Cross Reference
New member
Perhaps you should make the distinction and not leave it to be discovered so folk not be led astray by what they read? However, if the "books" say he wrote such and such then he must have wrote it. What say you?
Theology Club: Calvinism: Total Depravity and the Righteousness of God
- Thread starter Jerry Shugart
- Start date
Perhaps you should make the distinction and not leave it to be discovered so folk not be led astray by what they read? However, if the "books" say he wrote such and such then he must have wrote it. What say you?
blackbirdking
New member
If it's Biblical, he didn't give it's start; if he gave it it's start, it's built on a wrong foundation. It's still called Calvinism because it's built on John Calvin's ideas, admit it or not. When Calvinism is taught to people seeking to know God, it leads away from the goodness of God.
DON'T BLAME YOU ONE BIT FOR IGNORING ME; ESPECIALLY IF YOU THINK GOD ELECTS ONLY PART OF MANKIND FOR HIS OWN GLORY. (HE DOESN'T, HE IS GLORIFIED BY THEM ALL; EVEN THOSE IN HELL) uuuuuh dddduuh. Real sovereignty; really good God.
Cross Reference
New member
I don't believe they are seeking to know God but how to "make it to heaven". Proof of this lies in their constant need for reassurance (for those who just might have a doubt) by the re-dedication of their lives, as preached to them every meeting time. That takes about 1 min at the alter, if they go at all. Every meeting time is an evangelistic meeting wasted on those who have worn out their "re-dedicaters".
blackbirdking
New member
Lon
Well-known member
:nono: If I go to hell, even, I go to hell for His glory. God is right, I am wrong. Period.
How many Presbyterian churches have you been to? :think: Maybe it is a local thing?
Wait. Are we talking about Arminians or Calvinists? :idunno:
Lon
Well-known member
Hi BBK, I always get worried when quotes come from others rather than our direct readings
I'll endeavor to meet your querries and concerns however.True. John 1:3 Colossians 1:17
What bothers you?
:up: Yep. See here, you agree with these scriptures from God, can I assume?
Absolutely: See John 5:15 and Colossians 1:17 and the other verses in the link above.
Did you read the context here? (section 11 btw). It is NOT about commanding men to do evil, but rather that God is in complete control of any enemy 'against' a Christian. The point? Comfort that we are in His complete care. Context is always king and I believe a coward or incompetent provided this quote out of context. We Christians are better than this. You are better than this. :up:
Correct. He set everything in motion and foreknew all events, thus He is the first-cause of man but not the first-cause of sin. Ask for clarity if secondary-causes are a needed discussion. Thank you for graciously emphasizing that the Calvinist does not have God as the author of Evil.
As with the previous, I'm not finding this quote on the page #. I don't mean to think dubiously of the quote mining intent, but this is a hypothesis for an unresolved objection and thus is merely the emphasis of it, not what is purported by Calvin himself. Without the proper page citation, we are left guessing. You can look more here for the correct page # and the proper context for understanding it. I couldn't find it.
Sure. There is often a difference between appearances and actuals.
Possibly he didn't.
Hope not. There is nothing here to be ashamed of. I hope you can see them all tied directly to scriptures, even if one were to not see the same reason for their interpretation. If you read the links, Calvin's writings provide the scriptures, I think you'll have a more meaningful context.
Hope they help and that you will spend a half hour or so with them.
In Him, and given in His and your service,
Lon
blackbirdking
New member
Thanks,
.
So are you acknowledging that God is the Cause of the cause of sin?Hi BBK, I always get worried when quotes come from others rather than our direct readings
True. John 1:3 Colossians 1:17
What bothers you?
You also affirm that every event is ordered by God. I don't. If I throw a ball into the air, who caused it to break the law of gravity, which God put into place? When the ball falls, who caused it to fall?
.
blackbirdking
New member
Thanks,
So God is absolutely the cause that caused whatever caused sin?
But in light of the entire context, God is the cause of any enemy against any Christian, if I read it right; He is also the cause of the comfort necessary, due to the enemy He caused. I think with due respect for opponents of Calvinism, the quote was used with other quotes, concerning the concept that God is in complete control; since that be the case, why not cause them not to be enemies altogether? Unless of course, God obtained pleasure from ordaining enemies, rather than ordaining those reprobate, to be Christians.
I'm asking for 'clarity'.
So God is absolutely the cause that caused whatever caused sin?
But in light of the entire context, God is the cause of any enemy against any Christian, if I read it right; He is also the cause of the comfort necessary, due to the enemy He caused. I think with due respect for opponents of Calvinism, the quote was used with other quotes, concerning the concept that God is in complete control; since that be the case, why not cause them not to be enemies altogether? Unless of course, God obtained pleasure from ordaining enemies, rather than ordaining those reprobate, to be Christians.
I'm asking for 'clarity'.
Lon
Well-known member
Yes, in the same manner that Adolph's parents are the cause of the cause of WW2.
Col 1:17 And He is before all things, and by Him all things consist (exist).
What 'could' happen without Him sustaining us? Can I breathe right now without Him sustaining me? Could I type? Can I do even one thing, without Him supporting my existence?
Lon
Well-known member
My pleasure BBK,
Can anything exist without God? :nono: Not if He is God. If He is just another player/piece in the universe, then it could, but something or someone else would be God then.
<DIR>Mat 13:24 He put another parable before them, saying, "The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a man [God] who sowed good seed in his field,
Mat 13:25 but while his men were sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat and went away.
Mat 13:26 So when the plants came up and bore grain, then the weeds appeared also.
Mat 13:27 And the servants of the master of the house came and said to him, 'Master, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have weeds?'
Mat 13:28 He said to them, 'An enemy has done this.' So the servants said to him, 'Then do you want us to go and gather them?'
Mat 13:29 But he said, 'No, lest in gathering the weeds you root up the wheat along with them.
Mat 13:30 Let both grow together until the harvest, and at harvest time I will tell the reapers, Gather the weeds first and bind them in bundles to be burned, but gather the wheat into my barn.'"
</DIR>I'm not sure if I'm understanding your question. This parable for me answers 'why the weeds grow with us.'
His concern is for our sake. The parable suggests that if the weeds were pulled, there would be damage to the wheat (those of us who belong to Him).
I let my kids leave the house, knowing there are all kinds of things out there and that parents lose children every day. If anything happens, I really 'could' have stopped them and kept them in the house instead. This means I 'ordain' or weigh those risks. It is important for my children's growth to go out into the world. It is important, somehow to us, to be living in this world. Such is what ordination means. It is more complicated naturally with a God who knows all things.
Lon
Well-known member
No, He is God. I'm saying God intends things and yet we were created in a world that had other influences. We do not know how Satan was there and tempted Eve. It is 'similar' (and limitedly so) to me having children. I know this world is no safe place. You could blame me for my purposeful actions or praise me for trying to love them through it.
blackbirdking
New member
Thanks,
Thanks again,
In Calvin's day, there were men who believed he was saying that God caused sin:
Calvin writes,
Calvin writes,
Calvin says, "He ordains and directs to a good end things that are, in themselves, evil."
He says that God "not only foreknew it, but ordained it." (Adam's sin)
He says that God wills, that which is contrary to His will; therefore Calvin is saying God contradicts Himself. Calvin rationalizes in order to avoid saying, that God caused sin/evil.
Other places, he says/implies that God ordained sin, but because God ordained it, it was God's righteous act.
We can say then, by using the same logic Calvin used, if indeed God willed it as an act of His righteousness, it was also an act of righteousness when committed by the one ordained to commit it. Therefore, both reprobate and elect are indeed doing God's will; one being given eternal life, the other being given eternal death. And, this for 'His pleasure'.
Calvinism tries to rationalize God's will in order to sustain God's character; then calls it 'secret judgment'.
Everything God created, made, caused, ordained, and any other act of God, was 'good', agreeable, pleasant. If predestination, as taught by Calvin, was agreeable and pleasant for God, God is not a personal God, neither is He trustworthy; Calvin knew that and rationalized and used the word 'secret' judgement. Others follow him. That's the point I was getting to earlier.
Thanks again,
In Calvin's day, there were men who believed he was saying that God caused sin:
Calvin writes,
He repeatedly denies their accusations, while using logic which is contradictory:
Calvin writes,
He is saying that the will of God is being done, by God causing His will not to be done.
Calvin says, "He ordains and directs to a good end things that are, in themselves, evil."
He says that God "not only foreknew it, but ordained it." (Adam's sin)
He says that God wills, that which is contrary to His will; therefore Calvin is saying God contradicts Himself. Calvin rationalizes in order to avoid saying, that God caused sin/evil.
Other places, he says/implies that God ordained sin, but because God ordained it, it was God's righteous act.
We can say then, by using the same logic Calvin used, if indeed God willed it as an act of His righteousness, it was also an act of righteousness when committed by the one ordained to commit it. Therefore, both reprobate and elect are indeed doing God's will; one being given eternal life, the other being given eternal death. And, this for 'His pleasure'.
Calvinism tries to rationalize God's will in order to sustain God's character; then calls it 'secret judgment'.
Everything God created, made, caused, ordained, and any other act of God, was 'good', agreeable, pleasant. If predestination, as taught by Calvin, was agreeable and pleasant for God, God is not a personal God, neither is He trustworthy; Calvin knew that and rationalized and used the word 'secret' judgement. Others follow him. That's the point I was getting to earlier.
Lon
Well-known member
Hello BBK
Thank you.
The good is that God will work it to our and His glory.
Romans 8:28 And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.
Matthew 13:29-30 <SUP></SUP>“‘No,’ he answered, ‘because while you are pulling the weeds, you may uproot the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest.
In Him
-Lon
My pleasure. Forgive me for being more verbose this post. I will endeavor to trim in the next reply but I had to think and contemplate how best to answer your concerns and querry. It seems to need a bit more length if you can wade with me.
Thank you.
There are two camps on Calvinism. One sees God only having one will usually called double-predestination or Hyper Calvinism. There are a few of these on TOL. The rest of us believe God has two wills, one that He will make happen and the other where He will prescribe the outcome of all actions. Because we know that God has Sovereignty and prescience, and nothing happens outside of His will, we join our Double-pred Calvinists often, but we differ in that God works with other wills besides His own. It is true that all wills belong to Him because nothing was made, that has been made, but in that, there is a conundrum we are not privvy to. We do not know much concerning Satan's fall or how he was able to exercise a contrary will. We do know, however, that when it came to our fall, he was a player in God's universe for evil and that this is how we sinned, not because God gave us that choice.
1 Thessalonians 4:13<SUP class=versenum> </SUP>Brothers and sisters, we do not want you to be uninformed<SUP class=crossreference value='(A)'></SUP> about those who sleep in death,<SUP class=crossreference value='(B)'></SUP> so that you do not grieve like the rest of mankind, who have no hope.
The good is that God will work it to our and His glory.
Romans 8:28 And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.
Matthew 13:29-30 <SUP></SUP>“‘No,’ he answered, ‘because while you are pulling the weeds, you may uproot the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest.
Not exactly, no. Yes some Calvinists agree with you but most of us would say rather that this is God's prescriptive will, that He works all things to good for those who belong to Him.
Yes, because we don't know the mind of God and He hasn't answered all of our (collectively, Calvinists and all other believers too) questions. For nonCalvinists, there is a 'hidden' aspect that is kept from God in that His knowledge of our response to Him, is something prescient, yet learned by God as He looked to the future to discover what we would do with Christ. Open Theists go a bit further and say God doesn't know until the day someone is saved. As Calvinists, we assert God's absolute foreknowledge AND foreordination AND sovereignty. Such 'points' to Him being culpable but we simply don't do that. Many of us who believe this way simply made a decision to trust God with whatever we don't know, while asserting His sovereignty over His entire creation.
Hopefully above you see that the camp I am in, doesn't do this. What we believe may 'point' to culpability but there are several good reasons not to push that button: 1) Because God is good, whether I understand His every action or judgement or not. I used to think my parents made 'bad' decisions as a teen. I laugh at myself as a father today. If God 'looks' bad I first think "its' likely just me" and then I laugh and say "Of course it is me!" 2) That because the whole character of God is good, there is absolutely nothing He can do that would cast shadows on His character, only our glasses seen half darkly. 3) That then our theology might be the problem but we must , we feel, embrace what does no harm to the character and nature of God rather than worrying overtly what it does to the character and status of man. For the most part, there is no problem between Christians, we are all good. It is rather that nonCalvinist Christians are devastated for the lost unbelievers. That love is commendable. We have two commands in scripture, one is to love God and the other is to love our neighbor as ourselves. To me, the who Calvinist/nonCalvinist debate is one and maybe the only tension between these two commands. You are right to question us therefore, and investigate this more than apparent tension. It is needed.
In Him
-Lon
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
As Lon intimated, there are lots ways of dividing up Calvinists. For example,
Types of Calvinism
AMR
Types of Calvinism
AMR
blackbirdking
New member
Thanks
Lon
Well-known member
I believe God ordains, but this doesn't mean He intended all to be as it is. I do not know how Satan fell and that is really the million dollar question. As such, God put limits on Satan where Job was concerned, that he couldn't kill him. Such means that God will use adverse situations to bring about all things to work together for good but I believe it would have been much better for us if Adam and Eve had not sinned in the garden. There would have been no such thing as tares.
So, do these work together for good? Yes. Is it God's intended purpose? I believe it is a prescription (perscriptive will) for what ails us in sin. I believe in secondary causation because of sin in the universe or it could not exist. Sin came about by the choices of others doing so, not by God's desire. Forbidding the tree is the way He chose to stop sin. Sending Christ is the way He chose to remedy our disobedience. He is not the Author of disobedience.
Lon
Well-known member
Yes, but...
God has His plans and man as well as Satan are sentient beings different than animals in that we can choose to go against our nature. This is why a person born in sin can choose to go against those sin impulses as an unbeliever.
All of this is well within God's will but it is plan B. It was not His desire that man should disobey Him in the Garden, but it was according to His will (plan B).
I suppose Omniscience would suggest that this then is plan A but for me, this is second-guessing God and trying to fill omniscience's shoes with our own intellect. I believe it honestly, logically, and practically, impossible for us to do so.
Because of that, we would likely argue first and second causes (plan A's and B's) until He returns (which is why I am not double-pred, there is no necessity to have to go toward that in an area we cannot possibly reason through but must/necessarily have direct revelation which is currently not given or eluding us/me). If you believe scriptures points to that direction, I'm all ears but I've not found those clear indications from scripture to date.
In Him
-Lon