I have to say, there's been much monkeybusiness regarding God's will and the preceptive/decretive language.

God can't be at odds with himself - that includes his will. I've found it far more helpful to simply say that there's some of Gods will he has revealed to us, and some of it he hasn't, and affirm the biblical truth that God doesn't go against himself.

It also seems to help to point out that God is not a flattened out cartoon in the sense that he does have ordering in his will - I just mean that he's, say, willing to not punish all sin the instant it happens, because he has a higher goal in mind than just being shown as just - he also will be shown as merciful ... etc. In in fact all his perfections will be exemplified.

I don't disagree. I certainly don't intend to insist what His will is other than what scripture tells us. My personal point is that I don't take, or read, any of a "deistic" view of the occurrence of events (i.e. roll the dice and sit back and see what happens, etc.)
There is much common grace that God affords upon us all, like you seem to allude to in the latter point of your post.

I didn't think you intended to set them against each other - I was just saying some things that came to mind regarding that particular topic.

No worries with me, brother! I enjoy the discussion.

Well you’re on the right track. It’d help a lot if you dropped Calvinism. It’ll never square with Christianity.

So, my view of God's sovereignty...I have thought on this for a few days casually, I think bullet format might be easiest.

I do believe.

I do believe He has the authority and power to meticulously control everything if He so desired.
I do believe He directly effects the outcome of some events.
I do believe He has authority over all creation.

I don't believe.

I don't believe God is meticulously controlling the outcome of everything.
I don't believe anything happens that God wasn't already aware of since before creation.
I don't believe anyone can supplant His decrees.

If reference to "His will", I do think sometimes the language/usage of the phrase is trying to articulate a desire of God's. Note a desire doesn't mean he's going to force something necessarily. And I think this part is key. A king can desire someone obey him for their own good, but allow them to disobey him of their own accord and justly punish them for their disobedience rather than force them to obey against their will. He can allow or grant man a real decision which is not subverted by the fact God already knows the outcome.


I'm not saying there's not more to my view of His sovereignty, but I am saying there's at a minimum this. I'm typing this up on my phone at work on my breaks, because it doesn't look like I'm going to have much free time this weekend so I figured I'd try to at least respond to the question.

I really wonder who did what to you and who you've been interacting with.

Thanks for the reply, M16A4.

I'll interact on it in the next day or two when I can do so at an appropriate level.

???  I don’t understand.

It's not even really worth disagreeing then, brother. It's so close in the scheme of things that we know God is in control and nothing will happen that He doesn't use in His plans.

I'd rather focus on where we agree if that's our biggest discrepancy!

I mean I really wonder who did what to you, or who you've been interacting with, or what happened to make you post stuff like that.  I know that reads snotty but it's not meant that way. Genuinely wonder.

Ah ok. No offense taken.

Nothing has really happened to me. I’ve always recognized Calvinism as a low theology contrary to Christianity. It never made any sense. Too many contradictions. Too much emphasis on power and hate. When I read the Gospels, I do not see in Jesus the god of Calvin.

But I do know people it has damaged. I have a close friend who was raised calvinist and his life has been torn apart by it. He’s always in some state of depression because he’s totally convinced he’s worthless and God hates him. He lives in fear that he’s not one of the elect. Every time he makes a mistake he blames himself for the sin but simultaneously recognizes ‘God is sovereign’ and whatever sin he committed happened necessarily. It’s sad.

Most people will never reach that level because they only have a surface-level understanding of the doctrines. My friend went to seminary. Has taught in churches. And he takes it all very seriously. He knows the implications of it all and it has drove him mad.

So you should understand the doctrines your peddling are dangerous. I know you don’t mean any harm, but taken to their logical ends they bring death and despair. That means they’re certainly not from God.

As far as the preceptive and decretive will thing, consider this: who was the first person to teach that God had two wills? I’ll give you a hint. He’s called the father of lies and he taught it all the way back in Genesis to a man and a woman named Adam and Eve.

I have to say I agree with much of what you said. I saw almost the exact same thing happen to my best friend who is dear to me. Around the same time in our studies we reached the logical conclusion you're talking about while being discipled by a very devout hard core Calvinist pastor. He quite depressingly concluded he wasn't one of the elect because he had an addiction he couldn't break, he withdrew from me, the church, and got quiet, like that shattered and broken quiet...he I think, almost went to a very dark place.

I felt guilty.

See I introduced him to this pastor soon after starting my search, which interestingly was started after he and I talked about God. His view from what little he knew and understood at the time well, let's just say it wasn't good. I wasn't well studied and I don't claim to be any sort of expert now, I'm not. But I knew he was wrong, and I tried to explain what little I could remember from my youth. This whole situation coupled with a failing marriage inspired me to start seeking truth and understanding of the Bible.  And so I said a prayer, and bumped into this pastor.

Here's the very interesting thing. Looking back on it now, I don't believe I'd ever dug into His word like I did during that time had it not been for this pastor. (I do think God used him) Keep in mind, this was dangerous imo looking back as there definitely was some skillful brainwashing going on, wither by intention or a result of the system/doctrine. It took me months and months of research and digging into textual criticism and understanding how the ancient Hebrew and Greek are translated to slowly claw my mind out of it's grasp.

There's somethings to note about Calvinism. It claims to be academic,  maybe not directly but look at the difference in language used. Many words most people have to look up because they're not commonly used. They talk a lot about eisegesis and exegesis. But then turn around and apply "divinely revealed" understandings to specific words. That's NOT now scholars choose English words to accurately translate a piece of Ancient Hebrew or Greek text. They use English words for their defined meanings according to the dictionary. You can see Calvinism has several errors simply by applying the defined meanings of specific words and only those meanings and then see if the doctrine stands, I didn't find it to do so. It crumbles as it's only solid within the confines of itself.

I thank God for my parents, they're flawed, they're not deep theologians or anything, but they brought me up in a church that correctly portrayed the character of God, or at least well enough for when reaching that final conclusion of Calvinism, for it to...it's hard to put into words. It was, a betrayal, horrific, disingenuous, wrong, out of character depiction of the one true God of the Bible I had been learning of, worshipping, singing praises to and looking to as inspiration to put away the old man and put on the new. (Not from a legalistic view mind you, but of a loving desire to please God)

So, I prayed and searched the scriptures hard, spent so much of my free time studying God's word and listening to other brothers in Christ my wife became pretty irritated. Eventually, like I said I dug up so much that the doctrine lost its grip on me, and it wasn't easy...there would be a phrase or word at times, and my mind would snap back to a Calvinistic understanding of something, and I would have  to wrestle with it. Eventually I started sharing my findings with my friend, out of guilt and concern, after all it was I who introduced him. Long story made a little shorter, he's made his way out of it as well and been attending the church I joined last year, the one I spent approximately 8 months to find (I felt at times I wasn't going to find a church) after visiting a depressingly large quantity of dead churches. He's started praying again, worshipping, even tithing before all this virus mess. And I'm happy to share the grip his addiction had on him has slipped and slipped until recently he shared with me that he's not drawn to it like he used to be, which was very exciting and pleasing to hear, better yet a month or so prior he finally accepted the scriptures as true and trustworthy, and decided to trust in and follow the Lord.

Well, I'll try and give this a worthwhile reply.

I think our sticking point (and it's not trivial) out of what you've said in this post is this:

... and I bet you expected that.

Going to say: I suspect we're going to have some discussion over what 'meticulous' means and have to avoid some strawmen (robots and real - I bet you know the drill).

Yes, I believe God is in control of everything.That means everything, not everything*. I don't believe God chose to not be in control of some things. I frankly don't think God can remain God and *not* be in be in complete control of everything.

I also don't believe God in complete control = nothing he is in control of matters / things he is in control of are of diminished meaning. That's a non-sequitur and doesn't even carry it's own water.

Bit of exegesis:
(Ephesians 1:10-12 [NASB])In Him also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will, to the end that we who were the first to hope in Christ would be to the praise of His glory.

Alll things worked after the counsel of his will. Not some. If you want to say this is limited, than you have to point to where it's taught that it is - it's not limited in this text or the texts right around it. That means you have to go to other texts that speak on the same topic (and the clearer texts on the topic define the less clear texts). I'm just interested in what the text means, and we can't bring in context to a blank bit of nothing, because than you wouldn't even know the topic it was discussing.

(Romans 8:28 [NASB]) And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose.
^^^ that couldn't apply if God didn't control all things in a christian's life. Look at the sentence - it would have to be false if God couldn't cause all things in a christian's life to work to the good.

(Proverbs 16:33 [NASB]) The lot is cast into the lap, But its every decision is from the LORD.  <--- Even if you limit it to the strictest meaning of the text, that's your games of chance. Or ludicrously limiting it, direct control of all lots cast.

(Proverbs 16:9 [NASB]) The mind of man plans his way, But the LORD directs his steps. <--- note here that the text does not say (or require) that God does not control the plans in the minds of man. Furthermore, that would make God conradict what he has said elsewhere:

(Ezra 6:22 [NASB]) And they observed the Feast of Unleavened Bread seven days with joy, for the LORD had caused them to rejoice, and had turned the heart of the king of Assyria toward them to encourage them in the work of the house of God, the God of Israel.

By no means are these texts alone and nor do they cover even a pittance of the realms where the text clearly means that God is in control of some thing or the other.

Note, I am not appealing to these other texts saying they mean more than they do. Simply put, the Ephesians 1 passage says he controls all things. If we want to say there's a limiter on that, and we are going to say it's biblical, we have to find it (it's not there).
-----
What's the point where the rubber meets the road?

A God who is not in control of everything cannot make all of life work for our good - he is smaller than evil (or has decided to be overcome at least in some aspects by evil), or is literally not God (if you take God to mean the ultimate) because he is at the mercy of some greater set of circumstances which he actually can't control.

I don't want to worship a God who is at the mercy of sinful man or the conditions of his own creation.

When you tell someone that what they believe is a square, you've always recognized it as a square and every experience that person has had for their entire life of the thing they actually believe is a sphere - and they are not a shut in or an ignorant boob - that person isn't going to believe you, because you're not even talking about the same thing.

So ... either you're saying what I believe is something that it actually isn't, or you're right, and if you're up for it, up for picking a place and starting to show what you're saying is true. I have zero reason to believe you from anything I know.

----

"Doctrines I am peddling"

Are you conversing with me? (last I checked, we don't know each other). Maybe your preconceptions about what I actually believe/know are misapplied or possibly just flat out wrong.  If this discussion between us *can possibly* be about more than being stuck on stereotypes and not being willing to change our stereotypes ... Well. I'd like that.  Ball's in your court, you haven't given me a solid peg to hang my hat on to to discuss this stuff. Or ... you can keep saying what's a sphere to me is a square, and giving no reasons why I'm bonkers enough to mistake it for what it isn't (and you have said it was dangerous too).

That's not because of teaching about being elect and God choosing who will look to him and choose him for salvation.

I've seen what you're referring to - tail chasing over the question of whether you are elect or not - the answer to that question is not required in order to believe you are saved.  It is a fatal fallacy to mistake our belief that we are saved as being based on the same level of knowledge as that of God's knowledge of who is in the lamb's book of life.

Our assurance is not based on our knowledge of who is elect. Our assurance is based upon the promises of God that he will save all who believe and continue to believe that he is their savior. There is a point when a christian begins believing Christ has saved them, but that is not a one time only thing. That belief sticks with them; for their whole life.

I believe that I am saved because I (still) believe Jesus died for my sins, in my place. There is no other hope than that. The promises that God made to save all who believe are unshakeable; I point myself to those. I don't chase my tail trying to peek into the book of life because *that is not revealed and we can not know it.*  EDIT: I don't try and divine out the future as to whether I will still believe tomorrow, the next hour, the next second - I know I can't, I'm human, a creature, and not God. Election does not require that a person have God-level knowledge to believe they are saved.

The presence of sin, or of a particular sin, in the life of a christian, does not mean that they are not saved. The mark of a christian is that they struggle with sin for their whole life. There is progress, we are not what we used to be, but we still struggle with sin (that's romans 7). You get older, and even though some things you used to struggle with aren't nearly the problems they used to be, you still realize that the same stinking category of sin grabs at you - just in a different form.



Examples?  As far as I'm concerned, for the original languages (and every other) you define a word by seeing what it meant at the time it was used.  For words that have multiple meanings/referents, you let the grammar of the language around it point it out. Further because I believe God is truth and his word is truth, and that means that God cannot contradict himself, if you have a choice of meanings and one would *actually cause a contradiction* ... you don't choose the one that makes God a liar by contradicting his revelation.



"Final conclusion of calvinism" - that would be? I'd rather not guess at your meaning.

Attached File

You realize what you're asking me to do by asking me for examples rather than studying and seeing if you can see what I'm claiming? Examples... This isn't something I'm honestly thrilled to do. The reason I'm not thrilled to do it, is because I really don't want my mind going back into that perspective. But, I'll consider it and let you know one way or the other by either posting my response or letting you know that I'm not going to attempt to provide examples.


Would you agree though if it were shown to you that one aspect of TULIP was proven false, that the doctrine falls apart because it's so tightly interconencted?

I’ve read your response three times and I don’t understand what you’re saying. So here’s the deal.

—Calvinism is not Christianity.
—Calvinism is dangerous. (Remember, my friend)
—Many of the ‘mysteries’ calvinists struggle to explain are really contradictions, which would clear up if they dropped the doctrines of Calvinism.

I hate that so many people are trapped in this religion. But the good news is Calvinism seems to be collapsing in on itself—at least in America.

FlashMan-7k, I'll presume you would agree to my question "Would you agree though if it were shown to you that one aspect of TULIP was proven false, that the doctrine falls apart because it's so tightly interconnected?"



So to my Calvinist friends, I realize no matter what I write/type here you're going to attack it as I'm directly challenging your view, and that's to be expected as it challenges your whole world view and view of God. But I'm asking you to attempt not to immediately attack it but rather first consider what I'm trying to communicate as theological matters are often very complex and difficult to communicate.


So, what about Cornelious? He's called a devout man, and one who feared God with all his household and was called righteous. Scripture shows he's praying to God, it's made clear God knows his prayers, God sent an angle to him. And mentioned his alms having acceded as a memorial before God. Sounds like God's acknowledging the Centurion, obviously God's heard his prayers. And sounds like God's not displeased with him as Peter is sent to him. It looks to me that because he feared God, and believed, which means he had faith. But look he's called righteous BEFORE Peter was sent to him so that he might know how to be saved. Now I know the Calvinist will probably default to their train of God imputing effectual grace for spiritual life so that the person may believe. But where does it say this occurred? It doesn't. But if I'm honest, it doesn't say one way or another how he came to believe and fear God. But it should still be noted. Now I'm not saying he's righteous in the site of God as Christ is. But in this instance it seemed to be saying that he was trying to do what was right, he was fearing and belief in God through faith. But God's been hearing his prayers, there's a memorial in heaven and angles were sent to him. And what did Peter say to him "I most certainly understand now that God is not one to show partiality but in every nation the one that fears Him and does what is right is welcome to Him." Doesn't mean he earned salvation, welcome doesn't mean must come, and shouldn't need much explanation. So Peter is shown that salvation is attainable for all of mankind, not just the Jew.

My whole argument is that we're held responsible because we're able to respond. We understand some details differently which make a big difference. Man's response is a fair response, not some only believe because they're elected and those that aren't reject Him because they don't have the ability to. I see ways what I'm saying can be twisted but I'm not sure how to explain it in a way that won't be twisted....  Yes those that believe, and accept Christs's sacrifice are grafted into the vine, are adopted as God's children and are elect. But though God already knew who all would and wouldn't, that doesn't mean that the choice wasn't, isn't real. Any one of those that rejected God had an honest capability to accept God, which if you're honest with yourself, isn't what Calvinism claims. I can see the whole vessel for destruction for his glory just fine and i'm fine with it, in that context, but not in the Calvinistic context where someone is just chosen before creation for no apparent reason. Doesn't sound very logical or just, and we'd both agree God isn't illogical or unjust.

Why spread the Gospel in Cavinism with their view of elect? I have found the answer is most commonly, because they're commanded to do so. Oookay obeying God is a good reason, but why does God commanded us to spread the gospel? Because faith comes through hearing, hearing what, the word of God. Why, because people have to hear truth and CHOOSE to believe or not, and belief brings faith, they're not the same thing but people use them almost interchangeably, granted they're similar and connected, but people have faith because of their beliefs, you can't have faith in something without some foundational beliefs pertaining to the subject. Like I have tried to communicate, God put's the choice on us, and it's a real, honest choice that we CAN choose.

So I know that's probably going to come under fire which I already hinted at earlier. The Calvinistic doctrine teaches that a person can't choose the Lord because they're spiritually dead until God effectually spiritually made alive, then and then only can they want the things God wants and want to follow Him.  This is what I don't see in scripture when looking at it honestly without the esiegeted understandings of specific words and phrases, and I know it's not easy to grasp as a Calvinist, because while I never claimed to be one, for nearly a year I viewed the text though their lens and once taught and accepted, it's very VERY difficult to see the text outside of that understanding. This is where my youth background not growing up in a Calvinistic church but a more traditional Baptists church did allow me to see both perspectives. See I would say yes, we're all dead, but we don't have to be. God provides a way, because that's one of His characteristics, He is a provider. The provision is both truth, and Christs's sacrifice. Why would the scriptures seem to at times plead with the reader to believe if it isn't possible but for some? When Timothy said "who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth." It's an honest desire, but not forced will.

Can God not meet his own desires? Well, obviously He can, but will He choose to do so if it means going against his own will & desire for us to choose Him? I don't think so, because I think what's taught by scripture is that what He wants is for a people to WANT to follow him of their own volition. That what He's trying to show man is how in error we are, and how He is literally goodness and life and wants us to have life abundantly which is only possible in Him through Christ.

I don’t have anything to add but I’m thoroughly enjoying this thread.

I'll agree to be intellectually honest and not play sophist wordgames - which is how I have approached this from the start anyhow.  If it bothers you that much to think about it, than realize that saying what someone believes is horrible and destructive ... and than refusing to explain to the person who, if what you're saying is true, is headed for destruction ...

I am not particularly thrilled about trying to discuss with what's been said in this thread about me (by proxy) either - it's a two way street when the heavy starts getting laid on people.

I'll wade along if you will.

I'm not here to bash you. Doing so would be idiotic on my part. I'm here to discuss, disagree, and and debate a little, and agree where we agree ... not bash. <--- I am saying this just to make my intention clear. BTW. I don't believe reformed theology is biblical because of tulip, and tulip is not how I came to be where I am. Real life is a lot more messy than that (I'm not presuming you don't know that) - suffice it to say, if I didn't believe any bit of theology from anywhere wasn't biblical, I wouldn't believe it. People who believe RT didn't all get there by the route of tulip - that's not a starting point that's going to apply across the board (and nor did we all get here just by being raised in it if we were kids born into that kind of church/family).



Indeed, what about cornelious?  

(Acts 11:11-14 [NASB]) And behold, at that moment three men appeared at the house in which we were staying, having been sent to me from Caesarea. The Spirit told me to go with them without misgivings. These six brethren also went with me and we entered the man’s house. And he reported to us how he had seen the angel standing in his house, and saying, ‘Send to Joppa and have Simon, who is also called Peter, brought here; and he will speak words to you by which you will (*future tense*) be saved, you and all your household.’

We all know of (and likely personally know) people who do not believe the gospel who can be called devout and righteous, and the bible's quite clear that even though peoples works can't earn their salvation, their good works are acknowledged as being at least somewhat good in some ways (for example, the kid who helps the old lady change her tire on the side of the road did a good thing outwardly, even if he otherwise did it for the wrong reason).

It's a presumption that cornelious was a gospel believer before peter came to him. I mean the text does not teach that - we assume it, and because we assume it, we just automatically insert it.

... even if acts 11:14 is just bypassed/weren't there, AND acts 10 actually said that cornelious was saved, that would just mean he was an old testament believer in messiah's work on his part, crushing the head of the serpent, bearing our griefs and sorrows, pierced for our transgressions.  Isaiah; in it's own way it was and it is the first gospel.  The gospel has been around since Genesis 3;15. We just know more specifics about it than they did.

There's really nothing regarding what's said about cornelius I find problematic to what I believe (in the least).

Regarding responsibility, being held responsible does not require anything more than someone be able to hold you responsible.  Nothing more, nothing less. There is nothing intrinsic to being held responsible that requires we be able to do what is being asked of us. The bible does not teach that to be responsible, you have to be able ... it's just a human assumption

"... the choice wasn't, isn't real"  <---- "Real" ?  I know several meanings for this word, which one do you mean? I find at least ~7+ ... ?

"where someone is just chosen before creation for no apparent reason" <---- Not being told why God chooses who he does is not the same thing as "for no apparent reason." God told us "I didn't choose you for anything in you, good or bad, I chose you because I wanted to" and left it at that. If he didn't tell, than: "The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law."



I share the gospel because it is the means of salvation. "So, for my part, I am eager to preach the gospel to you also who are in Rome.  For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.  For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, “But the righteous man shall live by faith.” "

(Romans 10:14-15 [NASB]) " How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher?
How will they preach unless they are sent? Just as it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news of good things!” "

You can't believe in something you don't even know.

I share the gospel because that's the way God chose to save people - by people hearing it.  There's nothing about RT or tulip (or calvinism) that even remotely contradicts this.  That christ's dying to save all who would believe on him as their savior is the glorious means God chose, doesn't make it fake or astroturfed.  Uh ... creation is real (actual, exists, obtained, is not fake) ... *because God chose to make it so.*  *our suffering saviour on the cross was a means and we dare not impugn that for being the means(way) God chose to save us*



Reformed theology teaches that people *Can't choose God because - they. don't. want. to.* Literally, the gospel is the stink of death to those who don't want it. "You mean I'll have to give up all this stuff I love and live like a stinking hypocritical puritanical prude!?!? NEVER!" (II Corinthians 2:15-16 For we are a fragrance of Christ to God among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing;  to the one an aroma from death to death, to the other an aroma from life to life. And who is adequate for these things?)

We believe that the bible teaches that people reject the gospel because *they don't want to believe it* and that there is *nobody who actually wants to believe the gospel who is kept from believing it.*

"why would the scripture at times seem to plead" - look at the passages. *They're imperatives.*  One need not be hard-edged or harsh when giving an imperative. Good parents give them out all the time without being harsh.

(I Timothy 2:3-6 [NASB])  This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior,  who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.  For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,  who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony given at the proper time.

All means all of whatever group it's being used to refer to. Anthropos means either every individual human being, or human beings collectively (not individually), or all groups that make up humanity. 1Tim 2:4 *does not tell us* which meaning of anthropos is intended. Which means it's silent and we don't get to presume. We have to go to where the texts are clear about which meaning of anthropos God desires to save all of.    

Further, if you say that "all" *must* mean all individuals, you than have to say that the "all" in 6  is all individuals.  If God gets all that he desires (and he does, even though he has put off for a time some of those desires in order to attain other desires), that means God *has to save all individuals.* 1 tim 2:6 is not isolated and hanging by itself.



Um ... we teach that God changes our hearts so we want him and spend our life at war with sin because Christ paid such a huge debt on our part that the idea of our not trying to show him our love by doing what he desires us to do is repellent to us.  <---  that's ... reformed ... theology ... Regarding that particular topic. I screw up and sin on a regular basis. It repulses me that I do so.    Nothing in calvinism/rt teaches that we follow against our volition. It teaches that because he loved and chose us first, and made us able to, we now are new creatures, creatures who by their very nature love and choose him in return.

----

EDIT: be more than happy to reply to this post if you want me to, but I figure what's here is enough already.

After a once over quick read, I'll say you don't fit the mold of the Calvinist I have been running into. You seem a lot less cold and we agree much more than I would have expected.

We seem to disagree on the meaning of the word p??ta? in 1 Timothy 2:4 though. I am familiar with your answer however.







Also did you read all of what I said about why spread the gospel? Because it doesn't look like we have any real disagreement there to me.

Out of the others I spend time with that consider themselves Calvinist, or in the same vein, I recognize hardly any who are cold. And that's honest; some of the best people I know.

I think the squeaky wheel gets the attention + Calvinism gets stereotyped for not being all-inclusive, all-welcoming, or something... And it perpetuates something that I think is the exception not the rule.

Some of the greatest evangelists in the history of the English speaking world have fallen in this category, to boot.

Some (like Gill) have historically said "all men" refers to all sorts of men. At the beginning of the chapter Paul is referring his comments in context of "kings and others in authority", which follows along the lines of talking different types of people.

Others (like Spurgeon) have said "all men" does indeed mean everyone; but the emphasis is on the desire/will. He uses it in the sense of the word "wishes".

Realistically, it's not worth a whole lot of debate. All men are not ordained to be saved, so it cannot mean a broad, loose sense—at most it insists that we don't know who is elect and therefore need to be sure to preach the gospel to everyone.

Some of the same issues in interpretation come into play in Romans 5, as an example, but we have to look at their context. Some are angling from man's view, and some verses are taking a perspective of God's sovereignty—that does matter; but cannot contradict, so we cannot reduce God's sovereignty to fit in man's will, but the other way around.

"Cold calvinist" is almost a contradiction in terms.

You pretty much have to not apply the T of total depravity to yourself where the rubber meets the road for it not to humble you. Some people have a hard time getting there and seem to get stuck on the cage-stage of really wanting everyone around them to understand what they do, because they (rightly) understand it as a great thing, but have not gotten it through their skulls yet that you don't shove people into believing things.

Others are never saved and ignore the core parts of it ... you know, like the gospel ... and latch onto the rest of it as a neat system while not really believing it, understanding it, or applying the parts they believe and understand to themselves - eventually, these people IMO seem to fall out and become the worst sort of atheists or paddle across the tiber to rome.

Ok, first, I don't know koine, and yes, I know that strong's definitions only gives you a possible range of definitions, and the grammar of the language around it can even point to non-standard usages. I'm just using what I have with the english.

So, regarding 1 timothy 2:4 (and 6) ... the word translated as men validly can have (at least) those three meanings. 2:4 doesn't tel you which 2:4 means. So off to other texts that are clear about it, instead of speculating about what a passage doesn't reveal (again, deut 29:29).

"All" in the greek just seems to mean "all" of whatever set/group its being used to refer to.

Using the " quote text you wanna quote /quote"   function, it's great, just add brackets around the "quote" before and after what you want to quote, and don't forget to use the / to close your quotes up. Far easier to sort out than when someone edits inside of your text.  I'll try and remember it's a bad habit to use a zillion quote functions and use separators to visually indicate what I'm replying to.

Yes, I read what you said about why spread the gospel. It's one of the not so secret secrets about us reformed that we share the gospel because we believe hearing the gospel is the way you get saved.  Election does not = no means used, and means does not = not real. Hypers aren't calvinist and aren't shouldn't even be called reformed. They're just a mess, they ignore even the bare mere fact that God commands us to share the gospel, they ignore the fact that God works through means (people sharing the gospel) etc. That stuff is like a fantasyland where you get to ignore the commands of God for whatever knotheaded reason.  It's an ugly perversion of what God's said.

I'd agree.

Have a friend that the exact thing happened to his brother. Went hyper, never truly understood how doctrine applies, and is now an atheist.

I am starting to remember more about the Calvinistic perspective I was taught... I'm not sure if it was hyper Calvinism or not though.

Happy to discuss these sorts of things, as long as it's towards a good end.

That’s because the only true Calvinism is hyper-Calvinism. Anyone who says otherwise is an inconsistent calvinist.

Your friend's brother figured out what Calvinism really is—the worship of a god of hate—and rejected it because of his moral intuition. This was good. His mistake was thinking that Calvin’s god is the God of the universe. He didn’t need to become an atheist. He could have become a Christian.

False.

Disgusting slander.

Unprovable as well.



Quite the hateful response.


Willing to honestly dispute it with you.

Expecting you won't.

Know you can't support it rationally.

Don't think you can keep the hatred down enough to do it.

1)
Disgusting slander? Unprovable? Let's see what Calvin said.

From his Institutes:

"Therefore, those whom God passes over, he condemns; and this he does for no other reason than that he wills to exclude them from the inheritance which he predestines for his own children." Bk 3, Ch 23, s. 1

"We call predestination God's eternal decree, by which he compacted with himself what he willed to become of each man. For all are not created in equal condition; rather, eternal life is fore-ordained for some, eternal damnation for others." Bk 3, ch 21, s. 5

"But since he foresees future events only by reason of the fact that he decreed that they take place, they vainly raise a quarrel over foreknowledge, when it is clear that all things take place rather by his determination and bidding." Bk 3, Ch 23, s. 6

"For if predestination is nothing but the meting out of divine justice--secret, indeed, but blameless--because it is certain that they were not unworthy to be predestined to this condition, it is equally certain that the destruction they undergo by predestination is also most just. Besides, their perdition depends upon the predestination of God in such a way that the cause and occasion of it are found in themselves. For the first man fell because the Lord had judged it to be expedient; why he so judged is hidden from us." Bk 3, Ch 23, s. 8

Now if this isn't hyper-Calvinism I don't know what is. This is straight supralapsarianism and determinism. Calvin says it plainly: none of our choices matter since God has decreed everything that will take place, including salvation and eternal damnation.

2)
Can't support my assertion that Calvin's god is a god of hate? Sure I can. All I need to do is show that Scripture forms an explicit contradiction to what Calvin said above. Let's take a simple one.

Scripture:
"This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth." 1 Timothy 2:3-4

Calvin:
"We call predestination God's eternal decree, by which he compacted with himself what he willed to become of each man. For all are not created in equal condition; rather, eternal life is fore-ordained for some, eternal damnation for others." Bk 3, ch 21, s. 5

This forms an explicit contradiction. God cannot simultaneously desire all to be saved and will some to eternal damnation.

Moreover, this contradiction exposes Calvin's god as a god of hate. Eternal damnation for any person can in no way be construed as an act of love. How does eternal damnation benefit its recipient? Rather, eternal damnation is an act of hate. It is an infinite harm to the recipient. And if God wills that for any person, He must in some sense be hate, that hate must come from His nature since, of course, God caused that that person be an object of hate. (Remember the decree?) But this is all false because we know God is love. (1 John 4:8)

My suspicion is that you don't really know what Calvinism is. You have a surface-level understanding. There's a reason many people who dive deep into it end up rejecting it or worse. Its core is ugly.

And this is not hatred toward you. It's hatred toward an evil that traps people. You should turn away from this evil.

Question: Who in this thread would consider Dr. James White a hyper Calvinist?


My former pastor pretty much agreed with Dr. White across the board for the same reasons Dr. White has cited for his reasoning repeatedly.

I would consider him a hyper-Calvinist, although I don't think he would ever admit to it.

You have to understand, Calvinists consider the term 'hyper-Calvinist' to be a pejorative. Very few will readily admit to it because they all recognize it makes God evil. But if they're consistent, and they follow the premises of Calvinism to their logical end, they will arrive at hyper-Calvinism. Most pull back before that point, throw up their hands, and say it's a mystery.

What reasons has White cited?

Oh perhaps that last sentence was a bit confusing. I just mean he often explains why he believes  XY or Z and gives the same standard orthodox reasons brashly as a block of steel almost as if it's a mathematical formula. And don't get me wrong. I readily acknowledge he's done great work in the areas of textual criticism and translations in general. I personally believe he opts out of applying the same standards to particular areas of scripture though. Wither that's a conscious act or not I have no idea, it's probably not.

I still enjoy watching him debate muslims on wither or not the Bible has been corrupted. He as well as a few other tend to kick butt in that area. Dr. James Woods is another that does great there. I only mention that to point out I don't hate the man or anything.

I think he is.


I disagree with him, but I believe he comes to his conclusions after thoughtful consideration.

I think he is as well. And I don't think any non-hyper Calvinist can refute him as he sticks to the orthodox doctrine. Which perhaps is why I don't see how there's hyper calvinism vs Calvinism. It just looks to me like people have explored Calvinism to different depths. Those that go all the way and swallow the pill, seem to be gone to considering there's anything other than Calvinism and Arminianism. Even though there is another biblically sound view. I'm not the best at articulating it but it's more in the middle. I get what Calvinism attempts to do, the whole minimizing of man and maximizing God, but imo it ends up painting God as a monster in the end who for no apparent reason decided to make souls/people for damnation.

Where as a more traditional view imo shows God as a more just and loving God. He maintains justice by allowing man to choose to follow God or reject Him for the "treasures" of the world. Why I keep saying "real" choice is because from my understanding of Calvinism, though some may call it hyper Calvinism, there's no real choice in their understanding. Sure they "could" if it was a desire of theirs but it's not because they haven't been effectually made alive etc.  But then everything is so tightly woven together in this doctrine that means you immediately jump to their view of for lack of a better term order of operations which basically goes, effectual grace/Gods gift of his doing no part on you to make you alive because you're one of the elect, then once your alive and can see, you want God and so you choose to follow Him in loving adoration and as best obedience you can, resisting evil, that being persistence of the saints.

Where as a more traditional views shows that God simply delivers the truth, through hearing the word, then it's left to the individual to decide to accept or reject. Which could be a process of curiosity, investigation, seeking, coming to belief and faith, accepting Christ's sacrifice as sufficient, and yielding to him as their Lord and saviour, thus being born again. And obviously those who are genuine will seek to obey the Lord and resist evil, again that being persistence of the saints.

As I understand it, the traditional view leaves God more just, as any rejection of God and his desires for that person are on that person. Where as in the Calvinistic view, they're back at the feet of God, since the person can only do what God made them to do/be and if they're made to be a vessel for destruction then well they are, tough cookies, in fact it's for His glory so...


Where the traditional view sees it more as, those that reject him are vessels which were made for destruction, and because He is just and will punish those who are in a sin debit it is to his righteous justice that he will be glorified in their destruction.

That last bit will likely be confusing to Calvinist. His foreknowledge doesn't equate to causation.

Please define Hyper Calvinist.  I don’t think Dr White is one by the definition that I associate with Hyper Calvinist.  Also understand that it doesn’t matter what Calvin said.  It matters what God said.  And Paul and John etc.  Calvin vocalized what others had said many years before.  He would not even recognize the term Calvinist.  That was coined by others years later.  Calvin didn’t invent the theology that he followed.

Also,
Where are you getting a more traditional view?  Augustine said the same things Calvin said in regards to God.  Then you had what became the traditional RC view.  When the reformers were reforming, they were reforming against this view.  The view that I think you are calling traditional was neither and came to be after both of those.  So I would not consider your view traditional in the realm of Christianity.  Not a put down, just a statement.  As to others here, Denying the deity of Christ is not a Christian view.  That also isn’t an insult, it is saying that I believe that Jesus is God.  When I look at what the Bible says, I am seeing God speak in every word, and Jesus speaking is God speaking.  You don’t consider Jesus God.  I think that plays a bigger part in all this because it affects  the whole roots of the theology of salvation, before we can even discuss Sovereignty.  Again, this post is not intended to insult anyone.  And honestly I can’t keep up with who believes what 100%, but I know all views are present in this thread.

I'm aware.

And who can define it when Calvinist themselves debate where that line is? But if I had to give a response, I'd say the 4 point Calvinist isn't a hyper Calvinist, but then I'd also argue they're being inconsistent with their own doctrine. And I agree it absolutely matters most what God said, in context to whom and how and why etc. it was said.

I'd also say you're doing eisegesis if you're defining words in scripture by non-standard definitions as found in the appropriate era dictionary for the time of the translation.

Sorry, I edited as you were posting.

I agree that there can be no consistency in a “4 point Calvinist “

Did I define something incorrectly?

Not that I'm aware of.

I'll come back to this later. But like that Ephesians 1:10 verse I read that and I agree. However the question you ought to ask, is what is His will? I'm not sure we can fully know it, (doubt we can) but we can certainly postulate from attributes of His character and what he has revealed to us. To me, this verse may have a slightly different understanding than it does to you. When I read this in my minds eye, I see God on his throne (in concept not like a visual vision or anything) after the end of the age, after Christ's return, when we're in the Holy City and judgement has been passed on those whom rejected Him and the Bama seat judgement has occurred etc. Where all things are His, justice has been delivered and everything is right as it should be.

Calvinism closely resembles Gnosticism. Go ahead and read gnostic texts, or read some of the early church's rebuttals of gnosticism. What the Church argued against is exactly what Calvinism is.