while it is clear that all events take place by his sovereign appointment."

There it is folks, absolute determinism.

I one chews on this idea a while you begin to see just how problematic it is.  The biggie is that God is the source of ALL evil.

That idea ends up with Christ dying for "sins" that find their ultimate source in God!!!


This is why you see phrases in Calvinist writings about God having acted in such and such a way, "yet without sin".  Most Calvinists are advocates of Volunteerism, which is the idea that if God does something that, from our viewpoint, is horrible, it is OK.  

The reason for this is that God makes the rules.  He is a law unto himself, so if you see any problem with this you are a "Virulent Dog".
"Blasphemer", "Impious person", or any one of several other compliments that Johnny C was accustomed to awarding to those who were not fans.

In reading the original reformers, one must keep in mind that they were all Catholic priests.  They spent many years regularly trying to turn bread and wine into the literal flesh and blood of Jesus.  

They also had Medieval Scholastic philosophy deeply inculcated into their worldview.  This included centuries long debates between people like the Dominicans, Franciscans, Jesuits and others.  They had all been trained to think in certain ways, and as we all know, it is very difficult to break out of established thought/belief patterns.

In Calvin this shows up as he quotes Augustine to "prove" some of his points.  If Augustine said so, it is obviously true, right?  That is a very "Catholic" way of thinking.

It is of interest to me that the man we call Arminius, (his name was Haarmensen, or something like that) was NOT a priest.  He had been trained in Calvinism at Geneva by Calvin's successor, Beza.  When called on to defend Johnny's ideas he did some deep thinking and came up with "wait a minute, boys, let's take another look at this".

Well, nuff said for now.  But, I would ask any fans of Johnny a question:  Do you really believe that it was God abusing Judy through David?

God bless,

Thomas Maddux V.D. (with silver leaf).

Mark you have put your finger squarely on the exact problem that I think those who get imbroiled in this debate encounter.
It is one thing to talk about vessels of wrath in the abstract; it is another thing to talk about them in the absolute. It is one thing to talk about them in terms of principle. It is another thing to talk about them personally.
As to who is or is not a vessel of wrath, simply put, that is none of our business (I know I know...I have been guilty of transgressing those boundaries myself - it was wrong!).
While we may speculate about who does or does not fit this category, the fact is that only God knows for certain.
We are commanded to preach the gospel to every creature. Those whom God wills to be saved will respond and put saving faith in Christ. Those who do not will be condemned in their sin with no excuse when they stand before His throne. (Let's forego for the moment those who have never heard the good news). I believe there are some Scripturally defined categories that qualify, for example, those taking the mark of the beast as described in the book of Revelation, a man like Judas Iscariot, anyone one fitting the category of description of a false prophet/teacher as described by both Peter and Jude. As to the state of our neigbour in the vilest of condition to our mind?

There is every possibility that he or she is a chosen vessel of mercy! This is why we need to always be ready to give a reason for the hope within us...sobering is it not? I think this is what Lewis had in mind in his "weight of glory" when he opined:

"Next to the holy sacrament itself, the holiest thing that will present itself to your eyes is your neighbor"

Please note he used holy in the sense of "set apart" for a specific purpose. The rest of that quote explains his awesome reasoning in making that statement and some of you are familiar with it. We are getting a little deep here so I will take a deep breath...
Verne

p.s.



And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually
Genesis 6:5  

The question I would ask here is what is meant by control?
Is Gcd in control, in the sense that He can forcibly direct the course of any event? If you agree that He can, does that mean He is necessarily the author. Put another way, does God indeed forcibly direct all events in space-time? Careful!
I prefer to think of God's sovereignty being displayed in the matter of outcome...kind of like heads He wins, tails you loose...  :)

I want to wait a bit to see if there are any other views on what I have written so far. I would be happy to hear a differing perspective...

Tom what do you think of the concept of the permissive will of God? I think you have to be careful in going from the former to concluding that God is the cause of evil. I know that you did not intend to make such a simplistic leap but some might conclude thusly.
If I have the power to interrupt an event, so that it does not happen, but choose to excercise restraint so that it indeed does, it clearly was my will that it ocurred. Does that necessarily prove that I caused it? This I believe is the subtlety of Calvin's argument that by His foreknowledge God appoints all events, not that He necessarily causes them. There is a huge difference!  :)
 


We have it on good Scriptural grounds that this is indeed false. God's Word is filled with exhortations to the sinner to choose life over death...

 Cast away from you all your transgressions, whereby ye have transgressed; and make you a new heart and a new spirit: for why will ye die, O house of Israel?
For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord God: wherefore turn yourselves, and live ye.
Ezekiel 18:31,32

To be fair, we cannot however ignore the Biblical teaching that man's fallen condition makes his independent surrender of His will an impossibility. (this by the way is what I think makes the resisting of the promptings of the Spirit of God so frightfully serious!).
This is what I think  Luther was thinking about in his treatise on the bondage of the will. As you well know, he and Erasmus almost came to blows over this matter! It is indeed (the will) in the unregenerate, enslaved to sin. This idea is what of course prompted the Calvinist teaching of irrisistible grace or the "I" of the tulip!  :)

Verne
p.s. has anybody thought much about the kind of lives lived by the men subscribing to Reformed Theology? The power of doctrine to infuse and transform a life is indeed instructive (eg; Geftakysism). John Piper is probably the standard bearer of Reformed thinkers to day and an admitted five-point Calvinist! Oh to be like him!
This would also make a good topic of discussion and debate would it not?  :)


Aww! Go ahead and give yourself the clusters as well...you deserve it.... :)

Verne,

There is one thing that you have to keep in mind in speaking of the permissive will of God.  As I said before,

"Am I being fair?  Well, let's let John speak for himself.

"...the dispute is superfluous since life and death are acts of the divine will rather than of prescience.  If God merely forsaw human events, and did not also arrange and dispose of them at his pleasure, there might be room for agitating the question, how far his foreknowledge amounts to necessity; but since he forsees the things which are to happen, simply because he has decreed that they are to happen, it is vain to debate about prescience, while it is clear that all events take place by his sovereign appointment."

There it is folks, absolute determinism."

If you wish to dispute Calvin's absolute determinism, you need to answer him, not me.  It is pretty hard to get around "...it is clear that all events take place by his soveriegn appointment."


I am well aware that many Calvinists cannot swallow Calvin's ideas at this point.  Others do.  Sometimes R.C.Sproul argues from determinism.

I call the Calvinists that follow Calvin TC's (True Calvinists), and the ones like Pink DC's (Diluted Calvininsts).  I believe that most modern Calvinists are DC's.

I read Pink's "Sovereignty of God" many years ago.  He appeals to the idea of God's "permissive" will in contrast to His "sovereign will".  

Once, when I was 8, my mom let me get behind the wheel of our '49 Ford and drive through the backstreets of Lubbock, Texas.  (I have no idea what she was thinking, she never did it again.)

What if I had run over someone and killed them.  Who's fault would it have been?  After all, I was driving, not her.  You know the answer.

The one with the ultimate power is ultimately responsible.  The "permissive will" avenue leads right back to the sovereignty issue.



You also said,

"If I have the power to interrupt an event, so that it does not happen, but choose to excercise restraint so that it indeed does, it clearly was my will that it ocurred. Does that necessarily prove that I caused it? This I believe is the subtlety of Calvin's argument that by His foreknowledge God appoints all events, not that He necessarily causes them. "

This doesn't work either, Verne.  You are trying to have your cake and eat it too.  According to Calvin, God caused Adam to fall and to pass on his corrupt nature.  If I give a 5 year old a loaded gun and he shoots someone with it, who's to blame?  I didn't shoot anyone.  Who me?

What if I saw that he was about to shoot someone, could have stopped it, and simply didn't.  I am without any responsibility?  Don't think so.

This is why Calvin repeatedly demands that we supress any such thoughts if they arise.  He knew where his teachings ended up.  Hence, the frequent appeal to Volunterism by TC's.


Verne, you said as well,


"We have it on good Scriptural grounds that this is indeed false. God's Word is filled with exhortations to the sinner to choose life over death...

  Cast away from you all your transgressions, whereby ye have transgressed; and make you a new heart and a new spirit: for why will ye die, O house of Israel?
For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord God: wherefore turn yourselves, and live ye.
Ezekiel 18:31,32 "


In this Verne, you are correct.  The scriptures are chock full of ideas and passages that contradict Calvin's teachings.

That is why I am such a Virulent Dog.  

In all of this, we should remember that Calvin and Luther were fighting for their lives against Roman Catholic apologists and rulers.  Their ideas were matters of life and death in their days.  To lose the ear of protecting rulers and leaders was to be burned at the stake.  I can understand the extreme positions they sometimes adopted, but I really can't agree with them.

God bless,

Thomas Maddux V.D. (with bronze Oak Leaf Clusters)
Thanks for the promotion Verne.

No difficluty here at all. since God's Word clearly teaches that He is of purer eyes than to behold evil, any argument that has Him as responsible for its presence as other than via His permissive will I reject.


This does not bother me as much as it does you Tom. It is part of our human constitution that God has given us the right to choose hell. Amazing is it not? The analogy with your parent fails as she is of limited wisdom. God is omniscient! :)
I do not believe God erred in so decreeing it that man shall have this choice, as your mom clearly did in putting a young pup as yourself behind the wheel...what on earth was she thinking??!! ;D

                                                                 


Same problem here. The analogy you draw could never extend to Deity. All of God's choices to act, or to refrain are based on His omniscience. He always acts in accordance with His purpose, regardless of our freely given choices! That's why He is God. I do not see the difficulty here. It is in the very essence and nature of omnipotence to be able to make all things, even our choices, to work after the counsel of His own will. For some reason I unlike you take great comfort from this. I know that I cannot always control the outcome of the choices of others or even my own choices but God can!
I cannot begin to tell you how many messes of my own making He has delivered me from, praise His Blessed Name!



I guess that makes me virulent dog number 2!  ;D
Now, when can I get my clusters huh?  ;D
Verne

Verne,

I have been really busy for a couple of days.

You have reached the last trench of Calvinism.  Voluntarism. (I finally got it spelled correctly).

This is the fall back position of TC's when they react to the accusation that they teach that God is the source of all evil.

Stated simply, it says that since God is omnipotent he is not limited by any higher law or standard.  Therefore he can do whatever he wishes.

Since he is the source of all law, whatever he does is right.

It is sort of a theological version of "Where does an 800 pound gorilla sit?"

This is why Calvinists are so fond of the words "sovereign" , majestic, awesome,  and such.  

The answer to this contention, that whatever God might do is right because he makes the rules, is called Essentialism.

The idea of Essentialsm is that God only acts out of his essential being, which he has revealed to us as just, merciful, loving, wise, and so on.

Therefore, the idea of God being unjust, cruel, unloving, foolish etc. is untenable.

So, God can't just decide to be unjust, and have that be equal to being just.  He is not limited by a higher law or power.  He acts out of who he is, and that rules out acting out of who he isn't.

Think of it Verne.  If voluntarism were true, all the Christians since say, 1947 could die and go to heaven.  When they got there, there could be a sign that says,

 "Neener Neener Neener.  On April 5, 1947 I changed my mind and decied to send all faithful Christians to Hell.  All evil men dying since that date are rejoicing with me for all eternity." "All contradictory Bible verses are now cancelled."
"You don't like this? Tell it to the hand."

And, that would be "glorifying" to God.  

Thomas Maddux V.D. with bronze oak leaf cluster

Verne,

Calvin wrote,

"...the dispute is superfluous since life and death are acts of the divine will rather than of prescience.  If God merely forsaw human events, and did not also arrange and dispose of them at his pleasure, there might be room for agitating the question, how far his foreknowledge amounts to necessity; but since he forsees the things which are to happen, simply because he has decreed that they are to happen, it is vain to debate about prescience, while it is clear that all events take place by his sovereign appointment."

What he is saying is that God forknows what will happen BECAUSE he has decreed that it will happen.  HE is the cause of all things, in Calvin's view.  Therefore, He must of necessity be the source of all evil.  

That is Calvin.

DC's mitigate Calvin's view by proposing secondary causes.  That is what the Westminster Confession says, but that is a century after Calvin.

Anyway, remember my original contention wasn't about this particular idea, but was about Calvin's claiming to know what no man can know when he described how and why God elects certain ones to life and others to death.

Thomas Maddux, V.D.

While I readily admit that I am far less educated with theology than those that are posting on this thread, I would like to share something that has helped me view the whole Calvin/Arminian thing.  It's short, please read it.  

http://calvarychapel.com/library/smith-chuck/books/caatwog.htm (http://calvarychapel.com/library/smith-chuck/books/caatwog.htm)

IMHO, Chuck Smith's viewpoint demonstrates a simple, humble, and very wise stance.  Here's my favorite quote:
Calvinist teachings were absolutely essential several hundred years ago, because they effectively recovered and restored the truth about God's Grace. (They still do!)

However, as Tom is pointing out, there are difficulties with adopting any system of theology, lock, stock and barrel.  In this respect, TULIP is no different.

Now, as for ex-assembly people; I have always maintained that the best thing for people fresh out of geftakysism is that they hear clear teaching on the grace of God, the Love of God, and the fact that we are saved by Grace, through faith alone.   A clear understanding of this will help cut through the dismal swamp of George's "overcomer," theology.  I don't think that there is anyone who preaches the gospel better than a right-on reformed preacher,  and ex-assembly folk would do well to investigate and learn from someone like this.  Some of the people I admire most in the faith are 5 pointers, and their lives demonstrate freedom, joy and power.

I myself am still a 3.7 or 3.8 pointer, which is why I am quite comfortable with Calvary Chapel's stance on the matter.  However, now that we have moved, we have visited a totally awesome church up here, and lo and behold, the pastor is a 5 pointer, but the kids ride skateboards and they have services with modern music.  The church is totally dynamic.  I am watching closely, because I usually associate reformed with "old," but clearly it is not the case here.

Please carry on with the discussion.

Brent

This has also helped me:

"Holy Scripture contains secrets into which God does not want us to penetrate too deeply, because if we attempt to do so, increasing darkness envelopes us, so that we might come to recognize in this manner both the unfathomable majesty of divine wisdom, and the feebleness of the human mind...I think it prudent and more pious to exclaim with Paul, "Oh the depths of the riches of the wisdom and of the knowledge of God! How incomprehensible are His judgments and how unserarchable His ways!"  (Romans 11:33), and with Isaiah, "Who hath forwarded the spirit of the Lord? or who hath been His counselor? (Isaiah 40:13), rather than to try to explain what surpasses the measure of the human mind. Much will have to wait for that time when we shall see no longer in a mirror and in an enigma, but shall contemplate in its glory the unveiled face of the Lord"

Erasmus

Brent you make a very cogent point about doctrine and life-style. It has been a matter of great interest to me personally to note how the two are inseparably linked. I think this an area of profound instruction to the careful observer.

For as he thinketh in his heart, so is he...
Proverbs 23:7
Verne

I don't presume to speak for Calvin, but I do think when speaking about the decrees of God we must again be careful to distinguish purpose and process. I like to think of degrees of freedom in the course of space-time events with God ultimately sovereignly determining outcome, regardless of human choices.
I have to reiterate that any proposition that proposes God as the author of evil must be resisted as it would in my view be unscriptural. Nevertheless evil by its very presence must necessarily be a part of God's purpose. He works all things after the counsel of His will.

We should not forget that much of the heat of the present discussion arose out of the Socratic view that evil was the result of ignorance. Both he and Plato held that the good, being identical with the true, imposes itself irresisitibly on the intellect once it is known and understood - evil results from ignorance.
Clearly the Bible disagrees with them and so did Aristotle who based his view merely on the testimony of experience and observation.


Again this goes back quite a ways. Remember Aristotle's concept of a Prime Mover also made the idea of absolute moral freedom a difficult proposition to accept. It is self evident that if God is unlimited as an essential quallity (save for lying and denying Himself as we are told which are really the same if you think about it) every other entity must be. It is indisputable though that while the Bible teaches that our will has been surborned because of our sinful condition, God nontheless holds us responsible for our choices within a moral framework clearly prescribed. Clearly some degree of moral freedom is implied.

Verne

p.s In all the talk about choices which I think finds its Biblical relevance in the keeping of the law, we do not even begin to approach the true standard by which God ultimately judges and that is the thoughts and intents of the heart. For that condition, there is neither philosophical nor psychological remedy...

   Did you hear about the 5 point Calvinist who fell down the flight of stairs? After he sat up he said,
"I sure am glad that is over with".
   That is for all of the hyper-predestinarians out there.
All kidding aside , the best read I have seen on Calvinism
and Arminianism is THE FAITH OF GOD'S ELECT by  
JOHN F. PARKINSON.  It is available at jptbooks@powerlink.net  . I know 3 people that have read it and ordered 10 more copies and given it to  friends. It is published by Plymouth Bretheren in Scotland. only about $9
love to all, steve harris
p.s. if you didn't get the joke , think about it tomorrow and it will come to you.
if you just didn't think it was funny then thbbbbb :P

Well, I had noticed that 5 point Calvinists are a little prickly at times.

Thomas Maddux V. D.

This is exactly the argument that the Lord gave Job when Job asked why the evil things done to him were allowed by the Lord:

Job 40:6-11
Then answered the LORD unto Job out of the whirlwind, and said, Gird up thy loins now like a man: I will demand of thee, and declare thou unto me.  Wilt thou also disannul my judgment? wilt thou condemn me, that thou mayest be righteous?  Hast thou an arm like God? or canst thou thunder with a voice like him?  Deck thyself now with majesty and excellency; and array thyself with glory and beauty.  Cast abroad the rage of thy wrath: and behold every one that is proud, and abase him.



You seem to be saying that Calvin teaches that God is mutable.  Clear documentation is needed as to where Calvin teaches this.

What does a 5 point Calvinist say when he does not understand you?
"What's your point, point, point, point, point?" :)


Does anyone have comments on Romans 9:18 "So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires."?

Marcia

I am working on preparing a response to the things that Tom has been posting, but am still reading, thinking and collecting verses, and haven't started writing yet. Hope to be able to post something over the weekend or next week.

In the meantime, here are a few verses that seem to me to teach that God does whatever He wants to:

"But our God [is] in the heavens: he hath done whatsoever he hath pleased." (Psa 115:3 )

"Whatsoever the LORD pleased, [that] did he in heaven, and in earth, in the seas, and all deep places." (Psa 135:6)

H

P.S. My short comment on Romans 9:18 is that it means exactly what it says.  

I forwarded the link to someone and received this comment:
"That is a very clear statement of the issues. I find that I agree with the five points of Arminianism and with the first point of Calvinism. I also agree with the conclusions at the bottom."

Marcia

Hmmmm, interesting conclusion, in light of the fact that the paper doesn't say this at all.

Brent

I find that I disagree with all five...interesting isn't it?
The propositions are violative of clear Scriptural teachng on multiple counts. That was actually the first time I have seen a concise summary. So important to read and believe our Bibles...


The "Five Points of Arminianism" included the following:
1.   FREE WILL
Arminius believed that the fall of man was not total, maintaining that there was enough good left in man for him to will to accept Jesus Christ unto salvation.


No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him John 6:44

And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. Genesis 6:5

The Lord looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God.
They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one Psalm 14:2,3

The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?
Jeremiah 17:9

Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.
Psalm 51:5

For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
Romans 3:23

As to our true condition, God does not leave much to the imagination. And there are plenty more where those came from...go look...

Verne

p.s. O.K. somebody else take a shot at proposition # 2 form a Scriptural perspective...
I read somewhere the New Testament use of "foreknowldege" has always to do with persons, never facts...

 "In Scripture both God and man are listed as agents of hardening. In the case of Pharaoh, he is said to harden his own heart (Exod. 8:15). But God is also said to harden Pharaoh's heart (Exod. 4:21; 10:1), and Paul's comment on the incident is that God hardens whom he will and has mercy on whom he will (Rom. 9:18). Scripture warns against hardening, implying responsibility on the part of the hearers (Ps. 95:8; Heb. 3:8, 15; 4:7). Noteworthy is the different rendering of Isa. 6:9-10 in the Massoretic Text and the LXX and the consequent usage of the passage in the NT. The former makes God the agent working through the instrument of the prophet, preventing repentance in Israel (see John 12:40). The LXX sees the people themselves as the agents refusing repentance (see Matt. 13:15 and Acts 28:27).


 Hardening, therefore, is a complex phenomenon involving both divine and human agency. But instead of being the manifestation of predetermined reprobation, hardening is primarily presented in Scripture as a means of God's accomplishment of his purposes for history. (italics mine) Such can be seen in the case of Pharaoh through which God accomplished Israel's deliverance (cf. Josh. 11:20). It is also the case in the present hardening of Israel (Rom. 11:7-25) through which God is bringing salvation to the Gentiles. In such activity God's sovereignty must be clearly seen. In each case, hardening results in a manifestation of mercy and grace.

 Hardening is lifted only by God (II Cor.3:15-16; 4:3-6). Scripture expects the present hardening of Israel to be followed by new covenant ministries of the Spirit in which the hard heart of the nation is replaced by a new heart of faith and obedience (Jer.31:33-37; Ezek.36:26-37:28; Rom. 11:25-32). " C. BLAISING

 Bibliography. G. Molin, Encyclopedia of Biblical Theology, II, 113ff.,; A. Kuyper, The Work of the Holy Spirit; L.J. Kuyper, The Hardness of Heart According to Biblical Perspective," SJT 27:459-74; U. Becker, NIDNTT, II, 153ff.

Verne

To get someone started...


2.CONDITIONAL ELECTION
"Arminius believed that election was based on the foreknowledge of God as to who would believe. Man's "act of faith" was seen as the "condition" or his being elected to eternal life, since God foresaw him exercising his "free will" in response to Jesus Christ."

There is a very cogent response to this that I have never had  even the ablest Arminian answer convincingly - viz. that for the elect, Christ paid the debt for all their sin, including the sin of unbelief, which alone sends men to hell. Is the atonement considered universally applicable to all men, efficacious to overcome unbelief in some, yet not in others? One must limit the atonement either in its quality, or in its quantity...which would you choose??!!
Verne

Yes, I agree Verne.  Atonement must be limited in some manner, otherwise hell would be empty of all human souls.  However, I do not agree with the reformed idea of limited atonement.  Do I have a better idea?  Nope, but I still can't give myself to that doctrine at present.

That is one of the reasons I am a 3.775 pointer....

Brent

     The above quote and others similar in character constitute one of the highlights of this board:
     Anyone can come here, from any background & regardless of degree of experience or training, and can feel welcome as among peers.  No one needs to feel not learned enough to converse here.
     Nobody here claims to have all the answers (unlike places we have been in the past).  The thing is, we know the One Who has all the answers (He knows them because He authored them), and just about anyone here will be delighted to help a seeker find Him.
     Thanks, Brent.

God bless,
al

I am not extremely interested in discussing the second point of Arminianism (2. CONDITIONAL ELECTION), so I will just give a link to an article called "SCRIPTURAL PROOF FOR UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION":
 http://www.mbrem.com/calvinism/elect4.htm

I am mainly interested in discussing the third point of Arminianism (3. UNIVERSAL ATONEMENT), but I don't have time right now, so it will have to wait. More later.

H

I think this is one of His unsearchable ways, Brent. I certainly recognize that I also do not have a completely satisfactory answer. I guess I should add 4.999 pointer to my virulent dog # 2 title. Tom has not yet authorised any clusters... :)
Verne

p.s.
BTW, what is your understanding of limited atonement as presented by Reformed Theology?
I am particularly interested in knowing if you think the difficulty has to do with the apparent universal appeal of the gospel message...

On lighter note, does anyone else on this thread enjoy palindromes?
Here is the first one ever recorded on the occasion of Eve's introduction to her husband:

MADAM, ADAM... ;D
Verne

I though he said:

MADAM, I'M ADAM

     We named our daughter HANNAH so she would be the first kid in her class that could spell her name backwards.  So she ended up in the same room with OTTO, ADA, BOB & LIL !!!

 ;)al

Actually David, he said that after the orginal introduction...of course, following God's lead... ;D
Verne
p.s. you stole my thunder...I was going to ask how Adam's response showed he was made in God's image!  :)

H,

I looked at the article.  The entire argument hangs on greek word definitions.  Here, again, we have someone claiming to know how God thinks.  Even though the Bible says we don't.  

Thomas Maddux, V. D. with oak leaf clusters.

Verne,

Here is a place where Calvinists have some uphill work to do, and don't do it very well.

Scripture abounds with verses that teach unlimited atonement. John 3:16.  I John 2:2.  I Peter 3:18.  Romans 5:6.  Romans 11:15.  2 Cor. 5:19.  

The standard Calvinist answer is to go to work to show that "all" means "some", "the world" means "part of the world" and so forth.

Actually, this problem should act as a red flag that Calvinism, being a system of theology invented by men, has not yet acheived its goal of explaining all revelation.

You have proposed a false dilemma.  It is not either quantity or quality alone....you forgot applicability.

Thomas Maddux V. D. with silver oak leaf cluster.

Interesting observation Tom. If I could show one verse in the Bible where an apparent universal descriptor does not warrant a literal interpretation, would you accept that the exception proves the rule?
I think this is one of those cases where the admonition line upon line, precept upon precept weighs very heavily. We are cautioned to not let any Scripture be of isolated interpretation and that we should compare Scripture with Scripture.
This is starting to bring us to the heart of this debate I think and that is whether or not the Sovereign will of God can ultimately be thwarted....
You must be prepared ultimately to argue that if it is God's sovereign will that literally all men be saved, the divine purpose in the sacrifce of His son on the cross will ultimtely be eternally thwarted. I would threfore ask you and all who espouse that the Word of God teaches an unlimited attonement - do  you believe that ultimatley any  single purpose of the Creator can be thwarted? ...we now really starting to get serious....




This, in my view, is the fundamental and in my view irreconcilable difference bwtween both camps-

Does God, or does God not always accomplish His purpose??!!!.


If your interpretation of these verses is that it was God's purpose that the death of Christ provide atonement for the sin of every person who ever lived, then you are arguing that ultimately God's pupose in the death of Christ will ever be, for time and eternity frustrated. You may indeed make that argument, but we do need, I think, to be clear about where the argument leads, namely, to a denial of the omnipotence of Jehovah...


The dilemma is in no way false if you subscribe to the teaching that salvation is by grace through faith alone!.
 Are you prepared to argue that there are some the Father draws who do not come to Christ?

Can anyone come to Christ who has not been drawn by the Father?

If you respod to either query in the affirmative, that calls for separate treatment.
If you respond to both quries in the negative, then it is evident that those that do not come to Christ have not indeed been drawn by the Father.

If they have not been drawn by the Father, then why not? Did not God shed the precious blood of His only begotten Son on their behalf (according to Universalism) and would threfore be quite remiss in not drawing them, knowing full well they will not come to Christ otherwise?

You are unquestionably shut up to limiting quality or quantity. What you refer to as applicability is nothing more than a possible subset of those two broad categories in my humble opinion.
Verne

  For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
JOhn 3:16

Does John 3:16 teach universalism or an unlimited atonement?
That conclusion cannot be drawn from the portion of the verse that says "whosoever believes". There is absolutely no logical or linguistic warrant for assuming this means 'everyone can believe", or "everyone will believe". The "whosoever" is inherently discriminatory and qualifies the condition of having eternal life.
The appeal to a universal atonement is therefore drawn from the verse's use of the word "world".  Kosmos is variously rendered in the new testament and is generally accepted to refer to "mankind" in John 3:16, delimiting the sphere, of the display of God's love but not necessarily implying  Universalism. For example, we know there will be no redemption for fallen angels. God's redemptive love clearly does not extend to them.
This idea further goes against the teaching of Scripture in other places that God loves discriminately eg. Jacob and Esau.  If this indeed can be accepted, the warrant for invoking this verse to support an unlimited scope for the atonement is demolished.

Compare for example Scripture's use of the word in 1 John 5:19

 And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness.

The argument used to assert Universalism in John 3:16, should logically be used to assert universal condemnation here but we do not. Why? Because it clearly goes against the teaching of God's Word elsewhere.
I would apply the same argument to the use of Kosmos in I John 2:2


  For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God...
1 Peter 3:18
I am not sure why anyone would think this verse suggests unlimited atonement. If only two sinners were saved this verse would be true.

 For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.
Romans 5:6

Again, absolutely nothing about unlimited atonement here Tom


For if the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead?

Romans 11:15

Again,  Kosmos



To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.
2 Cor. 5:19
Same word
Verne

p.s. A weaker, but plausible argument points out that all of creation was affected by sin- both of men and angels, and that all of creation will be freed from its consequences as a result of Christ's sacrifice. The only place where sin will remain is in Hell, a place prepared for the Devil and his angels...

Due to my wife's illness (and other reasons), I have not had time to write as I had hoped. But then Verne is doing such a great job on this thread that there doesn't seem to be much need for my input at the moment anyway. However, I thought I would re-post what I wrote about the word "world" back in January:

The word in the Greek is "kosmos", and if you look it up in "A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature" by W.F.Arndt and F.W.Gingrich, translated from Walter Bauer, you will discover that "kosmos" has at least 8 meanings, depending on the context. As a matter of fact, only rarely does it mean "the entire human race." If you don't believe me, go look it up yourself. Even in those places where “kosmos” refers to mankind, it doesn’t always refer to the entire human race. Let me just give you 2 examples. In 2 Pet. 2:5, “world” refers exclusively to unbelievers (“And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth [person], a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;”). God spared Noah and his family, so they are obviously not included in the “old world” and “the world of the ungodly”. In contrast, “world” in John 12 :19 refers exclusively to people who were “going after him (Jesus)” (“The Pharisees therefore said among themselves, Perceive ye how ye prevail nothing? behold, the world is gone after him.”). There is absolutely no way that you can make “world” in this verse refer to the entire human race. It refers to a large, indefinite group of people who shared a common characteristic, namely “going after Jesus.” I believe that the same concept applies in John 3:16 and I John 2:2. In John 3:16, I believe “world” refers to “whosever believeth” (i.e., all true believers, all the elect, not just Jewish believers), and in I John 2:2, I believe “world” refers to all true believers among the Gentiles (the “our” refers to Jewish believers, as Pink explains in the material in my previous post; ...).

H
 

I agree with H on the variant uses of "world". It clearly does not always, taken contextually or etymologically, refer to  every human being, even when the reference is to "mankind". To build a doctrine of unlimited atonement based soley on those verses is not an unassailable theological position in my view...
Verne

Verne and H,

I am really pressed for time right now.  When I can I will send you some quotes from Calvin himself that demostrate why he rejected limited atonement.

Until then.

Tom

I must confess I would be surprised and instructed Tom. It has been a while since I looked at his Institutes but I'll try to do a little reading there in the meantime so I can sound half-way intelligent when you post. See ya soon...
Verne

While it certainly will be interesting to see you quote Calvin to support your position, Tom, it will not affect my views, since they are based on what the Bible teaches, not on what Calvin taught.

H

I am thinking of starting a new thread which combines the teachings of John Calvin with the writings of the author Thomas Hobbes, author of "Leviathan", and contrasts them. It will be called "Calvin and Hobbes"---let me know what you think.

----Joe

Er...I do believe I already have the comlete works Joe...my seven-year old also enjoys this erudite material...
Verne

I finished a project this evening, and I will have to start another tomorrow, but I am taking a few hours off, so here goes...

btw, these are from a secondary source, so I can't supply what comes before or after.

"This is our liberty, this our glorying against death, that our sins are not imputed to us. He says that this redemption was procured by the blood of Christ, for by the sacrifice of His death all the sins of the world have been expiated."      Comments on Colossians 1:15

"I approve of the ordinary reading, that he alone bore the punishment of many, because on was laid the guilt of the whole world.  It is evident from other passages, and especially from the fifth chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, that 'many' sometimes denotes 'all'.  Comments on Isaiah 53:12

"Mark 14:24.  This is my blood. I have already warned, when the blood is said to be poured out (as in Matthew) for the remission of sins, how these words we direct to the sacrifice of Christ's death,and to neglect this thought makes any due celebration of the Supper impossible.  In no other way can faithful souls be satisfied, if they cannot believe that God is pleased in their regard. The word many does not mean a part of the world only, but the whole human race: he contrasts many with one, as if to say that he would not be the Redeemer of one man, but would meet death to deliver many of their cursed guilt. It is incontestable that Christ came for the expiation of the sins of the whole world."
Eternal Predestination of God IX.5

"It is no small matter to have the souls perish who were bought by the blood of Christ" Calvin, The Mystery of Godliness, 83.

So, Verne and H, there you can see some info on Calvin's belief that Christ died for the sins of the whole world, just as scripture says.  I have several more quotes like this, but they are tediously long.

The problem that many Calvinists have with this idea seems to stem from the belief that the atonement has some kind of power that forces all for whom it is available to appropriate it.

I have never seen a convincing argument that such is the case.  They usually just state it and call you names if you don't agree.

God bless,
Thomas Maddux, Virulent Dog 1st Class with silver oak leaf cluster.

Verne,

It beseemeth me that thou takest too firm a stance.  When thou believedst in the teaching of George Geftakys, was that not what the Bible taught as well?

Thomas Maddux, V.D.

H,

I have no doubt that Kosmos has 8 definitions, though I really would rather not look it up.  However, this kind of argument merely illustrates a need for better Bible teaching in PB groups these days.

The fact is H, that dictionary definitions only show you the options, it is the context that tells you which one is applicable.  I used to teach that to 6th graders.

Example:  "It has a very large trunk."  What is "it"?



It could be a tree, a car, an elephant, a telephone line, or a railroad track.  The dictionary is no help at all.

But a few words of context and viola! " It has a very large trunk.  It reaches out for peanuts across the barrier with it."

It is a large amorphous mass of elephant with one common characteristic....it likes peanuts.

Here's a little test for your idea...

"For God so loved the large indefinite mass of men who shared the common charastic of going after Jesus that he gave his only begotten son that whoever ( among the large indefinite mass of men who shared the common characteristic of going after Jesus) believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."

One might wonder just how this crowd found out about Jesus and started "going after Him" before He was born?????

"For God did not send the Son into the large indefinite mass of men who shared the common characteristic of going after Jesus to judge the large indefinite mass of men who shared the common characteristic of going after Jesus, but that the large indefinite mass of men who shared the common characteristic of going after Jesus might be saved by Him."

John 3:19-"this is the judgement, that light has come into the large indefinite mass of men who shared the common characteristic of going after Jesus, and men loved the darkness rather than the light, for their deeds were evil."

So the large indefinite mass of men who shared the common characteristic of going after Jesus both believed on Him and loved the darkness rather than the light because their deeds were evil.

Well, H, I think you need to take that one back to the drawing board for a while.

Thomas Maddux V. D.

Entirely possible Tom. I will tell you honestly that it is not the dough that I genuinely worry about my friend - it is the leaven...which is often difficult to discern...and insidious in its working. None of us are immune I'm afraid. May God truly heal and restore all...
Verne

Verne,

When you speak of "leaven", what do you mean?

Thomas Maddux, V. D.

Tom,
     Just a guess, but maybe it's whatever was left after G&B took all the dough...

 ;)al

hehe, now that was funny!

--
lucas

I  mean it in the general Biblical sense of sin that works deceitfully, and in the particular case of GG teaching that is unScriptural and satanic. The use of this particular Scriptural allegory is intended to teach us how difficult it is to deal selectively with spiritual corruption, i.e. a little leaven, leavens the entire lump as it were. The Biblical prescription is to toss it all out. Is it possible to separate physical leaven from any portion of dough to which it has been introduced? Much of what GG taught had this effect in my view Tom. See how often it still colors our view...at least it does mine...
Verne
p.s. Bones Festes and good to be back from Christmas in Barcelona!

Verne,

Good to have you back on the BB.  You were missed.

I don't have a map in front of me right now...so tell me...is Barthelona in the part of Thpain where all thoth Cathtillainth live?

Regarding separating the leaven from the dough. If Osama Ben Bedsheet told you that today is Thursday, January 1, 2004 and that Mohammed is God's greatest prophet...would you throw everything out...or just that which is demonstrably false?

Quite a bit of what GG taught was just plain old Christian doctrine.  Things like the Trinity, eternal sonship, and inerrancy.

There was also much that I had to discard both before and after I left.  Partail rapturism, "so great" salvation, overcoming by works, and all his nonsense about church government...among other things too numerous to list.

So Verne, although it will take a lot of thought, we still must sift through and separate the true from the false as best we can.

God bleth,

Thomath Maddux

Indeed, you are right Tom.  However, can we have a meeting that looks just like an Assembly meeting, have morning times just like Assembly morning times, outreaches, hymns, chapter summaries, brothers' houses, control, leadership structure and everything else......and get all the leaven out?

The grace that GG taught was basically an obligation to God, in which we must overcome so as not to let Him down.  It's not easy rooting out all this sort of thinking and its implications.  

I'll do it if I must, but I would rather have a new loaf!  Either way, God will see to it that I am not lost.  He is the Good Shepherd afterall!

Brent

No question some things are unequivocal. But therein lies the rub...many things are not!
How does one deal effectively with that which one often cannot see?(leaven). How pitifully blind so many of us were! Thank God for opening our eyes but do we yet see perfectly clearly? The success of men like GG terrifies me and invokes the spiritual "flight" response (o.k, obviously some "fright" and "fight" as well ) :)
On a philosophical level, I would argue that the most effective, and therfore the most dangerous spiritual lie is that which closely resembles and is mixed with the truth. The centerpiece of the adversary's ultimate strategy is the convincing counterfeit. Those whom he destroys will actually believe the lie.  Admixture is indeed the hallmark of the false teacher (Jude 10; where have we seen this recently?)
  GG's employment of time-honored doctrines to sweeten the fatal poison he administered augments his crime. Every assembly leader who sat quitetly and permitted GG to teach a false doctrine of seventh day creation of man unchallenged, for example, stands in my view indicted as an unfaithful steward. The point I am making is at that point GG's deadly leaven had already done its fatal work- at the end these men were walking wounded and in many cases, apparently entirely unaware of their condition. They are in need of a Great Physician. Wars are won or lost in the will. GG dominated the will of all those around him, no exceptions! (despite the foolish and illusory claims of some after the fact to the contrary). Indomitable wills invariably ultimately departed. In a few exceptional cases God raised up warriors who picked up a broadsword.  Freedom in Christ above all is Spiritual empowerment  to choose! Think about it!!
I would recommend sampling naught from that clearly tainted stream...
Verne

p.s. Tom I want to thank you personally for the role you have played in helping so many of us to separate the wheat from the chaff...I have greatly benefited my friend.

Verne, I just wanted to make a comment on the flight or fight responce...(not that I'm not interested in Calvinism) When people are stressed = put on High Alert for extended periods of time...They're adrenal glands become exhausted....Its not compatable with human life..Even the Govt will only keep us on high alert for a short period of time or we become complacent and think they're Crying WOLF....Iwas just thinking of the Assembly Paranoia/Post Tramatic Stress Disoreder and the Mystery illnesses so many had in the group....Also Battered Womans Syndrome if people are too beaten down they cant make any move because they are continually thrown off  guard...in the Military its known as SHELLSHOCK....BTW I sure missed your posts too...They're very enlightening....Thanks....

No we can't.  

The reason a meeting looks like the assembly is that the Plymouth Brethren ideas are still controlling everything, especially how the Bible is read.

Thomas Maddux

No we can't.  

The reason a meeting looks like the assembly is that the Plymouth Brethren ideas are still controlling everything, especially how the Bible is read.

Thomas Maddux

I assume you were answering this rhetorical question.  Obviously, I am in agreement with you.

There is a church up here that morphed out of a Brethren gathering.  The have similiar problems, to a much lessor extent,  as the Assemblies did.  Personally, the last church I would choose to attend would be one with PB roots.  (of course, I am not familiar with everything out there, but from what I do know, PB's leave the door wide open for problems that are somewhat peculiar to them.)

Brent

Dear Brent and Tom.
     Hey brothers , please ease up on the brethren assemblies. I have been in one since 92 when I parted company with GG and his oligarchy.  All those that I have visited here in the midwest and in Romania are great places.  There are more than 630 assemblies in Romania now and most have been raised up since 1989. The gypsy believers in the village assemblies are full of light and the love of God.
I have been asked to do reports of my Romanin visits in 4 assemblies in the midwest and they are wonderful places to fellowship. We have an American family from an assembly taking care of 100 children in our  orphanage near Bucharest. Our missionary handbook is filled with God honoring people in the most difficult places in the world.
    George did not learn his contolling ways from the brethren. We don't have any of that at Emmaus Bible Chapel or any of the other assemblies in the St.louis area. George was a controller before he ever met the brethren.
     If you ever make it to st.Louis , you can stay at my home and go to a great assembly meeting with me.
Steve Harris
Ps. you are right the brethren do have their peculiar problems, but show me a church with no problems and I'll show you a church with no people in it.

Of course, that is a true statement!

Brent

Steve,

Perhaps GG did not learn his controlling techniques from the Brethren assemblies, although I don't know how you would know that he didn't.

However, the PB assemblies do encourage a mystical Christianity, (as Deeper Life teaching), and that is where GG got many of his ideas.

Click on the Plymouth Brethren link to see where it has led many Brethren groups.  

God bless,

Thomas Maddux

Dave said: Logic is fine, but when it brings us to conclusions that are contrary to scripture, then we've done something wrong.

Dave, do you really believe this???  Don't make the same mistake Calvin (and Luther made)!  When the geocentric theory's of the solar system were to be over turned by the scientific heliocentric theories, Calvin and Luther condemned these scientists to death simply because their LOGIC contracted the scripture.

Why do humans have LOGIC if they aren't supposed to use it?

truthseeker

Truthseeker,

It seems to me that you should be a little more careful about what is true/untrue.

I am aware that Calvin signed the execution order for Michael Servetus.  As far as I have ever read, that is the only execution he ever authorized.  Servetus was a notorious heretic who knew what would probably happen if he went to Geneva and carried on as he had in other places.  

This doesn't excuse Calvin...but it is true that Servetus asked for it.

I am not aware that Luther ever condemned anyone to death.  He believed that the princes were God's instrument for keeping public order.

Luther did call Copernicus a "fool" and an "upstart astrologer".

This is because Luther's use of scripture and logic was valid, but unsound.

A valid deductive argument is one in which the premises, if true, must produce a true conclusion.

An unsound deductive argument is one which contains an untrue premise.

Luther reasoned as follows:

Premise 1-The most literal sense of scripture is the correct sense.
Premise 2-Joshua ordered the sun to stand still over the earth.
Conclusion: It was the sun that was moving, not the earth.

Now the conclusion is valid...just unsound, since the most literal sense is not always the correct sense.

So, what Dave said, that if our logic brings us to a conclusion that is contrary to scripture we have done something wrong, is correct.

We have either misunderstood scripture, or reasoned falsely.

God bless,

Thomas Maddux

Calvin condemned Michael Servetus to be burned at the stake because he described the Holy Land as a barren wilderness, which it was at the time.
reference:  Watson &Evans; 1991, the great psychologists: A history of Psychological thought.  NY, Harper Collins.

You sound like an intelligent person.  Did you ever read Elain Pagel's Gnostic Gospels, or for that matter, read the Nag Hammadi Library?