Calvin and Calvinism

[vernecarty]

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.      

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.

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.

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...

[glossyibis]

   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

[Oscar]

  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

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

Thomas Maddux V. D.

[sfortescue]

...

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 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.

"On April 5, 1947 I changed my mind ... "

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

[M2]

  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".

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

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

[H]

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.  

[M2]

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
...

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

[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
...

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

[vernecarty]

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
...

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

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...

[vernecarty]

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

Marcia

 "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

[vernecarty]

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

[editor]

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

[al Hartman]

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

[H]

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

[vernecarty]

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

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...