Does Calvinism limit God?

[Z Man]

Originally posted by godrulz
We disagree on the nature of the atonement and what conditions of salvation refer to.

We sure do! I believe God saves us by His grace, and you believe man saves himself by meeting God's requirements, i.e. his good works.

I believe in Christianity, you believe in religion. That's a big difference!

God could forgive people's sins unconditionally, but it would not be for the highest good.

Says who? How do you know that? Are you God?

Confidence in His rule, justice, holiness, love would be undermined. The fact that there was an atonement shows that their were problems faced by a holy, loving God to reconcile sinful man to Himself.

The fact of the atonement shows that God fixed those problems once and for all. The work is finished. There is nothing we can add to it, or take away from the work that Christ did on the cross in order to be saved.

The conditions of salvation are not an appeasment (your misunderstanding) nor a work; they are wise requirements that uphold the moral law of God making it wise for God to freely forgive.

Whether you like it or not, that's a work. This sentence totally contridicts itself.

To say that there is much more to our salvation than what Christ did at the cross is blasphemy. Christ did it all because there was no way man could ever meet the requirements that God demands from us, which is perfection.

Salvation is not all of God.

Are you nuts??? What could man ever do to appease God and receive His mercies? What requirement could man ever meet of God to receive his salvation?

If there is a way that man can save himself, without the need for God, then there would be no need for Christ. His sacrifice screams to the world that man is helpless and unable to meet God's requirements; perfection.

Relationship involves two parties.

We love God because He first loved us. And no man can say they love Christ without the Holy Spirit living in them.

We do nothing to aid in our salvation what so ever. It is 100% all of God's work. His Spirit that lives through us is the only reason we are able to edify and glorify His most Holy name. If God's presence were not in our souls, then we'd still be lost, doing what we love to do best; sin.

 

[jobeth]

1way:

So,,, where do you get your definition for what evil is?

Gee whiz, 1way. You really got me with that question. I'm kinda at a loss as to how to answer it, actually.

I mean, suppose, as an example, that one day, out of the blue, my husband, whom I know to be a godly man, were to suddenly pack up a knife and some wood and our only son, and tell me he's heading up into the mountains to sacrifice our son on an altar to God because, you know, God told him to?
Wow. What a mind job.
I can't imagine how I might react to such a thing.
But I tell you this. If I ever got my son back alive after that, I wouldn't let my husband any where near either me OR my son as long as I lived. That's what I think.

Or suppose my pastor, whom I know to be a godly man, who really preaches the Word, and whom I know really hears from God and tells it straight, and he were to suddenly, out of the blue, start preaching to us naked and barefoot, telling us that God told him to preach naked and barefoot for 3 years.
Wow. What a mind job that would be.

And yet both these things actually happened! Not to me, thank God. But they happened.

And, well, for me to sit here and try to make some kind of judgement concerning those events, whether they were good or evil, is something I just would have a really, really hard time of.

So, when you put a question like this one, right here in front of me, and ask me to give you some "definition" of evil and how a person can tell right from wrong, it really puts me on the spot.

A while back there was this Jewish man who up and assinated the Prime Minister of Israel, Menacin Begin, or whatever his name was. And that guy claimed that God told him to do it, because the PM was giving Israeli land to the Arabs. And wow. Can you stand it? What if he was telling the TRUTH??????? What if God really DID tell him to do that? And what if God was PLEASED with that guy for obeying Him?

What do YOU think? Do you think he could have been telling the truth about God telling him to murder the duly-elected leader of the people of Israel?

That's a tough one to call, if you ask me.

It's not from me, God establishes absolute right and wrong, and that He is right and good because He does right and does no evil.

Yes, I know that God only does what is right and never does what is evil. But can't we then legitimately ask:
If God commanded you to sacrifice your only son, would that mean that God was commanding you to do evil?
Of if God commanded you to preach to your congregation while naked and barefoot, would that mean that God was commanding you to do evil?
Or if God commanded you to go and kill the duly-elected leader of your government, would that mean that God was commanding you to do evil?

Because, I'd have to admit that if you did something that God commanded you to do, then it CANNOT be evil. Rather your doing it would have to be considered obedience, not evil. Wouldn't it?

I don't see where you really answered my question:
Why does He get a pass from you, when God could easily have prevented them from doing any evil towards you, and didn't?

Are you saying that the reason is because God loves them? And it is because of God's love for THEM that He doesn't prevent them from doing evil towards YOU?

 

[jobeth]

Godrulz:

God strives with all men, but men have varying degrees of openess or responsiveness to His persuasion. He does not predestine this since He is just and loving.

Where do those "varying degrees of openness and responsiveness" come from if not from God?

Exodus 4:11 (KJV)
And the Lord said unto him, Who hath made man's mouth? or who maketh the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? have not I the Lord?


If you agree that God determines the varying differences among human physical characteristics, then why isn't it God who makes the varying differences among human intellectual or spiritual characteristics?

 

[jobeth]

Zman:
Why didn't you answer my question? (Post # 209)
Why did Moses tell the people that God would "rejoice" (KJV) or "take delight" (ESV) in bringing them to ruin? See Deut 28:63

 

[Z Man]

Originally posted by jobeth

Zman:
Why didn't you answer my question? (Post # 209)
Why did Moses tell the people that God would "rejoice" (KJV) or "take delight" (ESV) in bringing them to ruin? See Deut 28:63

God delights in self exhaltation. Through the destruction of wickedness, and the display of God's wrath upon those who practice such things, many more people are able to witness God's power and His glory. God delights in the display of His glory, not neccessarily in the evilness of man. He does not delight in their destruction directly, but in the glorification of Himself through the destruction of evil and wickedness.

 

[godrulz]

Originally posted by Z Man

We sure do! I believe God saves us by His grace, and you believe man saves himself by meeting God's requirements, i.e. his good works.

I believe in Christianity, you believe in religion. That's a big difference!

Says who? How do you know that? Are you God?

The fact of the atonement shows that God fixed those problems once and for all. The work is finished. There is nothing we can add to it, or take away from the work that Christ did on the cross in order to be saved.

Whether you like it or not, that's a work. This sentence totally contridicts itself.

To say that there is much more to our salvation than what Christ did at the cross is blasphemy. Christ did it all because there was no way man could ever meet the requirements that God demands from us, which is perfection.

Are you nuts??? What could man ever do to appease God and receive His mercies? What requirement could man ever meet of God to receive his salvation?

If there is a way that man can save himself, without the need for God, then there would be no need for Christ. His sacrifice screams to the world that man is helpless and unable to meet God's requirements; perfection.

We love God because He first loved us. And no man can say they love Christ without the Holy Spirit living in them.

We do nothing to aid in our salvation what so ever. It is 100% all of God's work. His Spirit that lives through us is the only reason we are able to edify and glorify His most Holy name. If God's presence were not in our souls, then we'd still be lost, doing what we love to do best; sin.

If salvation is 100% of God and God's grace is 100% efficacious and the only factor, and if God wants all men to be saved (2 Peter 3:9; I Tim. 2:4), then this should lead to universalism (all will be saved). The reality is that not all are saved. Calvinism resolves this by saying God only chooses and saves the elect. Arminianism recognizes that all are not saved because it is possible to reject God's grace and remain in rebellion. The atonement is efficacious for all who believe.

Once again, you do not distinguish between the GROUNDS of salvation (reason for which= GRACE/atonement) and the CONDITIONS of salvation (not without which=repentance, faith, continuance). These conditions are not works. We must cease rebellion to be reconciled. God persuades, but does not coerce. We cannot be saved without God, nor can we save ourselves. We are called to loving submission. Our wills are a factor as well as God's will. This does not make salvation an act of man, but affirms genuine love and relationship, not robotic submission by force.

 

[Z Man]

Originally posted by godrulz

If salvation is 100% of God and God's grace is 100% efficacious and the only factor, and if God wants all men to be saved (2 Peter 3:9; I Tim. 2:4), then this should lead to universalism (all will be saved). The reality is that not all are saved. Calvinism resolves this by saying God only chooses and saves the elect. Arminianism recognizes that all are not saved because it is possible to reject God's grace and remain in rebellion. The atonement is efficacious for all who believe.

Once again, you do not distinguish between the GROUNDS of salvation (reason for which= GRACE/atonement) and the CONDITIONS of salvation (not without which=repentance, faith, continuance).

What did Christ actually achieve on the cross for those for whom he died?

If you say that he died for every human being in the same way, then you have to define the nature of the atonement very differently than you would if you believed that Christ only died for those who actually believe. In the first case you would believe that the death of Christ did not actually save anybody; it only made all men savable. It did not actually remove God's punitive wrath from anyone, but instead created a place where people could come and find mercy -- IF they could accomplish their own new birth and bring themselves to faith without the irresistible grace of God.

For if Christ died for all men in the same way then he did not purchase regenerating grace for those who are saved. They must regenerate themselves and bring themselves to faith. Then and only then do they become partakers of the benefits of the cross.

In other words if you believe that Christ died for all men in the same way, then the benefits of the cross cannot include the mercy by which we are brought to faith, because then all men would be brought to faith, but they aren't. But if the mercy by which we are brought to faith (irresistible grace) is not part of what Christ purchased on the cross, then we are left to save ourselves from the bondage of sin, the hardness of heart, the blindness of corruption, and the wrath of God.

Therefore it becomes evident that it is not the Calvinist who limits the atonement. It is the Arminian, because he denies that the atoning death of Christ accomplishes what we most desperately need -- namely, salvation from the condition of deadness and hardness and blindness under the wrath of God. The Arminian limits the nature and value and effectiveness of the atonement so that he can say that it was accomplished even for those who die in unbelief and are condemned. In order to say that Christ died for all men in the same way, the Arminian must limit the atonement to a powerless opportunity for men to save themselves from their terrible plight of depravity.

- Inserted from Desiring God Ministries webpage, "What We Believe About The Five Points of Calvinism"

 

[godrulz]

Originally posted by jobeth

Godrulz:

Where do those "varying degrees of openness and responsiveness" come from if not from God?

Exodus 4:11 (KJV)
And the Lord said unto him, Who hath made man's mouth? or who maketh the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? have not I the Lord?


If you agree that God determines the varying differences among human physical characteristics, then why isn't it God who makes the varying differences among human intellectual or spiritual characteristics?

pp. 187, 188 "Is God to Blame? Beyond pat answers to the problem of suffering"

IVP Dr. Gregory Boyd 2003

- some feel Ex. 4:11 teaches that all infirmities are specifically willed by God.

- Yet Jesus and the Gospel authors uniformly diagnosed muteness, deafness, blindness, etc. as directly or indirectly coming from the devil. Jesus demonstrated God's will for people by removing these infirmities. Ex. 4, properly interpreted, will not contradict the ministry of Jesus (he opposed evil and sickness, not affirmed it as God's will).

- We must interpret the Ex. passage in light of Jesus' ministry. One OT verse should not contradict Jesus' explanation for evil. There is no rift between the Father (who supposedly controls Satan...a weak argument) and the Son (who opposes sin, sickness, and Satan). There is no duplicity with Satan and Jesus doing the Father's 'will' (though opposite and mutually exclusive). There is a different interpretation, then, of Ex. 4:11.

- Ex. in context: Moses was arguing that God should not use him because of his bad speech. God was frustrated with Moses in light of His recent miracles demonstrating God's greater ability. Thus God uses emphatic, unqualified language to establish the point that as Creator, He can handle all obstacles in attaining His objectives. In this context, He rhetorically asked Moses: "Who gives speech to mortals?...deaf/blind" It is unlikely that the statement is meant to be taken as a metaphysical explanation of why people are deaf and mute (poking a nail in your ear is not God's fault).

- Notice what God does NOT say in this passage. God speaks of the human condition in general terms. He does not say that He picks and chooses which INDIVIDUALS wil be born mute or deaf (God is not cruel). He simply asserts that He is the Creator of the kind of world in which some people become disabled (accidents, drugs, stupidity, birth defects, etc.). The verse does not teach that God is the direct cause of everything (obscure proof text), but that the Creator can work around obstacles.

- The central truth of the OT is that there is one Creator God, not a multitude of conflicting gods. The OT thus emphasizes that God, like an ancient Near Eastern Monarch, is the ultimate source of everything, whether He wills it directly or not. The Lord emphasizes this so Moses would know his speech was not a problem.

But He is not denying what later revelation will make clear; namely, infirmities such as muteness or blindness originate from Satan, and God wants to empower human mediators to free people from these afflictions.


This is at least an alternate explanation to hyper-Calvinism and is more consistent with the revelation of the character and ways of God as revealed in Christ.

 

[godrulz]

Arminians believe the atonement is efficacious for all men and in no sense limited. They also believe that only God can save man; we cannot save ourselves. Your understanding and assumptions are flawed, not the atonement.

 

[Z Man]

Originally posted by godrulz

Arminians believe the atonement is efficacious for all men and in no sense limited. They also believe than only God can save man; we cannot save ourselves. Your understanding and assumptions are flawed, not the atonement.

Explain in relation to what I've posted. I've just made a valid, credible and understanble post concerning the atonement. Now defend your position.

 

[godrulz]

Post #226 is my relevant response...differentiate the grounds and conditions of salvation. Your post assumes the interrelated TULIP doctrines (e.g. it argues from total depravity/inability to even respond to truth...I believe we are still in the image of God, though it is defaced...we are born with physical depravity/inevitable death, not morally depraved by 'original sin/Adamic nature'). My understanding assumes the opposite on all points. See the thousands of other posts on TOL about Calvinism vs Open Theism/Arminianism.

 

[Mr Potato Head]

believe we are still in the image of God, though it is defaced...we are born with physical depravity/inevitable death, not morally depraved by 'original sin/Adamic nature').

Then what does David mean when he says "Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me"?

 

[godrulz]

Originally posted by Mr Potato Head

Then what does David mean when he says "Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me"?

Sin is a wrong moral choice, not a substance inherited from Adam lodged somewhere in our anatomy. Sin is lawlessness and involves the will. Establish from all of Scripture the nature of sin, and then interpret this verse in light of that.

Ps. 51:5 is a Hebraism or figure of speech (Psalms is poetic, not a doctrinal dissertation or proof texts). Did the newborn baby, fetus, or sperm/egg ('from time mother conceived me') sin in thought, word, or deed? No, but from as long as David could remember, he fell short of the glory of God (perfection).

cf. Ps. 71:5,6 (v.5 my hope and confidence since my youth)...v.6 parallel statement for emphasis (Hebraism)..."From my birth I have relied on you.." David did not consciously rely, as an act of his will, on God when he was 2 days old or a mere sperm/egg at conception. He did not pray and trust until later in life. ("I", not in general sense of God's providence for all creatures)....v.17...since my youth...(it seems in Hebrew thought that relying on God or sinning from conception/birth really means from as long as he can remember...from youth....).

Romans 9:11 "Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad.." (a newborn is morally innocent because he has not made moral choices that involve virtue or vice...that is one reason they go to heaven if they do before being morally accountable...they do not need Catholic sprinkling/sacrament to keep them out of hell due to 'original sin').


The NIV translates the Greek word 'flesh' as 'sinful nature'. This is a preconceived theology from Augustine. "Original sin" is a Catholic teaching that is widely accepted but problematic (relies on proof texts and misconceptions of the biblical nature of sin and salvation).

This explanation is at least plausible, so you would need more evidence to make a doctrine out of it.

The Systematic Theology of Charles G. Finney (lawyer/revivalist) dissects 'original sin' and shows what sin is and is not (biblical).

 

[Mr Potato Head]

So why is it that all of us have sinned if it is not our nature? Do you believe that it is hypothetically possible for us not to sin based on our nature?

 

[godrulz]

Originally posted by Mr Potato Head

So why is it that all of us have sinned if it is not our nature? Do you believe that it is hypothetically possible for us not to sin based on our nature?

Good questions. Do we sin because we are sinners (your view) or are we sinners because we sin (choice view)?

Romans is clear that all eventually sin. Genesis 1 = creation was very good. Free will and love imply the possibility of sin, not the necessity or certainty of it. God did not intend for Satan or Adam to sin and fall. We are born innocent with a physical propensity to live for the flesh (from a young age we are catered to and see Self as #1 living for our desires). We will all fall short of the glory of God by choice in thought, motive, or deed. There is nothing back of the will (sinful nature) to CAUSE us to sin, but we will all fall short of God's perfect standard in some way. We do not know God from day 1, so it is obvious at some point (before conversion) we will sin by choice and be condemned (universal). Jesus did not sin because He did not have a 'sinful nature'. He did not sin because He chose to live intelligently and in submission to God. We could theoretically not sin, but this is moot since every human has and will sin. Hence, we need a Savior and cannot save ourselves.

 

[Mr Potato Head]

Romans 5 makes it pretty clear that through Adam we all became unrighteous. So how do we not have a moral sin nature if it's by our own free will alone that we sin and has nothing to do with Adam's sin?

By the way... I do not really know what I believe on this issue. I know I'm talking like I believe we sin because we are sinners but I really don't exactly. I just know I do not believe in TULIP'S T.

 

[Z Man]

Originally posted by Mr Potato Head
I just know I do not believe in TULIP'S T.

Well I do, and I think you are doing a fine job with the questions Mr. Potato Head.

 

[Z Man]

Originally posted by godrulz
Post #226 is my relevant response...differentiate the grounds and conditions of salvation. Your post assumes the interrelated TULIP doctrines (e.g. it argues from total depravity/inability to even respond to truth...I believe we are still in the image of God, though it is defaced...we are born with physical depravity/inevitable death, not morally depraved by 'original sin/Adamic nature'). My understanding assumes the opposite on all points. See the thousands of other posts on TOL about Calvinism vs Open Theism/Arminianism.

I'm not interested in what other's think right now. This is between you and me. I wanna hear what you think. Now, let's go over this step by step, if we have to. Let's start with this first and simple question:

What did Christ actually achieve on the cross for those for whom he died?

What do you think?

 

[1Way]

anti-Calvinism does not = biblical apostasy

anti-Calvinism does not = biblical apostasy

All - One interesting idea is that in Adam, all fell, thus EVERY human needs to be saved in order to get right with God, but, anyone who goes to hell, does so because of their own sins, not Adam's, because Christ brought redemption to the world just as much as Adam brought sin and death to the world. There is both, a nature to sin issue, and a moral issue involved. I also have not worked it all out.

I think that the age of accountability is a serious factor, God does not hold one accountable for something you are not responsible for, so this brings to mind what happens to unborn and newborn babies. Forgetting individual predestination, does God view them all as being deserving of an eternity in hell despite having done no good or wrong, consider NT reference of Jacob and Esau, where God says that He elected Jacob before neither did any wrong.

Also, consider the nature of the gospel unto salvation, that in Ro 2, or early Roman’s, Paul expounds greatly about the nature of God’s revelation and how it accords to his gospel, namely that it takes into consideration the natural man apart from the law, who’s law is written in their hearts.

I believe that no man, apart from God’s aid, is righteous enough for eternal life, we all need God’s grace to become accepted by God.

But all in all, godrulz is right and Z Man was wrong for suggesting that we open theists promote a means of salvation that is in any way apart from the finished work at the cross. Man’s faith in God as a human response to the call of salvation is not a work, and faith is a gift of God, God gives everyone coming into this world the light of revelation of Himself, even the invisible attributes of God are CLEARLY seen, so everyone has God’s clear “light revealing” aid before they ever respond to God, EVERYONE. Another way of saying that, is that rejecting “Calvinism’s individual predestination scheme” does not whatsoever imply that we add to what Christ did for our salvation, that is blasphemous and we simply do not do that.

An anit-Calvinist position, is not an anti-Christ position.

 

[1Way]

where's the morality? evil is not just an amoral concept!

where's the morality? evil is not just an amoral concept!

Jobeth – Please reread my post # 215,

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=456282#post456282

you know, the one where I demonstrated from God’s word the mutual exclusivity of “right and wrong”, “good and righteous against evil and bad”, and the one that condemned your idea of teaching that good comes from evil as being a slanderous condemnable (thus false) teaching.

Then consider my understanding of what sin is, and it’s close synonym (moral) “evil”.

Sin is that which goes against (contradicts, rejects, offends, does not conform to) God, His ways and standard of absolute righteousness.

If there is a difference between sin and evil, I will make whatever necessary adjustments to my definition of what sin is.

Also, because of your complaints about you not speaking with me over the phone, I sent you an email dated Jan 26th, entitles simply “cell #”, so that you could get a hold of me at your earliest convenience. Did you get that e-mail? In there, I didn’t just tell you to call me, we do not command each other we normally make our requests or concerns known and respond accordingly, yet I never heard back from you in that way neither. You are hard to understand sometimes, even though I try.