Calvin and Calvinism

[Tony]

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

[H]

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

[vernecarty]

Now, Tom and H (you really should tell everyone who you are H) please, please do not stop discussing this topic.
Brent

Hey!! What about me buddy?  

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?  

[H]

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

[editor]

Now, Tom and H (you really should tell everyone who you are H) please, please do not stop discussing this topic.
Brent

Hey!! What about me buddy?  

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

Brent

[M2]

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

[editor]

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

[Oscar]

 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.

[Oscar]

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

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).

[vernecarty]

 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.

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

[d3z]

 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.

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

You are starting to scare me Tom. Exaxtly what do you mean by this statement?

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

[Mark Kisla]

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."
 

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.

[vernecarty]

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.

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;)

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.

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.

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.


XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX



God bless,
Thomas Maddux

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.

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!!

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

[Oscar]

 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.

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

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).

[Oscar]

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