John Calvin and Calvinism.

[Lifelong_sinner]

You're going to have to show me from scripture.
If you don't post scripture, please don't reply to me.

YOU think people cannot choose God on their own.

See, we're getting nowhere.

ok, fine.
Romans 3:11
john 6:44

those 2 verses prove that we cant seek God first, He calls us first. But im done with your attitude, you’re smug, and you think you’re better than anyone else. I dont need that. You’re on ignore.

 

[GodsGrace]

GodsGrace, your idea of the God described by the Reformers and those that have come after is quite different that what it really is. No person with any modicum of knowledge of the reformed understanding of God would disagree that God loves His creation... all of it, and especially us, who He made in His own image. To insinuate that reformed persons think otherwise... well, that's just surely not the case. And any reformed person would surely agree with you regarding God's justice, but I think it's important to discuss that, too, so I'll come back to that.

What we have to do, GodsGrace is, we have to go back to the very beginning. :) Yes, God loves His creation (us, and all the rest of it) ~ he created it for His own glory, after all, and on top of that, once finished, pronounced it very good (Genesis 1). Let me ask you this, GodsGrace. This question may seem a bit ridiculous on its face, but let me get your thoughts regarding this question:

* Why is it necessary for God to have mercy? Or put another, similar way, why is His mercy even necessary? To explain the question, if God created everything (which He did), and He made it all ~ even man ~ very good (He wasn't mistaken when He acknowledged its goodness, again, in Genesis 1... plus it apparently met His standard of "very good," which is even far beyond our standard of "very good"), then initially and up to a certain point, His mercy was not necessary. Right? Well, yes, right. Something happened, regarding man and all His creation, at some point to make God's mercy necessary. So that begs another question:

* What happened after God's act of creation to make His mercy necessary? Why did redemption become necessary? And how far-reaching was this thing that happened that made His mercy and redemption necessary? What happened?

I think we would agree, actually, on the basic answers to these questions, but maybe not in scope... what the consequences of this thing that happened actually were and how far-reaching it really was/is. If we really understand that, But let me know your thoughts.

One more thing, though... I want to address just briefly your statement that He "made a plan of escape for those who choose to serve Him and not the enemy." I would submit to you, GodsGrace, that there's something possibly troubling about that statement. On the surface, it seems pretty innocuous, but if we start analyzing it... maybe not so much. So:

* We agree that God made a plan; He provided this solution. He made a plan, in view of this thing that happened, to set everything back to how He made it ~ again, very good ~ and provided a means for that to happen, a way to accomplish that, a way for Him to accomplish that on our behalf, for us, to satisfy His justice, which is perfect and cannot be compromised, and thus uphold His glory. But I would say ~ and maybe you would agree ~ that God's His solution/provision was sufficient to accomplish the redemption of all people, not just those who choose to serve Him, if only for the reason that all are in need of this redemption, because He loves, as we agreed, all His creation.

* And if that is true, if God were to limit this provision to only a few or even many ~ make it available to only some ~ that would not be very loving. I would think you agree with that.

* Finally, to say "for those who choose to serve Him and not the enemy" is true on its face, but we cannot make this plan dependent on man's choice, as that would fly in the face of what Paul says in Romans 9:16, that His electing some to salvation "depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy" (ESV) or "does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy" (NASB). Paul does not intimate in any way that we do not make a choice, but that God's election does not depend on it.

Continued in next post...

Your last sentence is interesting. I'll have to think on it a minute.

In the meantime:

1. Some of the reformed faith do believe that God only loves those that He chooses for salvation.
There is disagreement on this however...I'm aware of this.

2. God made everything very good. So much to get into, it's almost impossible to discuss one topic at a time.
His plan is sufficient for all mankind. Well, you're a moderate calvinist, I believe. Yes, Jesus died for all men, it is efficient for those that choose to be saved...however since Adam sinned for all men...then the Atonement had also to be for all men. But we do not believe in universalism, so choice is involved regarding salvation.

3. Man fell. He lost his relationship with God. He became separated from God and only by God's mercy can anyone be saved due to the fact that we're born lost...there are none righteous. How far reaching was this? Very far reaching...but we are still able to see God and to choose to bed saved. Romans 1:19-21 states that God was always known by man through His creation. Some turned to Him and some did not. Men were being saved even before the bible was ever written. No one is without excuse because God reveals Himself to us in different ways. Jesus is the ultimate and last revelation. And the sin of Adam was so great that no mere man could atone for that sin...he harmed God. Only a being as powerful as God could atone for our sins...this was The Christ.

4. Choosing to serve God:
Romans 6:16
16Do you not know that when you present yourselves to someone as slaves for obedience, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin resulting in death, or of obedience resulting in righteousness?

Paul states here that we PRESENT OURSELVES as slaves,,,
we are slaves of the one we obey...
either of sin resulting in death or of obedience resulting in righteousness (being right with God).
So, apparently, we are capable of presenting ourselves to either God or the enemy.
This requires a choice to be made after God has revealed Himself to us. God always makes the first step.

5. I went through Romans 9:16...we're not going to agree on Romans 9, 10 and 11.
I understand the will of man to mean something totally different...we'll let this go.

As to your last sentence:
"Paul does not intimate in any way that we do not make a choice, but that God's election does not depend on it."

I think you'll have to explain this better.
In Calvin's Institutes he writes that God predestines the destiny of each and every person.
Some for salvation, others for damnation. Do you not believe this?

So what does God's election depend on?

Here's my understanding of salvation economy:

Man fell. God gives us the opportunity to become saved through the atoning work of Jesus.
The way we take advantage of this opportunity is to believe on Jesus.
God makes the first move always.
Maybe we hear about Jesus in church..or maybe someone tells us about Him.
Sometimes the information goes from the head to the heart.
Maybe we have a great need and turn to God, or maybe some are fearful of hell.
But the person that takes advantage of this opportunity will be saved and the other that does not care will not.

The N.T. is clear that the choice, after being invited by God, is ours:
Revelation 3:20
20‘Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and will dine with him, and he with Me
Jesus knocks...we open the door.

The jailer in Acts is told...believe and you will be saved.
Ephesians tells us that we are saved BY GRACE through the instrument of FAITH
and that not of ourselves..it is a gift of God.

What is a gift?
All...grace, faith and salvation.

 

[GodsGrace]

Right, well I would say both; descriptive and prescriptive.


See, there is more to this question than you realize, I think. Do you know what Old Testament passage John is referring to when he says 'whosoever' in John 3:16? He's referring to Joel 2:32. Here's that whole passage:

“And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh; your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, and your young men shall see visions. Even on the male and female servants in those days I will pour out my Spirit. And I will show wonders in the heavens and on the earth, blood and fire and columns of smoke. The sun shall be turned to darkness, and the moon to blood, before the great and awesome day of the LORD comes. And it shall come to pass that everyone who calls on the name of the LORD shall be saved. For in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there shall be those who escape, as the LORD has said, and among the survivors shall be those whom the LORD calls." (Joel 2:28-32)​

Read that last sentence carefully (underlined). The "everyone who calls on the name of the LORD" in the first sentence is qualified by the "For..." in the last sentence. So the "everyone who calls on the name of the LORD" is a subset of the survivors of the last sentence, and these individuals will call on the name of the LORD because they have been called by the LORD. Do you see that? Think about it. And in light of that, think of what Paul says in Romans 8:28... which immediately precedes Romans 9... that "...for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. So, God's calling is first, and then those who call on the name of the LORD inevitably comes after.


Agree...


Well, and He tells us how He does it, too.



So long as he's doing what the coach told him/her to do, right. :)


Yes, but he's talking very specifically about the individuals that make up God's Israel. Read on...


Then why does Paul (the Holy Spirit, ultimately) specifically couch it in terms of individuals? He's talking about each one that together make up God's Israel. Thus Romans 11:25-26, that "a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in... (a)nd in this way all Israel will be saved."


No, Paul specifically says, concerning individuals, in Romans 9:

"not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but 'Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.' This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring... And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad ~ in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of Him who calls..." (Romans 9:8-11)​

Which also fits right along with what Joel says in Joel 2 as cited above. Plus, he uses the same 'everyone' in Romans 10:18 as Joel's 'everyone' in Joel 2:32; he refers directly to Joel also.


I disagree on both counts. It is not the only one by any stretch of the imagination, and it's not for his purpose, per se, but so that His purpose of election would continue, as verse 11 says.


Okay, so you're saying that He leaves it up to us, which is to say that it depends on us, which is antithetical to Romans 9:16.


I say both are important, and we can't discount ~ in any way ~ either.

Grace and peace to you.

Regarding Joel 2:29-32
This is referring to Romans 10:10-13 and then continuing on to the next verses which state that we must hear in order to believe, verse 14.
Someone must tell about Jesus and salvation..someone must be sent, verse 15.
But not everyone will WELCOME the good news. verse 16.
Faith comes by hearing the good news of Christ. verse17.
Faith comes by hearing.

And then Paul asks if THE PEOPLE of Israel have heard the good news.
He speaks of the time of Moses...by people Paul means the nation of Israel.
But, as I said, we're going to disagree on this.

Question for you:
You said above that God let's us know how to be saved.
How?

 

[GodsGrace]

ok, fine.
Romans 3:11
john 6:44

those 2 verses prove that we cant seek God first, He calls us first. But im done with your attitude, you’re smug, and you think you’re better than anyone else. I dont need that. You’re on ignore.

 

[reformed1689]

I wasn't discussing Limited Atonement.
So I'm not sure what your comment means...

It's all intertwined so yes you were.

 

[GodsGrace]

It's all intertwined so yes you were.

I agree.
It's difficult to stay on one topic.

This is because one doctrine leads to another.
Total depravity requires irresistible grace.
Unconditional election removes free will.
I'm not sure how Perseverance of the Saints fits in because Calvin wrote that God makes some think they are saved but then makes them reprobate.

 

[PinSeeker]

I agree.
It's difficult to stay on one topic.

This is because one doctrine leads to another.
Total depravity requires irresistible grace.
Unconditional election removes free will.
I'm not sure how Perseverance of the Saints fits in because Calvin wrote that God makes some think they are saved but then makes them reprobate.

Unconditional election does not in any way "remove free will." Here:

Adam chose to reject our Creator, and, through Adam’s disobedience, humanity fell into sin (Gen. 3; Rom. 5:12–21). Total depravity says that sin has so twisted us that apart from grace, we love other things more than we love God. Our minds, our bodies, our affections, our spirits ~ every part of us has been affected by sin, and of our own accord, we cannot escape this predicament, because in our initial, natural state, we are dead in sin.

Unconditional election is God’s loving choice of specific sinners for salvation without respect to any good in them (Romans 9:1–29). It has to be unconditional regarding anything of man, because of this depraved state, this deadness in sin. If one is a Christian, it is because in eternity past, long before he or she was born, God chose to love him/her with His saving love. He did not choose him/her because he/she was "better" than others, or because He knew he/she would choose Him if He gave him/her the chance. He simply chose to love him/her in a sovereign, distinguishing way, and since His love is not conditioned on anything in him/her, He will never stop loving him/her. This does not mean simply that He loves some and does not love others, but rather that he has a certain love for some that he does not have for others.

Limited atonement describes God’s intent behind the death of Christ in providing salvation. Some people object to limited atonement because of texts such as 1 John 2:2, which says Jesus is the propitiation not for sins of God's elect only but “for the sins of the whole world.” Yet, that text is not talking about the intent of the atonement; rather, it refers to the way of salvation more generally. The point of 1 John 2:2 is that Christ is the only atonement that can save anyone, not that He has atoned for the sins of every individual. So God did not send Christ to die to provide merely for a possibility of salvation, He sent Christ to die to atone specifically for certain individuals, perfectly atoning for their sin such that the death of Christ actually guarantees the salvation of a this particular people. Limited atonement is necessitated by God’s justice. If sin has been atoned for, it has been judged and God no longer holds it against us. But unbelief is a sin, so if Christ died for all sinners, God could not hold unbelief against anyone because Christ would have atoned for it, after all. But God sends unbelievers to hell, and if their sin had been atoned for, this would be unjust; He would be holding sin against them that could not be because Christ would have atoned for it... but this is not the case.

Irresistible grace refers to God’s loving power in salvation. If God loves a person and wants him or her in His family, He is going to get what He wants. He loves this person so much that He ensures that that this person comes to faith, and He is powerful enough to guarantee it. God’s love is powerful enough to ensure that we make the right choice. He can overcome all resistance we might offer and He never fails to persuade the elect to trust in Him. Certainly, we may resist Christ for a time, and might even reject the gospel for years before we believe it. We may better speak of "finally irresistible" grace or of effectual grace. When all is said and done, God will bring all of His children to faith. Irresistible grace is required by unconditional election. If God chooses some for salvation and this will cannot be thwarted, then His grace must be finally irresistible; it must be effectual to bring us to faith. Irresistible grace preserves the truth that God is not just all-loving but He is all-powerful. His love is strong enough to guarantee the salvation of all those He wants to save. His love for His people is omnipotent.

Perseverance of the saints teaches God’s permanent saving love for His people. The Lord never stops loving His people with a saving, effectual love; consequently, all those who have truly believed in Him will not finally fall away from faith. True believers in Christ might seem to abandon Him for a time, but if they have truly believed in Him, they will always come back to Him. Those who profess faith but then fall away finally never actually believed in Christ in the first place. They go out from us because they were never truly of us (1 John 2:19). Yes, other theological points such as unconditional election require perseverance. If God chooses to save the elect, the elect must persevere. Christ says that no one can snatch us out of the Father’s hand (John 10:28). That “no one” includes even us ~ even we cannot snatch ourselves out of His hand. Romans 8:28–30 says that everyone whom God justifies He also glorifies. Since justification comes by faith alone (Rom. 4), if God glorifies all whom He justifies, He glorifies all who come to saving faith. In short, God loves us too much to let us fall out of His grace.

So yes, properly understood, Calvinism (and all five of it's "points") all hangs (hang) together. One cannot deny one of the above without denying all five. The mistake people make in denying any one of the five above is in putting the focus on man rather than on God. And this is true of all of Scripture, that the whole Bible is not really about man at all but about God and what He has done, is doing, and will do, for man.

Grace and peace to all.

 

[JesusFan1]

Why did Calvin contradict himself so often?

Any examples that you can cite?

 

[PinSeeker]

Your last sentence is interesting. I'll have to think on it a minute.

Take all the time you need, my friend.

Some of the reformed faith do believe that God only loves those that He chooses for salvation. There is disagreement on this however...I'm aware of this.

Yes, some probably do believe that, but that is in error. He doesn't "not love" some, and not really any less, but just not in the same sovereign, salvific way that he does others. I have two kids, and I love them because they are my kids, but that does not lessen the fact that I love all kids and everyone in the general sense.

His plan is sufficient for all mankind.

Right.

Well, you're a moderate calvinist, I believe.

There's not really any such thing... :) There is Calvinism, and there is hyper-Calvinism, which is not Calvinism.

Yes, Jesus died for all men...

Well, His atonement was sufficient for all...

...it is efficient...

Well, this may sound picky, but I think the proper word to use there is 'efficacious."

...for those that choose to be saved...

Yes, in an indirect sense. It is efficacious, directly speaking, for God's elect. And then at our appointed times, God issues His call by His Spirit, and our choosing follows.

...since Adam sinned for all men...then the Atonement had also to be for all men. But we do not believe in universalism, so choice is involved regarding salvation.

Ah... yes and no. Jesus's atonement was for all men only in the sense that it was sufficient for all. But it was only for some (God's elect) in the sense that it was efficacious for them and them only.

Man fell. He lost his relationship with God. He became separated from God and only by God's mercy can anyone be saved due to the fact that we're born lost...there are none righteous. How far reaching was this? Very far reaching...but we are still able to see God and to choose to bed saved.

Nope. If one is dead in sin ~ which all men are in the natural state ~ he is in need of rebirth of the Spirit so that then he is able to see God for who He is and thus choose God. God makes eyes of the blind to see, unstops the ears of the deaf, enables the lame man to leap like a deer, and enables the tongue of the mute sing for joy (Isaiah 35).

Paul states here that we PRESENT OURSELVES as slaves... we are slaves of the one we obey... either of sin resulting in death or of obedience resulting in righteousness. So, apparently, we are capable of presenting ourselves to either God or the enemy.

Right, at any given time, generally speaking.

This requires a choice to be made after God has revealed Himself to us. God always makes the first step.

Wholeheartedly agreed, but God does not reveal Himself to all, but only to His elect.

As to your last sentence: "Paul does not intimate in any way that we do not make a choice, but that God's election does not depend on it." I think you'll have to explain this better. In Calvin's Institutes he writes that God predestines the destiny of each and every person. Some for salvation, others for damnation. Do you not believe this?

GodsGrace, we have to define God's predestination and what it is for, right? Right. So, Paul says in Ephesians 1:5-6 that "(God) predestined us for adoption to himself as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved." This is a direct predestination of His elect only. However, in doing this ~ because He directly does this ~ indirectly speaking, He does not predestine others in this way. And by purposely "giving (others) up to dishonorable passions," as Paul says in Romans 1:26, He excludes them from this predestination. So, some for salvation, in the direct sense ~ and others for damnation, but in the indirect sense.

You can think of it in terms of man in the sense that, regarding Christians, we do choose God, but regarding non-Christians, they do not choose God. But their not making a choice is a choice in and of itself. So God's not predestining unbelievers in the way He predestines believers (because they are not among His elect) is an indirect predestination. But this is His purpose for all, which He has one way or the other. As Paul says in Romans 9:21-24, "(God made) out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use... (He) has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory."

So what does God's election depend on?

Not on man or his will or works, as Paul explicitly says in Romans 9:16, but on God and His mercy.

God makes the first move always.

Define this "first move," GodsGrace. Because you say this, but you're refuting it, over and over again, really. This is what the Arminian understanding of God's salvation does.

Maybe we hear about Jesus in church... or maybe someone tells us about Him. Sometimes the information goes from the head to the heart. Maybe we have a great need and turn to God, or maybe some are fearful of hell. But the person that takes advantage of this opportunity will be saved and the other that does not care will not.

Agreed, but it is God who makes the first move and either works through that hearing by His Spirit and ~ inevitably ~ brings the hearer from death to life... brings him/her from darkness into His marvelous light... reveals Himself to the person through his/her hearing... draws him or her to Himself... again, makes eyes of the blind to see, unstops the ears of the deaf, enables the lame man to leap like a deer, and enables the tongue of the mute sing for joy... or not.

The N.T. is clear that the choice, after being invited by God, is ours: Revelation 3:20
20‘Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and will dine with him, and he with Me" Jesus knocks...we open the door.

Sure! But Jesus also says, "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me" (John 10:28). And this is right after He has told those gathered around Him at the Feast of Dedication, in answer to their imploring Him to "tell (them) plainly" whether He is the Christ or not (hear Him, carefully, now), “I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father’s name bear witness about me, but you do not believe because you are not among my sheep." (John 10:25-26). He does not say they are not among His sheep because they do not believe, but rather, they do not believe because they are not among His sheep. We cannot get this order, this cause and effect relationship, backwards, but that's exactly what many people do.

The jailer in Acts is told...believe and you will be saved. Ephesians tells us that we are saved BY GRACE through the instrument of FAITH and that not of ourselves..it is a gift of God. What is a gift? All...grace, faith and salvation.

Exactly, but what so many do ~ inadvertently ~ is make faith out to be a work of man rather than the gift of God, and this is very wrong.

Grace and peace to you!

 

[PinSeeker]

Regarding Joel 2:29-32
This is referring to Romans 10:10-13...

GodsGrace, Joel could not be referring to Romans 10 or anything Paul said, because at the time of Joel's prophecy, Paul was yet to be born... for centuries.

...and then continuing on to the next verses which state that we must hear in order to believe, verse 14. Someone must tell about Jesus and salvation..someone must be sent, verse 15. But not everyone will WELCOME the good news. verse 16. Faith comes by hearing the good news of Christ. verse17. Faith comes by hearing. And then Paul asks if THE PEOPLE of Israel have heard the good news.

Yes, but, well, I refer you back to my previous post, namely that it is God who makes the first move (as you yourself have said) and either works through that hearing by His Spirit and ~ inevitably ~ brings the hearer from death to life... brings him/her from darkness into His marvelous light... reveals Himself to the person through his/her hearing... draws him or her to Himself... again, makes eyes of the blind to see, unstops the ears of the deaf, enables the lame man to leap like a deer, and enables the tongue of the mute sing for joy... or not.

by people Paul means the nation of Israel.

Yes, but he is talking about them as individuals included in God's Israel.

But, as I said, we're going to disagree on this.

Sure. But it's... not necessary. :)

Question for you: You said above that God let's us know how to be saved. How?

By general revelation, which is what Paul is talking about in Romans 1:19-20...

"For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For His invisible attributes, namely, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made."​

But there is also specific revelation, given specifically to His elect, by God Himself through the working in them of/by His Spirit, which is what Paul is talking about in Ephesians 2:4-11...

"But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, 5 even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ ~ by grace you have been saved ~ and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them."​

...and Peter is talking about in 1 Peter 1:3-5...

"According to His great mercy, He has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, kept in heaven for (us), who by God’s power are being guarded through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time."​

Grace and peace to you!

 

[Enoch111]

Any examples that you can cite?

I have provided several in the threads pertaining to Calvin and Calvinism. The Calvinists were so blinded by him that they either failed to see them or refused to see them. You can read his commentaries (which are quite acceptable) and then read his Institutes (where he manufactured his contradictory theology).

 

[PinSeeker]

They're only perceived contradictions, JF1, and perception is not always reality. In this case they are certainly not, as I clearly explained in this very thread, and you can see for yourself in my posts 43, 47, 85, 93, 110, and 116.

But, hey, you know, people kind of decide what they want to see sometimes and no amount of explanation, no matter how clear, is going to change their minds. As the old country song goes, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. :)

Grace and peace to you.

 

[GodsGrace]

Take all the time you need, my friend.

Yes, some probably do believe that, but that is in error. He doesn't "not love" some, and not really any less, but just not in the same sovereign, salvific way that he does others. I have two kids, and I love them because they are my kids, but that does not lessen the fact that I love all kids and everyone in the general sense.

Hi PS, Been away.
I think we left off here...
It's not easy speaking to a "calvinist".
Each one of you has different ideas !
You believe God loves everyone, albeit in a different way.
Some will state that God hates everyone except His elect.
I do believe that @brightfame52 would be one of these.
I mention it because you might deny this.

No need to carry on about this...

There's not really any such thing... :) There is Calvinism, and there is hyper-Calvinism, which is not Calvinism.

What is hyper-calvinism?
Isn't Calvinism what John Calvin writes about in the Institutes?

Well, His atonement was sufficient for all...

Well, this may sound picky, but I think the proper word to use there is 'efficacious."

Yes, in an indirect sense. It is efficacious, directly speaking, for God's elect. And then at our appointed times, God issues His call by His Spirit, and our choosing follows.

Yes, of course, the word is efficacious.

Ah... yes and no. Jesus's atonement was for all men only in the sense that it was sufficient for all. But it was only for some (God's elect) in the sense that it was efficacious for them and them only.

ok.
That sounds good. But calvinist language is tricky.
Some will say that Jesus died ONLY for the elect...what you're saying sounds different. I hope it is.

Nope. If one is dead in sin ~ which all men are in the natural state ~ he is in need of rebirth of the Spirit so that then he is able to see God for who He is and thus choose God. God makes eyes of the blind to see, unstops the ears of the deaf, enables the lame man to leap like a deer, and enables the tongue of the mute sing for joy (Isaiah 35).

I agree that we are dead in sin until we are born again.
You put regeneration before salvation.
Could you post some verses that state that we have to be regenerated BEFORE we're saved?
In all the verses I can post, it states that we are saved FIRST and then regenerated (changed, made new).

Here are 2:

Ephesians 2:8
8For by grace you have been saved through faith;

Through faith...
we are saved. (by God's grace).
First comes the faith.
then comes the salvation.


Acts 16:31
31They said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved,

First we believe...
then we are saved.


Romans 5:1
1Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God.

First we have faith
and then we are justified.


Romans 10:9-10
9that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved;
10for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.

First we confess and believe in our heart..
then we are saved.
Believing results in righteousness,
confessing results in salvation.

These verses, and many others, are very clear.
Yours should be just as clear.

Wholeheartedly agreed, but God does not reveal Himself to all, but only to His elect.

Then, again, you're going to please have to explain
Romans 1:19-20
19because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.
20For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

Please note that no one will be without excuse,
because God has revealed Himself to all men from the beginning of time so that they CANNOT be without excuse.
This means that God reveals Himself to all men...some choose to worship Him, and some do not.

GodsGrace, we have to define God's predestination and what it is for, right? Right. So, Paul says in Ephesians 1:5-6 that "(God) predestined us for adoption to himself as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved." This is a direct predestination of His elect only. However, in doing this ~ because He directly does this ~ indirectly speaking, He does not predestine others in this way. And by purposely "giving (others) up to dishonorable passions," as Paul says in Romans 1:26, He excludes them from this predestination. So, some for salvation, in the direct sense ~ and others for damnation, but in the indirect sense.

They are both in the direct sense according to John Calvin.
In Romans 1:26 God gives up those that do not WISH to follow Him and worship Him.
Romans 1:28 states that THEY DID NOT SEE FIT TO ACKNOWLEDGE GOD ANY LONGER. An action of the person which was voluntary.
So God abandoned them CONDITIONALLY (because of their sin).
And if God predestined everything, then He also had to predestine verses 29-32 (Romans 1)
28And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper,
29being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips,
30slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents,
31without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful;
32and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.


As to Ephesians 1:5-6
4just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. In love
5He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will,
6to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved.

This is how non-calvinists understand the above verses:
Verse 4: God chose us IN HIM that we would be holy and blameless before Him. IOW, God chose us to be blameless before Him, God Father,
by having planned ahead of time to be thus so IN CHRIST. God chose us IN CHRIST...
This would be HOW, not WHO.

Verse 5: It pleased God to save us THROUGH JESUS, and to adopt us as sons THROUGH JESUS. This is what God wanted...
to save us and adopt us through Jesus.
Again, it is HOW and not WHO.

Verse 6: God has shed His grace on those that belong to His Son.

Ephesians 3:6
God's plan was that both Jews and Gentiles WHO BLIEVE the Good News share equally in the riches given to God's children.



part 1 of 2

 

[GodsGrace]

part 2 of 2

@PinSeeker

You can think of it in terms of man in the sense that, regarding Christians, we do choose God, but regarding non-Christians, they do not choose God. But their not making a choice is a choice in and of itself. So God's not predestining unbelievers in the way He predestines believers (because they are not among His elect) is an indirect predestination. But this is His purpose for all, which He has one way or the other. As Paul says in Romans 9:21-24, "(God made) out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use... (He) has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory."

Here's what Calvin said about predestination:

By predestination we mean the eternal decree of God, by which he determined with himself whatever he wished to happen with regard to every man. All are not created on equal terms, but some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and, accordingly, as each has been created for one or other of these ends, we say that he has been predestinated to life or to death.

source:
The Institutes
Book 3, Chapter 21, Paragraph 5

Not on man or his will or works, as Paul explicitly says in Romans 9:16, but on God and His mercy.

Absolutely,
It is only and always through God's love of His creation and His mercy toward us that we become saved.
It's not because we deserve it or have worked for it.

Define this "first move," GodsGrace. Because you say this, but you're refuting it, over and over again, really. This is what the Arminian understanding of God's salvation does.

I don't know too much about Arminius.
I go strictly by what the bible says and what the Early Christians theologians believed.
Before the church got involved with the state.

The first move is described in Romans 1:19-20
Some may call this prevenient grace.
God gives to each man enough grace to be aware of Him-
Some accept, some deny.
I think it's rather amusing when an atheist states he hates God (for whatever reason).
How does one hate a being he does not believe exists?...

Agreed, but it is God who makes the first move and either works through that hearing by His Spirit and ~ inevitably ~ brings the hearer from death to life... brings him/her from darkness into His marvelous light... reveals Himself to the person through his/her hearing... draws him or her to Himself... again, makes eyes of the blind to see, unstops the ears of the deaf, enables the lame man to leap like a deer, and enables the tongue of the mute sing for joy... or not.

As you know, I believe in free will.
Man is free to accept God or to reject God.
Adam had free will. When was this free will taken away?
It's mentioned in the Torah and throughout all of the O.T. and N.T.

Ephesians 1:13
13In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation—having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise,


John 5:24
24Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life.

Sure! But Jesus also says, "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me" (John 10:28). And this is right after He has told those gathered around Him at the Feast of Dedication, in answer to their imploring Him to "tell (them) plainly" whether He is the Christ or not (hear Him, carefully, now), “I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father’s name bear witness about me, but you do not believe because you are not among my sheep." (John 10:25-26). He does not say they are not among His sheep because they do not believe, but rather, they do not believe because they are not among His sheep. We cannot get this order, this cause and effect relationship, backwards, but that's exactly what many people do.

It's not as bad as getting the ordo salutis backward!

John 9:47 tells us plainly who hears the word of Jesus:
He who is of God.
The Jews Jesus was speaking to did not hear the words of Jesus because they were not of God.

In verse 51 Jesus tells them that IF ANYONE keeps Jesus' word, he would not see death.
He is explaining HOW to be a sheep of His: If we keep His word.
Confirmed by John 14:15, 23, 24

John 10:2, 9 tells us that Jesus is the door, the shepherd of the sheep, and IF ANYONE ENTERS through Jesus, they shall be saved.

And these are those that hear His voice BECAUSE they are His sheep.

Exactly, but what so many do ~ inadvertently ~ is make faith out to be a work of man rather than the gift of God, and this is very wrong.

Grace and peace to you!

No more time.
But faith is not a work.
The N.T. is clear about this.
If it is by grace...it cannot be of work.

Salvation can be by faith or it can be by grace...not both.

Romans 4:4-5
4Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due.
5But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness,

A work is something that MERITS payment.
Can we work to be saved? NO. The N.T. is clear on this. Ephesians 2:8

Romans 11:6
6But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace.

 

[PinSeeker]

Hi PS, Been away.
What is hyper-calvinism?

Here is an excerpt from an article written by a pastor/theologian named Tim Challies. It is excellent.

A hyper-Calvinist is one who:

1. Denies that the gospel call applies to all who hear, OR
2. Denies that faith is the duty of every sinner, OR
3. Denies that the gospel makes any “offer” of Christ, salvation, or mercy to the non-elect (or denies that the offer of divine mercy is free and universal), OR
4. Denies that there is such a thing as “common grace,” OR
5. Denies that God has any sort of love for the non-elect.

All five varieties of hyper-Calvinism undermine evangelism or twist the gospel message. So this is the key to understanding hyper-Calvinism: it undermines evangelism and/or somehow distorts the gospel message... Probably the most distinguishing characteristic of a Hyper-Calvinist is an unwillingness to evangelize at all, or to evangelize without extending a call to accept and believe the gospel.​

Isn't Calvinism what John Calvin writes about in the Institutes?

Sure. Of course. But different groups understand what he wrote differently for different reasons, and some (like some posters here) "cherry-pick" bits and pieces of what he wrote, and some just assume they know what he wrote without really having read what he wrote, and some have a pre-conceived agenda create things from what he wrote, and... you get the idea. Hyper-Calvinists don't mean to twist his words into something they are not, but that's the end result.

...calvinist language is tricky.

Ah, I would both agree and disagree... I think people make it tricky, many times inadvertently, but it's really not. Some other posters are doing just that in this very thread.

Some will say that Jesus died ONLY for the elect...what you're saying sounds different. I hope it is.

Well, again, it's true in a sense (efficaciousness), but in another (sufficiency) it's not.

I agree that we are dead in sin until we are born again.

Good.

You put regeneration before salvation. Could you post some verses that state that we have to be regenerated BEFORE we're saved? In all the verses I can post, it states that we are saved FIRST and then regenerated (changed, made new).

I would really put it as one big event, that regeneration under the whole umbrella of God's salvation. And regarding salvation itself, we are both saved and being saved at the same time. But regeneration ~ being born again of the Spirit ~ is part of this whole big thing... God's salvation. I'll put it this way: God's salvific act of regeneration (by the work of the Holy Spirit in is) is a one-time thing ~ and so we are saved ~ but even so, this salvation, God's good work in us, is being brought to completion in us ~ we are being saved ~ and will be complete at the day of Christ.

Ephesians 2:8... Acts 16:31... Romans 5:1... Romans 10:9-10... These verses, and many others, are very clear.

Well, I agree with you on these citations, but it's kind of like only taking in one side of the story. See above. Again, I think you're making a distinction, or a chronological delineation, maybe, between things and making separate that really cannot be separated.
Yours should be just as clear.

Then, again, you're going to please have to explain
Romans 1:19-20
19because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.
20For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

Please note that no one will be without excuse, because God has revealed Himself to all men from the beginning of time so that they CANNOT be without excuse. This means that God reveals Himself to all men...some choose to worship Him, and some do not.

Right, well ~ and this follows from what I've been saying, but ~ there is a general revelation that God makes to all people, which is what Paul is saying here, and there is a specific ("special," in a sense) revelation, which God makes only to His elect. The latter (this special revelation that God gives only to His elect, by His Spirit ~ "The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit" (John 3:8) ~ is what Paul is talking about in the first view verses of Romans 2 (and in Ephesians 1:5-6, which you also point out), and they (God's elect) are also without excuse.

They are both in the direct sense according to John Calvin. In Romans 1:26 God gives up those that do not WISH to follow Him and worship Him. Romans 1:28 states that THEY DID NOT SEE FIT TO ACKNOWLEDGE GOD ANY LONGER. An action of the person which was voluntary. So God abandoned them CONDITIONALLY (because of their sin). And if God predestined everything, then He also had to predestine verses 29-32 (Romans 1) As to Ephesians 1:5-6 ... This is how non-calvinists understand the above verses:
Verse 4: God chose us IN HIM that we would be holy and blameless before Him. IOW, God chose us to be blameless before Him, God Father,
by having planned ahead of time to be thus so IN CHRIST. God chose us IN CHRIST... This would be HOW, not WHO.
Verse 5: It pleased God to save us THROUGH JESUS, and to adopt us as sons THROUGH JESUS. This is what God wanted...
to save us and adopt us through Jesus. Again, it is HOW and not WHO.
Verse 6: God has shed His grace on those that belong to His Son.

Again, I would say it's both 'how' and 'who.' Verse 4 ~ "chose us" ~ is this not who? I say it is... and then the part you underlined is certainly what He did for us, along with how and why. Verse 5 ~ "pleased God to save us"... certainly 'who,' and then "through Jesus, which is certainly to say what He did and how and why. And then verse 6 ~ adopt us, which is certainly what He did for whom and how and why. So again, all of the above... by Whom, for whom, what He did, and why He did it. Right? I think all Calvinists who really understand what Calvin wrote would do the same.

Grace and peace to you!

(1 of 2)

 

[JesusFan1]

Here is an excerpt from an article written by a pastor/theologian named Tim Challies. It is excellent.

A hyper-Calvinist is one who:

1. Denies that the gospel call applies to all who hear, OR
2. Denies that faith is the duty of every sinner, OR
3. Denies that the gospel makes any “offer” of Christ, salvation, or mercy to the non-elect (or denies that the offer of divine mercy is free and universal), OR
4. Denies that there is such a thing as “common grace,” OR
5. Denies that God has any sort of love for the non-elect.

All five varieties of hyper-Calvinism undermine evangelism or twist the gospel message. So this is the key to understanding hyper-Calvinism: it undermines evangelism and/or somehow distorts the gospel message... Probably the most distinguishing characteristic of a Hyper-Calvinist is an unwillingness to evangelize at all, or to evangelize without extending a call to accept and believe the gospel.​

Sure. Of course. But different groups understand what he wrote differently for different reasons, and some (like some posters here) "cherry-pick" bits and pieces of what he wrote, and some just assume they know what he wrote without really having read what he wrote, and some have a pre-conceived agenda create things from what he wrote, and... you get the idea. Hyper-Calvinists don't mean to twist his words into something they are not, but that's the end result.


Ah, I would both agree and disagree... I think people make it tricky, many times inadvertently, but it's really not. Some other posters are doing just that in this very thread.


Well, again, it's true in a sense (efficaciousness), but in another (sufficiency) it's not.


Good.


I would really put it as one big event, that regeneration under the whole umbrella of God's salvation. And regarding salvation itself, we are both saved and being saved at the same time. But regeneration ~ being born again of the Spirit ~ is part of this whole big thing... God's salvation. I'll put it this way: God's salvific act of regeneration (by the work of the Holy Spirit in is) is a one-time thing ~ and so we are saved ~ but even so, this salvation, God's good work in us, is being brought to completion in us ~ we are being saved ~ and will be complete at the day of Christ.


Well, I agree with you on these citations, but it's kind of like only taking in one side of the story. See above. Again, I think you're making a distinction, or a chronological delineation, maybe, between things and making separate that really cannot be separated.
Yours should be just as clear.


Right, well ~ and this follows from what I've been saying, but ~ there is a general revelation that God makes to all people, which is what Paul is saying here, and there is a specific ("special," in a sense) revelation, which God makes only to His elect. The latter (this special revelation that God gives only to His elect, by His Spirit ~ "The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit" (John 3:8) ~ is what Paul is talking about in the first view verses of Romans 2 (and in Ephesians 1:5-6, which you also point out), and they (God's elect) are also without excuse.


Again, I would say it's both 'how' and 'who.' Verse 4 ~ "chose us" ~ is this not who? I say it is... and then the part you underlined is certainly what He did for us, along with how and why. Verse 5 ~ "pleased God to save us"... certainly 'who,' and then "through Jesus, which is certainly to say what He did and how and why. And then verse 6 ~ adopt us, which is certainly what He did for whom and how and why. So again, all of the above... by Whom, for whom, what He did, and why He did it. Right? I think all Calvinists who really understand what Calvin wrote would do the same.

Grace and peace to you!

(1 of 2)

Hyper cals also hold to eternal justification, so even if someone never heard of Jesus, would be saved, difference being if heard and saved while on earth, would experience the blessings if knowing him while on this earth!
They see no real need to have missions, as Gid already has saved out his own regardless!

 

[PinSeeker]

Absolutely,
It is only and always through God's love of His creation and His mercy toward us that we become saved. It's not because we deserve it or have worked for it.

Right.

I don't know too much about Arminius. I go strictly by what the bible says and what the Early Christians theologians believed.

Well, okay, but God ~ His Holy Spirit ~ did not stop working in people... theologians... after the early days Christ's church. He's still very active in theologians ~ some of them, anyway :) ~ even today. As Jesus said in John 14, "...(God the Father) will give you another Helper, to be with you forever, even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, for he dwells with you and will be in you... the Helper, the Holy Spirit, Whom the Father will send in My name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you."

Respectfully, GodsGrace, I think you know a lot about Arminius, but maybe just don't realize that at least quite a bit of what you are saying comes indirectly from Jacob Arminius... and Pelagius (a contemporary of Augustine, with whose beliefs about Scripture Pelagius was at odds) centuries before Arminius.

The first move is described in Romans 1:19-20
Some may call this prevenient grace. God gives to each man enough grace to be aware of Him

Ah. Well... :)

Prevenient grace is a phrase used to describe the grace given by God that precedes the act of a sinner exercising saving faith in Jesus Christ. By definition, every theological system that affirms the necessity of God’s grace prior to a sinner’s conversion teaches a type of prevenient grace. The Reformed doctrine of irresistible grace is a type of prevenient grace, as is common grace. However, when the phrase “prevenient grace” is used in theological discussions, it is used in a specific way. In the context of the on-going Calvinism vs. Arminianism debate, prevenient grace is referred to in order to object to the Calvinist doctrine of irresistible grace. This is the reason why, in both modern and historic times, it has also been called “resistible grace” or “pre-regenerating grace.” Since denying the necessity of God’s grace prior to a sinner’s conversion is clearly against biblical teaching, the non-Calvinist theological systems have to affirm a doctrine of grace that precedes a person’s exercising of saving faith. Since non-Calvinists do not believe the saving grace of God always results in the sinner coming to Christ, Christians down through the ages have referred to a type of grace they call prevenient. Simply put, prevenient grace is the grace of God given to individuals that releases them from their bondage to sin and enables them to come to Christ in faith but does not guarantee that the sinner will actually do so. Thus, the efficacy of the enabling grace of God is determined not by God but by man. This is was Jacob Arminius's understanding of Scripture (and Pelagius before him), and is clearly in opposition to what Paul said in Romans 9:16 cited above ("it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy") ~ and you yourself affirmed above ("(i)It is only and always through God's love of His creation and His mercy toward us that we become saved.
It's not because we deserve it or have worked for it").

Some accept, some deny.

Sure, but the acceptance can only come after God's having had mercy/compassion. Again, which Paul says in Romans 9:16 ~ it depends on His mercy and not man's will or working ~ and you affirmed ("..only and always through God's love of His creation and His mercy toward us that we become saved"). The denial is a bit different, in that all men, since Adam, initially deny.

I think it's rather amusing when an atheist states he hates God (for whatever reason). How does one hate a being he does not believe exists?...

Ah, but the atheist really does ~ deep down, at the core of his being ~ knows he exists, but, as Paul says in Romans 1 and you cited, "by their unrighteousness suppress the truth... For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him... (but) exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator..." You see?

As you know, I believe in free will.

Calvin did, too, and thus Calvinists do, too... :)

Man is free to accept God or to reject God.

Sure, but he or she is initially dead in sin and by nature ~ because of Adam's original state, acquired by him upon disobeying God and partaking of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Adam is the federal head of the human race) ~ wholly inclined against God (at enmity with Him, as Moses puts it in Genesis 3) God, and thus in bondage ~ a slave ~ to unrighteousness. God told Adam and Eve what would happen if they ate of the tree, even that very day, that they would die (Genesis 2:17), and die they did (not physically but spiritually), and that state was bequeathed to all of us, as Eve is the mother of all the living (Genesis 3:20). Therefore, he is, from birth, in need of being set free of this death, this bondage, this slavery. And this is rebirth of the Spirit, which... depends on God's mercy and compassion, not on man's will or working.

Adam had free will.

Sure he did.

When was this free will taken away?

Never. :) But at some point, God gave Adam a new heart... a new spirit God put within Adam. God removed the heart of stone from Adam's flesh and gave him a heart of flesh. God put my Spirit within Adam, caused him to walk His my statutes and to be careful to obey His rules. So then Adam was given a land in which to dwell, and Adam (and Eve) became God's people, and I became their God (This is how God Himself states it in Ezekiel 36:26-27). This is God's mercy and compassion. This is how He saves. It's all about Him. And it is exactly the same for all of us who have come to repentance and belief.

Ephesians 1:13
13In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation—having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise,

John 5:24
24Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life.

GodsGrace, these are great citations, but do you not hear the other side of what is being said in both instances? In Ephesians 1:13, Paul is clearly implying that there are some ~ many ~ who heard the message of truth all the same but remained in their unbelief and therefore will not be sealed in Christ with the Holy Spirit of promise. And in John 5:24, Jesus Himself is implying that there will be some ~ many ~ who hear His word and yet still will not believe the Father (as Abraham did) and will not be given eternal life. Yes, this is free will, but we cannot then turn what Paul says in Romans 9:16 ~ and you agree with ~ and say instead, "It does not depend on God's mercy and compassion, but rather man's choice."

It's not as bad as getting the ordo salutis backward!

Well, the ordo salutis is what Paul lays out in Romans 8, that those whom God foreknew ~ not merely knew before hand what they would do, but loved them in a way that He did not love others... fore-loved, even fore-chose ~ He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, in order that He might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom He predestined He also called, and those whom He called He also justified, and those whom He justified He also glorified. He, He, He, He, He, and He! :) Man plays no part in this. But that is not to say that man does not play a part in anything, which is how some choose to characterize Calvin and Calvinists as saying. Man's part ~ in the case of those who come to be in Christ ~ inevitably respond, of their own free will and accord, to God's doing this. God has predestined, called and justified many (and there will be many more), and then man, having been set free, believes and then responds positively, and thus are those whom God ultimately glorifed (and there will be many more). Remember what John says later in one of his epistles, "We love because He first loved us" (1 John 4:19)

Grace and peace to you, GodsGrace.

 

[GodsGrace]

Here is an excerpt from an article written by a pastor/theologian named Tim Challies. It is excellent.

A hyper-Calvinist is one who:

1. Denies that the gospel call applies to all who hear, OR
2. Denies that faith is the duty of every sinner, OR
3. Denies that the gospel makes any “offer” of Christ, salvation, or mercy to the non-elect (or denies that the offer of divine mercy is free and universal), OR
4. Denies that there is such a thing as “common grace,” OR
5. Denies that God has any sort of love for the non-elect.

All five varieties of hyper-Calvinism undermine evangelism or twist the gospel message. So this is the key to understanding hyper-Calvinism: it undermines evangelism and/or somehow distorts the gospel message... Probably the most distinguishing characteristic of a Hyper-Calvinist is an unwillingness to evangelize at all, or to evangelize without extending a call to accept and believe the gospel.​

The article mentions John Piper...how many times have I heard that Piper is more of a Calvinist than Calvin was.
Honestly, I also believe that a hyper calvinist is a true calvinist.
To me it sounds like you're softening it up.
I've read some of the Institutes and, quite frankly, the more I read the more alarmed I became.
I haven't ever read the entire WCF but I'll bet it's much softer in tone although it really is saying the same as Calvin stated.
You're going to ask for support for what I'm about to tell you but I won't be able to furnish it....
Did you know that RC Sproul, who I really like and respect except for his theology, had some difficulty entering into the reformed faith?
There was some aspect of it that he couldn't agree with (can't remember what) and it took his Professor in Divinity school to convince him it was right and Sproul finally accepted it as truth. It was in one of his biographies.

I say this just to say that I also find calvinism very not logical.
I think this is why each point has to demand the next point...
For instance Unconditional Election MUST require Irresistible Grace.
Total Depravity MUST require Unconditional Election.
IOW, I think every reformed idea twists the scriptures.

This is from the article you linked:

So a hyper-Calvinist is one who goes beyond and over the bounds of what Calvinism teaches (and thus over the bounds of what the Bible teaches).
I believe the 5 points of TULIP go over what the bible teaches with no need to tack on another 2 to become hyper.

He is excessive in his application of the doctrines. This manifests itself in an over-emphasis of one aspect of God’s character at the expense of another.
Definitely! God's love is destroyed at the expense of His sovereignty.
And I'm often called mamby pamby, or come by ya Christian because I speak of God's love.
I, of course, believe in His sovereignty and His justice too.

Hyper-Calvinists emphasize God’s sovereignty but de-emphasize God’s love. They tend to set God’s sovereignty at odds with the clear biblical call to human responsibility.
Another problem: If God predestinates everything, as his writings state,
then how can we possibly be responsible for our actions?
Doesn't this make God UNJUST?

We can see how these are worked out as we look at a concise definition of the term. Phil Johnson, who has done extensive research on this subject very helpfully defines hyper-Calvinists using a five-fold definition. A hyper-Calvinist is one who:

1. Denies that the gospel call applies to all who hear, OR John Calvin denied this.
2. Denies that faith is the duty of every sinner, OR How is it a duty if God predestinates everything?
3. Denies that the gospel makes any “offer” of Christ, salvation, or mercy to the non-elect (or denies that the offer of divine mercy is free and universal), OR John Calvin taught this very idea.
4. Denies that there is such a thing as “common grace,” OR
5. Denies that God has any sort of love for the non-elect.

See, every Calvinist seems hyper to us non-calvinists.

Sure. Of course. But different groups understand what he wrote differently for different reasons, and some (like some posters here) "cherry-pick" bits and pieces of what he wrote, and some just assume they know what he wrote without really having read what he wrote, and some have a pre-conceived agenda create things from what he wrote, and... you get the idea. Hyper-Calvinists don't mean to twist his words into something they are not, but that's the end result.

Did read my post directly from Calvin's book 3 on predestination?
How does a person misunderstand that? It's pretty clear.

Ah, I would both agree and disagree... I think people make it tricky, many times inadvertently, but it's really not. Some other posters are doing just that in this very thread.


Well, again, it's true in a sense (efficaciousness), but in another (sufficiency) it's not.

Yes. Some will say clearly that Jesus did not die for everyone.
I guess even some calvinists can't deny that the atonement is for the whole world. So many verses...

Maybe the problem here is that everyone has such a different view.

I would really put it as one big event, that regeneration under the whole umbrella of God's salvation. And regarding salvation itself, we are both saved and being saved at the same time. But regeneration ~ being born again of the Spirit ~ is part of this whole big thing... God's salvation. I'll put it this way: God's salvific act of regeneration (by the work of the Holy Spirit in is) is a one-time thing ~ and so we are saved ~ but even so, this salvation, God's good work in us, is being brought to completion in us ~ we are being saved ~ and will be complete at the day of Christ.

Agreed.
Eph 2:8
1 Cor 1:18
1 Peter 1:5

I've considered how it's something that happens instantly.
However your ordo salutis puts regeneration first, nonetheless.
It should be
Faith
Regeneration

Well, I agree with you on these citations, but it's kind of like only taking in one side of the story. See above. Again, I think you're making a distinction, or a chronological delineation, maybe, between things and making separate that really cannot be separated.
Yours should be just as clear.

I think my verses are very clear !

Right, well ~ and this follows from what I've been saying, but ~ there is a general revelation that God makes to all people, which is what Paul is saying here, and there is a specific ("special," in a sense) revelation, which God makes only to His elect. The latter (this special revelation that God gives only to His elect, by His Spirit ~ "The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit" (John 3:8) ~ is what Paul is talking about in the first view verses of Romans 2 (and in Ephesians 1:5-6, which you also point out), and they (God's elect) are also without excuse.

Could you post something from The Institutes or from the WCF that states the above in a formal way?
I just don't see this...


Again, I would say it's both 'how' and 'who.' Verse 4 ~ "chose us" ~ is this not who? I say it is... and then the part you underlined is certainly what He did for us, along with how and why. Verse 5 ~ "pleased God to save us"... certainly 'who,' and then "through Jesus, which is certainly to say what He did and how and why. And then verse 6 ~ adopt us, which is certainly what He did for whom and how and why. So again, all of the above... by Whom, for whom, what He did, and why He did it. Right? I think all Calvinists who really understand what Calvin wrote would do the same.

Grace and peace to you!

(1 of 2)[/QUOTE]
I don't agree as to the WHO, of course.
But, like I said, I'm not planning on killing the horse.
I very much appreciate this conversation BTW.
You can have the last word on this page, but you don't have to reply to all...we'll just keep on disagreeing.

I would like to understand better how you define free will.
Will look at page 2, but it's past midnight here....
otherwise tomorrow...
:)

 

[PinSeeker]

The article mentions John Piper...how many times have I heard that Piper is more of a Calvinist than Calvin was.

That's not possible, because Calvin was Calvin. :)

Honestly, I also believe that a hyper calvinist is a true calvinist.

Well, it's not. Hyper-Calvinism is a distortion of historical Calvinism.

To me it sounds like you're softening it up.

Nope. Hyper-Calvinism is a distortion of true, historical Calvinism... what John Calvin believed and wrote.

I've read some of the Institutes and, quite frankly, the more I read the more alarmed I became. I haven't ever read the entire WCF but I'll bet it's much softer in tone although it really is saying the same as Calvin stated.

Not really, no. A little more formal, maybe.

You're going to ask for support for what I'm about to tell you but I won't be able to furnish it....

Yeah, that's a bit of a problem... :)

Did you know that RC Sproul, who I really like and respect except for his theology, had some difficulty entering into the reformed faith?

"Except for his theology"... LOL! I can guess what you "don't like"... :)

There was some aspect of it that he couldn't agree with (can't remember what) and it took his Professor in Divinity school to convince him it was right and Sproul finally accepted it as truth. It was in one of his biographies.

Yes, I know exactly what you're talking about. Yes, many people have a hard time embracing the reformed faith for several different reasons. It can be very offensive, so to speak, to hear that people are not autonomous "free agents," or the doctrine of limited atonement, or other things. Whatever it was, it's really kind of irrelevant because... he changed his mind. :)

I say this just to say that I also find Calvinism very not logical.

Sproul's former thinking was not that it was illogical.

I think this is why each point has to demand the next point... For instance Unconditional Election MUST require Irresistible Grace. Total Depravity MUST require Unconditional Election.

Well, if we are totally depraved ~ if the effects of Adam's fall was as extensive as the Bible says it is ~ then God's election must be unconditional of anything we might do, because, due to the state we are in, any requirement God has ~ much less what it really is, that we must be perfect (holy) because He is perfect (holy) ~ we will not do, and in fact do the opposite, if left in our natural state. That's exactly what Paul is telling us in Romans 1 through 7. If total depravity is accepted, though, everything else ~ with the possible exception of limited atonement ~ inevitably follows. If God changes the heart, makes the person alive by His Spirit, frees him from slavery to unrighteousness, he cannot help but choose God, not because God "forces him to choose" but because he knows his sin and sees (is no longer blind to) his need for salvation and that his only refuge is in Christ and His righteousness. The first step is to understand just what the Bible teaches us about the natural condition of man and his absolute inability to get himself out of this predicament, and in fact his consuming inclination not to get himself out of it.

I believe the 5 points of TULIP go over what the Bible teaches with no need to tack on another 2 to become hyper.

I don't even know what this means. Hyper-Calvinism is a distortion of Calvinism, not an addition to it. What it is, in a nutshell, is an exaggeration of God's sovereignty to the exclusion of man's ability to choose or man's responsibility to respond positively. And this is really what Arminians object to, branding it as Calvinism when what they're really reacting negatively to is the hyper-Calvinistic view of things without really even knowing it... without really realizing that hyper-Calvinism is actually a thing.

I think every reformed idea twists the scriptures.

Well, no, but you're welcome to your opinion. :)

God's love is destroyed at the expense of His sovereignty.

In no way is this true. I get that that is sometimes the perception, but in no way is this true. God's absolute sovereignty over His creation affirms His love, and vice-versa.

I, of course, believe in His sovereignty and His justice, too.

Good. But in emphasizing God's love, you can't de-emphasize His sovereignty and justice, which you may not mean to do, but that's often the result.

Another problem: If God predestinates everything, as his writings state, then how can we possibly be responsible for our actions?

How can we not be responsible for our actions?

Doesn't this make God UNJUST?

No.

"Denies that the gospel call applies to all who hear" John Calvin denied this.

He did not deny that in any shape, form, or fashion. It applies to all who hear, but is only effectual for some. This is very close in concept to general vs. special revelation (see above), the latter of which is only given to His elect.

"Denies that faith is the duty of every sinner" How is it a duty if God predestinates everything?

Well, how is it not???

"Denies that the gospel makes any “offer” of Christ, salvation, or mercy to the non-elect (or denies that the offer of divine mercy is free and universal)" John Calvin taught this very idea.

He absolutely did not. The offer is made to everyone and is thus free and universal. But God only has mercy and compassion on, and changes the hearts of, by His Holy Spirit, some, His elect. This is according to His will, but it does not make his offer "not free" or "not universal."

See, every Calvinist seems hyper to us non-calvinists.

Sure! Because they're misunderstanding what Calvin actually taught in the same way that hyper-Calvinists do, but then, having applyied a hyper-Calvinistic understanding of what Calvin actually taught ~ without even knowing it ~ react negatively instead of positively to this "understanding," which is really a misunderstanding.

Did read my post directly from Calvin's book 3 on predestination? How does a person misunderstand that?

Well, you tell me. :)

(1of 2)

 

[PinSeeker]

(2 of 2)

Some will say clearly that Jesus did not die for everyone. I guess even some Calvinists can't deny that the atonement is for the whole world.

Yet again, Gods grace, there are two senses to the "for the whole world" thing, sufficiency and efficacy. In the sense of sufficiency, yes, Christ atoned for all sin; His sacrifice was sufficient to achieve the salvation of everyone who ever has lived or ever will. But in the sense of efficacy, Christ's atonement was only for ~ applied to ~ God's elect. Regarding the latter, GodsGrace, let me ask you, do you believe there is such a place as hell, and there will be some who go there for eternity? If so, then Christ's atonement can not have been for the whole world in terms of efficacy, because:

a.) every person's sins would have been atoned for, and everyone would be predestined to eternal life, and
b.) God would be unjust in sending anyone to... well, there. It is only "for the whole world" in the sense that it is sufficient to save everyone.

Maybe the problem here is that everyone has such a different view.

Well, yes, opinions are like noses. Everybody has one. :)

your ordo salutis puts regeneration first, nonetheless.

Okay, but it's really all one big event, specifically, those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified. And it is certain that they will be ultimately glorified at the day of Christ.

Could you post something from The Institutes or from the WCF that states the above in a formal way? I just don't see this...

Yes. From Calvin's Institutes:

GENERAL REVELATION
"There is within the human mind, and indeed by natural instinct, an awareness of divinity [divinitatis sensum]. This we take to be beyond controversy. To prevent anyone from taking refuge in the pretense of ignorance, God himself has implanted in all men a certain understanding of his divine majesty" (I.3.1) In other words, God has revealed himself by directly implanting knowledge about Himself in all men. In a later chapter, Calvin described the mediate general revelation that God accomplishes through His created works, writing, "The final goal of the blessed life, moreover, rests in the knowledge of God [cf. John 17:3]. Lest anyone, then, be excluded from access to happiness, he not only sowed in men's minds that seed of religion of which we have spoken, but revealed himself and daily discloses himself in the whole workmanship of the universe. As a consequence, men cannot open their eyes without being compelled to see him" (Institutes, I.5.1). God, then, reveals Himself through His works. Here, Calvin is simply restating what the Psalmist said in Psalm 19:1–2, "The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork. Day to day pours out speech, and night to night reveals knowledge." Paul elaborates on the same idea in Romans 1:19–20, writing, "For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse."

SPECIAL REVELATION:
From the WCF:
"Although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men unexcusable; yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God, and of His will, which is necessary unto salvation. Therefore it pleased the Lord, at sundry times, and in divers manners, to reveal Himself, and to declare that His will unto His Church; and afterwards for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the Church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing; which makes the Holy Scripture to be most necessary; those former ways of God's revealing His will unto His people being now ceased" (Westminster Confession of Faith, I.1). In other words, general revelation does not reveal Jesus Christ or His work of redemption for sinners. Thus there is a need for what is called "special revelation." Special revelation is the revelation of the way of salvation. One of the most important biblical texts describing God's special revelation is found in Hebrews 1:1–2, which reads, "Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world." In times past, before the completion of Scripture, God revealed His redemptive work through the prophets by means of dreams, visions, and theophanies. But now, special revelation has received its permanent form in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments.

I don't agree as to the WHO, of course.

Okay, that's fine, but "us," "us," and "we" and "us" again... that's not "who" to you? I mean... well, it is... :)

I would like to understand better how you define free will.

I don't think our definitions would be different. The problem really comes when we realize that God's sovereignty and our free will are both realities. And what the issue really is is that some want to make free will out to be total autonomy in relation to God, and that's not reality.

Grace and peace to you, GodsGrace.