Calvin and Calvinism

[Mark C.]

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.

[vernecarty]

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

[vernecarty]

 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

[Mark Kisla]

 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

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

[vernecarty]

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

[Mark Kisla]

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. No one has paid for their sin and so they must. 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 wretched
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

[Oscar]

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. No one has paid for their sin and so they must. 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 wretched
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).

[vernecarty]

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 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.

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.


God bless,

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

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...

[vernecarty]

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.


God bless,

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

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!  
 

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.

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?  

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

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

[Oscar]

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.

[vernecarty]

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.

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.

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.

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??!!

                                                                 

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.

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!

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.  

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

[Oscar]

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

[Oscar]

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.

[editor]

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

IMHO, Chuck Smith's viewpoint demonstrates a simple, humble, and very wise stance.  Here's my favorite quote:

Maintaining a Bible-centered balance in these difficult issues is of great importance. We do believe in the perseverance of the saints (true believers), but are deeply concerned about sinful lifestyles and rebellious hearts among those who call themselves "Christians." We don't have all the answers to these matters, but we desire to be faithful to the Lord and His word. If we find ourselves basing our view of salvation on the performance and attitudes of people we become discouraged and concerned. But when we keep our eyes on the Lord, and trust in Him alone and in His power, we say with Peter in I Peter 1:3-9:

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

[vernecarty]

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