Calvinism / pre-destination

[John146]

looking at God first makes sense. So are you saying you do agree with Prov 21:1?

Why would he not agree with Prov 21:1? Why would you ask such a question of another Christian? No one here disagrees with any verses in the Bible. We just interpret some of them differently.

[Noeb]

I can't agree, as then how does this verse fit in?

Proverbs 21:1

The king's heart is in the hand of the LORD; he directs it like a watercourse wherever he pleases.

Seems to me that God has all hearts in His hands.

Ezekiel expresses the same.

The king is one, the people are a million, but God has all hearts in his hands? How can you make such a leap? Also, a king leads a nation, and it is very clear that is one area that God does intervene when necessary.

[svfox]

It sounds like everyone forgets Jesus paid for all our sins. The more I read this thread it sounds like nit picking.
The bill was produced by God and it was huge. Jesus paid the bill in full.
Thus enabling us to enter heaven. The bill has been paid for before we were even born.
Does anything else really matter. Unless someone dares say they paid part of the bill.

[Noeb]

It sounds like everyone forgets Jesus paid for all our sins.

We are not discussing that.

Does anything else really matter.

Yes. Paul discussed the things of the kingdom of God for months. Wrote epistles to teachers on what and what not. Read the early church fathers. Very important stuff being discussed here.

[Gadgeteer]

Good post. I agree with everything you said here. You know, those verses are so straightforward that I don't know why anyone would want to hold to a doctrine that clearly contradicts them.

I know why --- the doctrine begins with the founding passages (Eph1:4-5, Eph1:11, Rom8:29-35, Rom9:11-23) --- these verses seem to teach "sovereign predestination", and then all other Scripture is "filtered" to fit that perception.

Scripture says repeatedly that we are responsible and we play a part in salvation.

Absolutely right. We affect our own salvation (1Tim4:16), others' salvation (Jude23), and we can destroy salvation of others (Rom14:15, 1Cor8:11, Matt23:13-15, etc.).

Calvinism says we play no part in it and God does everything.

Ahhhh, it's much more subtle than that. Calvinism redefines words ("all" no longer means "all" in many passages [like 1Tim2:4], but "some-of-all-TYPES"). And it asserts complicated understandings --- Calvinists deny that God forces men to believe, and usually assert we have free will; but it has been "redefined" into:
"Man chooses freely with his will, but he only wills according to his NATURE --- if left unregenerate he FREELY (and only!) wills to disbelieve, if sovereignly-regenerated he FREELY (and only!) wills to believe."

There are so many contradictions; "irresistible grace" is irresistible; therefore he has no free will. The dictionary definition of "responsible" is "accountable as CAUSE for something within one's power and control" --- but Calvinists claim "we are responsible; but it's not in our power or control".

Uh, huh.

Some pretty wild and twisted understandings are commonly held, also; Peter for instance supposedly meant in 2:3:9:

"God does not decree to perish, any of whom He's decreed NOT perish (He does decree the rest to perish!), but patiently waits for repentance from those for whom He has DECIDED repentance and decided their time of repentance."

Would you ever say something like that? No way. Would Peter? Nuh-uh.
Once again, you and I think: "Uh, huh."

How can Calvinism reconcile itself with passages that speak of the need for us to persevere and make our calling and election sure?

Rewriting. Sproul and others rewrite 2Pet1:5-11 into: "Make your MINDS sure about your God-guaranteed-salvation".

Where does it say God does that for us? Nowhere! Does He help us do that? Sure! But do we have some responsibility in that? Yes, according to scripture.

And there are so many warnings against "falling-from-salvation"; 2Cor11:3 says we are at the same risk of deception away from Jesus, as Eve was in the Garden! Usually the "warnings-against-deception" are viewed as "Effective MEANS by which God KEEPS us saved". They never engage the contradiction that presents with "monergistic regeneration" --- if God's regeneration is monergistic and pre-faith, why isn't that regeneration SUFFICIENT? Why does He have to ALSO use "written effective means" to accomplish what His INEFFECTIVE regeneration could not? Is God strong and sovereign, or not?

All together now: "Uh, huh."

Calvinism removes all responsibility from man and makes God out to be a cruel God who punishes people for no real reason.

Very much so. "Cruel", "unloving" (is God "love" to most men???), hypocritical, a fraudulent judge, and ineffective. It reduces the Cross to pageantry, because the Cross effects nothing but rather displays what God decided long ago.

Calvinists don't like people saying that about their doctrine but it's absolutely true. They teach that the wicked can't help but be wicked and can't help but reject Christ.

Right --- not just "total depravity", but "total inability". And no one has credibly answered Deut30:11-20, connected to Romans 10:6-10, and Acts17:26-31. Those passages teach that the message (the "word of faith") is in everyone's heart and mouth --- each who believes and confesses is saved, but each who turns away perishes. There is no defense. This ruins "total inability", without proposing [u]any[u] part of "Pelagianism".

Deut30:12 is a foundational refutation of monergistic regeneration!

That means they have no choice but to be wicked and no choice but to reject Christ. So, why are they punished for being wicked and rejecting Christ then?

Exactly. And why is UNSEEN faith better than SEEN faith (Jn20:29)? And why will those who saw Jesus and His miracles, but refused to believe --- be judged more harshly than those who lived and died long before Jesus? Matt11:21-24!

Who ever heard of punishing someone for something they couldn't help doing?

True; and worse -- God GLORIES (supposedly) in the hopeless helpless unavoidable sin and perishing of most? Not what Ezk18:23 and 31-32 says.

"Uh, huh."

That doesn't make any sense. No, people get punished for either doing things they shouldn't have done that they chose to do or for not doing things they should have done that they chose not to do.

Oh come on --- you cheated. You read Romans2:6-8!!!

Without the freedom to choose there is no basis for punishment (or rewards for that matter).

Without the freedom to choose, "faith" is gifted to us by God; why then does Jesus say "Truly I say to you, I have not found such great faith with anyone in Israel"?? Matt8:10.

That makes no sense under "gifted-by-God-faith".

With respect (apologizing in advance for offending some), it has always seemed to me to take effort to hold to Calvinism...

[Gadgeteer]

It sounds like everyone forgets Jesus paid for all our sins. The more I read this thread it sounds like nit picking.

Silver, what happened to the guy in James5:19-20?

My brethren, if any among you strays from the truth and one turns him back, let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins.

Note that for he who strayed, his sins were not covered!!!!! Nor are WE covered still by Jesus' sacrifice, if we continue in sin --- Heb10:26-29. Recognize the guy in verse 29 (who once was saved/sanctified, by Jesus' blood!) --- is US, if we continue in sin; we will not still be saved/covered-sins.

The bill was produced by God and it was huge. Jesus paid the bill in full.

IF we REPENT. Luke13:3! (And 5!)

Thus enabling us to enter heaven.

Please see what Peter says in 2:1:5-11 about entering the gates of God's kingdom! "Make your calling and election steadfast/firm!

The bill has been paid for before we were even born.

Technically true --- but only those who REPENT and are washed by His blood, actually get COVERED by His payment.

And anyone who later turns back to sin, is no longer covered. His grace, our faith. His Spirit (and regeneration), our abiding!

Please tell me that Eph4:22-24 is not teaching "abide in regeneration"!

Does anything else really matter. Unless someone dares say they paid part of the bill.

He paid it all, atop the Cross; He canceled our certificate of debt (Rom6:23 --- "the wages of sin are DEATH"), nailing it to the Cross --- Col2:14!

...but we participate, by faith --- he WHO receives the abundance of grace and the gift of righteousness, only that one will reign with Christ (Rom5:17). To those WHO received Jesus, to THEM He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name. John1:12. Jn1:13 says the BEGOTTENNESS is all of God and nothing of men, but becoming begotten is by believing and receiving Jesus, Jn1:12.

"Silver", I hope you and everyone are looking up these verses; what if I'm mis-quoting??? I have done that, I'm not perfect!

:-)

[CFJ]

Labels in Christianity is unfortunately part of the deal and although I've been led by God to the basic understandings of Calvinism or free grace, I would have never called or named myself a Calvinist, but lets use that label to make a point if taken.

What I find strange though, is that in the 1500's, 1600's, 1700's and 1800's and less so in the 1900's, most of the known preachers have been outspoken against free will (that which Martin Luther have been against in the Papal system). As time progressed, the free will point of view have become the mainline stance and now most is outspoken against Calvinism or free grace if I may. I've read an article which explained this phenomenon and to illustrate this better, let me quote the following... [Source]

The Counter-Reformation was in full swing. Jesuit spies and agents began to infiltrate Protestant schools, and actually landed on the coast of the United States in the 1530's and the 1540's. In order to defend the Romanist religion, as well as the Pope (who Catholics are taught is actually "Christ on earth"), the Jesuits began their war plan for a battle on many fronts, but a full attack on the Doctrines of Grace would be necessary if Rome was to ever prevail. In 1560, unknown to the Jesuits, one of their greatest proponents was to be born in Holland. His name was James Harmenszoon, but he would come to be known as Jacobus Arminius.

Arminius lost his family during a war with the Spanish in 1575. As a fifteen year old orphan, he entered the University of Leyden, and under scholarship by the government of the City of Amsterdam, he was sent to the Theological school in Geneva for studies at the feet of the great reformers. At Geneva, Arminius studied under a professor named Theodore Beza, the man who had assumed the leadership role of the Protestant movement in Switzerland from John Calvin. For some reason that seems to be lost to history, Arminius did not like Beza, and found his forceful defense of the Doctrines of Grace to be harsh and unyielding.

Here is where our mystery gets increasingly interesting. Back in Amsterdam there was a movement of "counter-reformation" begun supposedly by a rich merchant named Dirck Coornhert. Coornhert was a Dutch humanist who was enamored with the teachings of the Catholic humanist Erasmus and a Spanish Jesuit monk named Luis de Molina. Coornhert disdained the reformation teachings on Grace, and sought to confront them wherever he found them. Coornhert had read with growing affections the teachings of de Molina regarding Free Will and Predestination. The Jesuits had hit on a brilliant way of dismantling the debate, they would preach that BOTH were true, and that a good God who was truly sovereign surely might have given his creations a freedom of the will in order to allow them to choose to be saved. Luis de Molina was creating a doctrine that would eventually be called Media Scientia or "Middle-Knowledge". Eventually this heresy would be called Molinism. In an article on Luis de Molina entitled, Contending for the Faith, Rev. Bernard Woudenberg said of de Molina, "Being a Romanist, he was forced to honor the theology of Thomas Aquinas with its acceptance of divine sovereignty, but at the same time, as a Jesuit, he was committed to defending the papacy against the growing influences of Calvinism. And so de Molina set forth to steer between these by proposing his original and highly influential concept of the media scientia, or "middle- knowledge." In this he proposed that "between God's knowledge of the cause and effect relations which He had implanted in the universe, and that of divine freedom whereby He remains free at any time to do what He wills, there is an area of middle-knowledge which God provides for man in which man is granted freedom to do whatever he chooses without outside necessity or predetermination of any kind." The Hegelian dialectic was in full force. The Catholic lie on justification had been countered by the true doctrine of Salvation by Grace through faith, so an evil "compromise" was now offered to the reformed churches, and by deceit and subterfuge, the compromise would eventually become the predominant teachings in all the churches of the world.

The following question begs an answer. Why this change in the Christian sphere, where all started against free will and the effect thereof flowed to what we today acknowledge as the Reformation and in the times we live (the last days we could argue), all that those Christians have stand for is now anathema? Strange, don't you think or do you think the writer of this article in the above quote is halucinating?

I've opened a new thread, but you are welcome to address it in this thread too, because this phenomenon is very noticeable in the discussions thus far, Why was Calvinism more popular in past ages than now?

[Gadgeteer]

Labels in Christianity is unfortunately part of the deal and although I've been led by God to the basic understandings of Calvinism or free grace, I would have never called or named myself a Calvinist, but let's use that label to make a point if taken.

What I find strange though, is that in the 1500's, 1600's, 1700's and 1800's and less so in the 1900's, most of the known preachers have been outspoken against free will (that which Martin Luther have been against in the Papal system). As time progressed, the free will point of view have become the mainline stance and now most is outspoken against Calvinism or free grace if I may. I've read an article which explained this phenomenon and to illustrate this better, let me quote the following... [Source]



The following question begs an answer. Why this change in the Christian sphere, where all started against free will and the effect thereof flowed to what we today acknowledge as the Reformation and in the times we live (the last days we could argue), all that those Christians have stand for is now anathema? Strange, don't you think or do you think the writer of this article in the above quote is hallucinating?

I've opened a new thread, but you are welcome to address it in this thread too, because this phenomenon is very noticeable in the discussions thus far, Why was Calvinism more popular in past ages than now?

Hi, "CFJ". I think people are believing in "free will", because there are many testimonies about "deconverting". Those who professed to be Christian, but now are not.

I only care about the subject for one reason --- given the presence of so many warnings against falling-away in Scripture, it is far easier to defend against a real danger of deception if one BELIEVES in the danger, than if one has a false sense of security. No one can defend against that which he does not believe exists.

Paul told Timothy in 4:1 that in later times many will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons; indeed, in 2Cor11:3 he says we are at the same risk of deception-away-from-Jesus, as Eve was in the Garden of Eden.

So --- we all may never come to agreement (that's not true, when Jesus returns we'll know fully!); but if we always speak with love, kindness and respect, encouraging each other deeper into the Word and closer to Christ, then there are no losers. We will all "win". Perhaps someone who has passed through here will experience a trial; finding himself (or herself) weak, tempted, persecuted --- something discussed here will come back and strengthen him in Christ. And we have won a brother or a sister.

Jesus will return, and every one of us will rush to His presence, join hands together, and in a united voice raise a song of praise and exaltation for Him.

...really gives ya' goose-bumps, doesn't it???

:-D

[CFJ]

Hi, "CFJ". I think people are believing in "free will", because there are many testimonies about "deconverting". Those who professed to be Christian, but now are not.

I only care about the subject for one reason --- given the presence of so many warnings against falling-away in Scripture, it is far easier to defend against a real danger of deception if one BELIEVES in the danger, than if one has a false sense of security. No one can defend against that which he does not believe exists.

Paul told Timothy in 4:1 that in later times many will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons; indeed, in 2Cor11:3 he says we are at the same risk of deception-away-from-Jesus, as Eve was in the Garden of Eden.

So --- we all may never come to agreement (that's not true, when Jesus returns we'll know fully!); but if we always speak with love, kindness and respect, encouraging each other deeper into the Word and closer to Christ, then there are no losers. We will all "win". Perhaps someone who has passed through here will experience a trial; finding himself (or herself) weak, tempted, persecuted --- something discussed here will come back and strengthen him in Christ. And we have won a brother or a sister.

Jesus will return, and every one of us will rush to His presence, join hands together, and in a united voice raise a song of praise and exaltation for Him.

...really gives ya' goose-bumps, doesn't it???

:-D

You've got a good point Gadgeteer and if this is what you believe, I have to grant you the view your holding to. Scripture leaves that impression. However, I see this in light of the parable of the sower, that only those whose ground is prepared, will bear fruit. God is the only One, that is able to prepare our ground... The ones falling away, could most likely be false converts... and this makes sense to me, when we see how people are manipulated to make decisions for Christ..., when their ground has not been prepared.

[Brother Mark]

You've got a good point Gadgeteer and if this is what you believe, I have to grant you the view your holding to. Scripture leaves that impression. However, I see this in light of the parable of the sower, that only those whose ground is prepared, will bear fruit. God is the only One, that is able to prepare our ground... The ones falling away, could most likely be false converts... and this makes sense to me, when we see how people are manipulated to make decisions for Christ..., when their ground has not been prepared.

I think you are mostly right about the sower and the seed. People start bearing fruit the moment they are saved (i.e. love, joy, peace, etc.). Salvation is not some formula or argument to be won but rather a miracle to be experienced.

However, in these kinds of threads, I cannot say a little without qualifying it. I think God prepares every man's heart at some point, but some still refuse to accept his gracious offer even when he gives them the grace to accept.

[Gadgeteer]

You've got a good point Gadgeteer and if this is what you believe, I have to grant you the view your holding to. Scripture leaves that impression.

To some; to others, they impose the "catch-22": "If they fall from salvation, then they were never really saved in the first place". I can't fit that idea into many passages --- like James5:19-20. How can one wander away from faith he never really had, or be led back to where he never was?

However, I see this in light of the parable of the sower, that only those whose ground is prepared, will bear fruit. God is the only One, that is able to prepare our ground...

Let's discuss this, briefly. To perceive that God is the only one to prepare ground, applied to passages like Luke8:13-15, would mean that God makes some hearts rocky/unbelieving. I don't find that credible. This is the value of making "connections" between Scriptures, to better understand what they meant.

The connection to Luke8:13-15, is Hebrews 6:7-8 --- one field is tilled TO produce good fruit, but it can produce either. If it yields good fruit, it is blessed (and therefore called "good soil"); but if it yields thorns and thistles it is cursed and burned (and therefore called "rocky/bad soil"). So while you are right that only God tills-soil (changes hearts), He only does good, and people can choose how to respond. We can unprepare what God has prepared, and that fits Romans2 --- where God's kindness leads to repentance, but stubborn unrepentance stores up wrath for ourselves.

See Isaiah 5, where God planted a vineyard (Israel!) and expected it to yield good grapes, but it only yielded useless ones. Therefore He will lay it waste.

The ones falling away, could most likely be false converts... and this makes sense to me, when we see how people are manipulated to make decisions for Christ..., when their ground has not been prepared.

Can you still perceive that? Do you agree that God cannot cause sin or unbelief? That would violate His nature. And we cannot say "Well, He just left the reprobates alone and only tilled the good soil" --- because we saw in Hebrews6 that a soil tilled for good, can still yield thorns and thistles.

I think you are mostly right about the sower and the seed. People start bearing fruit the moment they are saved (i.e. love, joy, peace, etc.). Salvation is not some formula or argument to be won but rather a miracle to be experienced.

However, in these kinds of threads, I cannot say a little without qualifying it. I think God prepares every man's heart at some point, but some still refuse to accept his gracious offer even when he gives them the grace to accept.

This fits what I perceive; God tills the soils (calls/invites everyone), and those who receive His grace (and persevere!) are called "good soil", but those who do not receive it (or who receive it but do NOT persevere) are called "rocky/bad soil".

[svfox]

Many are called but few are chosen.
Makes it sound like <called> <here anything can happen by you, like maybe you are tested here> <chosen or not chosen>

[Gadgeteer]

Many are called but few are chosen.
Makes it sound like <called> <here anything can happen by you, like maybe you are tested here> <chosen or not chosen>

Hi, "Silver"! What was Jesus teaching in that story (Matt22:2-14)? First, He's advancing the idea that "Jews refused, therefore Gentiles were also called". Yet, by the end of the story, is there anyone in view who was not invited? The king said "Invite as many as you find".

Did the king (allegory for God) participate in anyone's decision? Not according to Jesus' words. One man refused because of farming, another refused because of business; a third man refused to put on clean clothes (rejected God's righteousness). Jesus doesn't say why the others declined, but there's no sense that anyone but themselves made the decision.

"For many are called (everyone, as many as you find), but few are chosen (those who decided to come and put on clean clothes)."

Jesus started the story with: "The kingdom of Heaven is LIKE..."
He taught that each person makes his own choice, and the king receives those who accept His invitation. Indeed, this fits perfectly with Acts10:34-35 --- God welcomes those WHO revere Him and do right, the opposite of that ("Calvinism"!) is partiality/bias that God is not.

Oh --- don't miss the fact that just a few verses later (Matt22:37), Jesus recounts that God commands everyone to LOVE GOD! That is the basis for their accepting the invitation to the feast (to eternal life) --- whether or not they decide to love God!!!

[svfox]

And that is the sticky part.


The Pharisee stood up and prayed about himself: 'God, I thank you that I am not like other men--robbers, evildoers, adulterers--or even like this tax collector.
And he also fasts twice a week.

But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, 'God, have mercy on me, a sinner

The pharisee fits in this world great, like Donald Trump. Everyone gathers around this great pharisee probably and gives him praise and commends him while they spit on the tax collector.
But God is definitely saying be careful how you approach me. You come at me with pride or tell me what great things you have done and I will have nothing to do with you.
But you come at me with God you are everything and I am nothing. I can only be anything if you give me the Holy Spirit and help me. I beg of you to come down and help me.

We can slowly figure out the tests. Do you keep Jesus' commands (well to the best of your ability) and ask for forgiveness and humbleness and grow in Christ.
Do you realize you can do nothing without Jesus. Do you love god with all your heart and forgive those that persucute you and do you wrong.

Both the pharisee and the tax collector chose God, but God only chose the tax collector.
So its not enough to tell someone they must make the right choice. You must tell them everything about God you can how a lowly tax collector gained Gods forgiveness.



----------------------------------

Oh --- don't miss the fact that just a few verses later (Matt22:37), Jesus recounts that God commands everyone to LOVE GOD! That is the basis for their accepting the invitation to the feast (to eternal life) --- whether or not they decide to love God!!!

[keyzer soze]

Question about this parable, do you think the tax collector ever knew he was saved? Obviously the Pharisee "knew" he was saved, but do you think the tax collector ever knew or felt redeemed or do you think that is not a teaching to read into this parable?

And that is the sticky part.


The Pharisee stood up and prayed about himself: 'God, I thank you that I am not like other men--robbers, evildoers, adulterers--or even like this tax collector.
And he also fasts twice a week.

But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, 'God, have mercy on me, a sinner

The pharisee fits in this world great, like Donald Trump. Everyone gathers around this great pharisee probably and gives him praise and commends him while they spit on the tax collector.
But God is definitely saying be careful how you approach me. You come at me with pride or tell me what great things you have done and I will have nothing to do with you.
But you come at me with God you are everything and I am nothing. I can only be anything if you give me the Holy Spirit and help me. I beg of you to come down and help me.

We can slowly figure out the tests. Do you keep Jesus' commands (well to the best of your ability) and ask for forgiveness and humbleness and grow in Christ.
Do you realize you can do nothing without Jesus. Do you love god with all your heart and forgive those that persucute you and do you wrong.

Both the pharisee and the tax collector chose God, but God only chose the tax collector.
So its not enough to tell someone they must make the right choice. You must tell them everything about God you can how a lowly tax collector gained Gods forgiveness.



----------------------------------

Oh --- don't miss the fact that just a few verses later (Matt22:37), Jesus recounts that God commands everyone to LOVE GOD! That is the basis for their accepting the invitation to the feast (to eternal life) --- whether or not they decide to love God!!!