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

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

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,

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

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!!      

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

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

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.