Does Calvinism limit God?
- Thread starter Poly
- Start date
I think we have gone over this topic on several threads. Many of the threads directly or indirectly relate to Calvinism vs Open Theism. I am not sure I have much more to add that has not been said before. Limited time and energy is a factor, as well as the non-salvific nature of our disagreements.
However, as with other 'addicts' here, if I see something of interest or think I have a helpful comment, I am sure I will chirp again. It would be good if others pick up the slack, since these are worthy topics and different perspectives may be helpful.
"Us vs Them" seems to create more heat than light.
Robert Shank, for example, lists verses used by OSAS (once saved, always saved) and verses that are used by conditional eternal security people (possible to forfeit salvation). Interestingly, there is overlap between many of these verses since it depends on how we interpret them (bias or ambiguity of an isolated verse). I have given some of his thoughts on another thread in response to your 'proof texts'. Certainly, an alternate explanation is a possibility. Likewise, you have quoted ?John Piper's site.
I appreciate Calvinists like J.I. Packer and R.C. Sproul and A. Pink, etc. My background was initially Pentecostal/Armininian/Wesleyan vs Calvinistic (though I did attend a Baptist church as a child). Early in by Christian walk, contrary to my Bible College/denomination's position, I came to believe that Open Theism was less problematic than C. or A. This is my conviction based on 25 years of research. Charles G. Finney also exposed the problems of Calvinism with the keen mind of a lawyer and a passionate heart for God and Scripture. I find his views cogent and credible in a refutation of Calvinism (as I do with Baptist/Open Theist Dr. Gregory Boyd, etc.). Intellectually and intuitively, I simply cannot affirm much of Calvinism as biblical. I understand the zeal and sincerity of its proponents, but am persuaded it creates more problems than it solves.
However, as with other 'addicts' here, if I see something of interest or think I have a helpful comment, I am sure I will chirp again. It would be good if others pick up the slack, since these are worthy topics and different perspectives may be helpful.
"Us vs Them" seems to create more heat than light.
Robert Shank, for example, lists verses used by OSAS (once saved, always saved) and verses that are used by conditional eternal security people (possible to forfeit salvation). Interestingly, there is overlap between many of these verses since it depends on how we interpret them (bias or ambiguity of an isolated verse). I have given some of his thoughts on another thread in response to your 'proof texts'. Certainly, an alternate explanation is a possibility. Likewise, you have quoted ?John Piper's site.
I appreciate Calvinists like J.I. Packer and R.C. Sproul and A. Pink, etc. My background was initially Pentecostal/Armininian/Wesleyan vs Calvinistic (though I did attend a Baptist church as a child). Early in by Christian walk, contrary to my Bible College/denomination's position, I came to believe that Open Theism was less problematic than C. or A. This is my conviction based on 25 years of research. Charles G. Finney also exposed the problems of Calvinism with the keen mind of a lawyer and a passionate heart for God and Scripture. I find his views cogent and credible in a refutation of Calvinism (as I do with Baptist/Open Theist Dr. Gregory Boyd, etc.). Intellectually and intuitively, I simply cannot affirm much of Calvinism as biblical. I understand the zeal and sincerity of its proponents, but am persuaded it creates more problems than it solves.
Z Man
New member
That's fair. But I don't want to see you jump in the middle of a discussion I may be having with someone else only to take a cheap shot, and then run when I try to confront you with the issue. That's annoying. If you wanna talk, let's talk. Otherwise, don't make any comments at all.
Rolf Ernst
New member
Z Man--Your patience with the Arminians is beyond my understanding. Debating an issue with them is like trying to nail down quicksilver.
It is not only too often futile, it is also greivous to the spirit of anyone whose heart cry is Sola Scriptura. An example of greivous offenses against the Christian spirit is the way they hold to things for which they have NO Scriptural basis; yet they pontificate their mistaken beliefgs as if they were the very word of God.
As an example, consider how both 1Way and godrulz declare that if a man could not do a thing, God would not command it!!
Where did THAT idea come from? The Koran???????
Man's fall in Adam did not remove him from ANY accountibility to God. God's holy principles and requirements are not according to the weakness of man's character, but according to God's immutable holiness. Man's inability does not in anyway relieve him of right and proper responses to do that which is right concerning God. He commands them to repent because that is the proper response man should offer God because of his rebellion. YET!!! YET!!! Vessels of clay DARE pontificate that since
they can't of themselves repent, God cannot, would not, demand it of them. What unmitigated arrogance!!! I guess they went to a public school and told teacher, "You can't ask that question cause I didn't study and I can't answer it. You have to limit your requirements according to MY INABILITY!!!!!!!
The truth is, Adam's fall was REAL and every man is accountable for ALL the inability which came upon man because of Adam's rebellion. The requirements God lays upon men are according to His law. His law is in accordance with His holiness and it therefore, and the requirements it lays upon men are immutable just as He is immutable.
Another example of the futility of dealing with Arminians is the way they dare confront God's truth on the basis of THEIR human understanding, such as when godrulz arrogantly proclaims, "Intellectually and intutitively, I cannot accept much of Calvinism as Biblical."
INTELLECTUALLY, and INTUITIVELY?????????????? He dares weigh a matter of whether a docrine is Biblical or not by his INTELLECT and INTUITION???????????? WHAT ELSE SHOULD WE EXPECT FROM THOSE WHOSE DOCTRINE IS NOT SCRIPTURAL??
"To the law, and to the testimony if they speak not according to this word it is because there is no light in them."
It is not only too often futile, it is also greivous to the spirit of anyone whose heart cry is Sola Scriptura. An example of greivous offenses against the Christian spirit is the way they hold to things for which they have NO Scriptural basis; yet they pontificate their mistaken beliefgs as if they were the very word of God.
As an example, consider how both 1Way and godrulz declare that if a man could not do a thing, God would not command it!!
Where did THAT idea come from? The Koran???????
Man's fall in Adam did not remove him from ANY accountibility to God. God's holy principles and requirements are not according to the weakness of man's character, but according to God's immutable holiness. Man's inability does not in anyway relieve him of right and proper responses to do that which is right concerning God. He commands them to repent because that is the proper response man should offer God because of his rebellion. YET!!! YET!!! Vessels of clay DARE pontificate that since
they can't of themselves repent, God cannot, would not, demand it of them. What unmitigated arrogance!!! I guess they went to a public school and told teacher, "You can't ask that question cause I didn't study and I can't answer it. You have to limit your requirements according to MY INABILITY!!!!!!!
The truth is, Adam's fall was REAL and every man is accountable for ALL the inability which came upon man because of Adam's rebellion. The requirements God lays upon men are according to His law. His law is in accordance with His holiness and it therefore, and the requirements it lays upon men are immutable just as He is immutable.
Another example of the futility of dealing with Arminians is the way they dare confront God's truth on the basis of THEIR human understanding, such as when godrulz arrogantly proclaims, "Intellectually and intutitively, I cannot accept much of Calvinism as Biblical."
INTELLECTUALLY, and INTUITIVELY?????????????? He dares weigh a matter of whether a docrine is Biblical or not by his INTELLECT and INTUITION???????????? WHAT ELSE SHOULD WE EXPECT FROM THOSE WHOSE DOCTRINE IS NOT SCRIPTURAL??
"To the law, and to the testimony if they speak not according to this word it is because there is no light in them."
Last edited:
Z Man
New member
Wow.... You are blessed with the wisdom of truth! You know how to speak it nearly perfectly! It's like, you should be a pastor or something! Your words hit the nail right on the head, every single time. Amazing... how you are able to come up with the exact, perfect words nearly everytime..
Great post! :thumb:
Do the Calvinists not use their mind and heart in discerning truth? Or do you blindly accept by rote what is in Calvin's Institutes? I have stated the criteria for discerning truth is rightly interpreting Scripture (involves your eyes, and thus your brain). We need the Spirit's illumination, but also are to study (mind) to show ourselves approved, rightly dividing the Word.
Z Man
New member
You don't interpret the scriptures the way you feel is right. You have to take them for what they say, regardless whether we like it or not. No one may like the image of God being portrayed in Romans 9, but it still stands that God is sovereignly in control. He is the one who hardens whom He wills, and has mercy on whomever He wills. It's not about man or what he wants, but about God and what He wills. Whatever He deceides to do is always right. Whether we think it's fair or not, He could care less. His perfect plan will always be carried out.
Romans 9:18-20
Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens. You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?" But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God?
Man prefers to believe what he prefers to be true.
- FRANCIS BACON (1561–1626)
That's why a lot of people, including myself, have a hard time with accepting Calvinism, or whatever doctrine you want to call it. When I confronted a Baptist preacher regarding the 5 points of TULIP, I had my scriptures all laid out to prove him wrong. But he had his as well. We studied for weeks, and I realized that the verses he presented to me were real and there was no way around them. They were in the bible, and one of us was right. Although hard to believe, because I wanted to believe that I was right, I gave in to the scriptures of truth, and then the verses that I presented made even more sense to me. All in all, my whole faith made more sense; everything I believed made more sense and my walk with Christ became more humbling to me.
It was a mind job to realize that God is absolutely sovereign. The big issue that I had a problem with was predestination and God electing whom He willed to salvation. I thought that that doctrine made God mean. But it's in scripture; so it does exist. And after studying it more, I realized that the fact that God does save anyone, period, is simply amazing and astounding. The question isn't "Why doesn't God save men", but rather, "How can God save anyone". When I realized this, I was greatly humbled in my faith, and my salvation blows my mind. I realized that God is greater than I had ever imagined, and His sovereignty is to be feared. All men should praise God for just letting us take our next breath.
It may not feel good to give God complete control, but whether we like it or not, He already has it. We must not base our faith on feelings, or intellect, but rather on the promises of God and His Holy Word, whether we agree with Him or not, for He is never wrong.
Rolf Ernst
New member
Z MAN-------#271: Good post. Thanks for hanging in there. I could use a helping of your patience. Some of the things the Arminians say are so grievous and injuring to hearts whose demand is Sola Scriptura, that I just bomb out on dealing with them. You have been doing a good job. You have the persistence of stainless steel.
Arminians and Open Theists are Protestants who are equally committed to sola Scriptura. We differ in interpretation and understanding of passages.
Rom. 9-11 is about the corporate election of Israel. It is not about individual free will moral salvation.
We all uphold God's great and awesome attributes and character.
We differ somewhat on things like the nature of love, relationship, holiness, justice, mercy. A biblical understanding of Sovereignty does not have to be a Ruler who meticulously controls every mundane and moral choice. Predestination truly negates love and genuine freedom and accountability/responsibility. A more worthy picture of the revelation of God and the reality of the type of creation He chose to create is that He is sovereign in the sense of being a responsive, providential God creatively working with other moral agents to bring His plan and purposes to pass.
He is like a cosmic Chessmaster responding to our moves. He is like a football coach who responds to the plays of the other team. It is a lesser god who has to know and control every choice in the universe. His great ability and wisdom and infiniteness ensure that He sovereignly rules in a loving way, rather than as a benevolent Dictator.
The bottom line is what is the picture of God revealed in Scripture? The responsive parent (creative, glorious) analogy is closer to the truth than that of a controlling dictator (takes less ability).
Rom. 9-11 is about the corporate election of Israel. It is not about individual free will moral salvation.
We all uphold God's great and awesome attributes and character.
We differ somewhat on things like the nature of love, relationship, holiness, justice, mercy. A biblical understanding of Sovereignty does not have to be a Ruler who meticulously controls every mundane and moral choice. Predestination truly negates love and genuine freedom and accountability/responsibility. A more worthy picture of the revelation of God and the reality of the type of creation He chose to create is that He is sovereign in the sense of being a responsive, providential God creatively working with other moral agents to bring His plan and purposes to pass.
He is like a cosmic Chessmaster responding to our moves. He is like a football coach who responds to the plays of the other team. It is a lesser god who has to know and control every choice in the universe. His great ability and wisdom and infiniteness ensure that He sovereignly rules in a loving way, rather than as a benevolent Dictator.
The bottom line is what is the picture of God revealed in Scripture? The responsive parent (creative, glorious) analogy is closer to the truth than that of a controlling dictator (takes less ability).
Z Man
New member
So we're the ones who are really in control; is that it?
If God just sat around waiting for us to work with Him to accomplish His plans, they'd never get done. We would be running around here on earth doing what we enjoy doing the most; sinning. And God, according to you, would be sitting up in heaven, looking down with great sighs, and saying, "I sure do wish some people would love Me so I can get some work done around here". That's just not so.
God does not, and I repeat, does not wait for us to respond, nor does He design or erase plans that meet our criteria. That's just plain ludicris. If that was so, we'd have God wrapped around our little pinky, doing whatever we desire Him to do. According to you, it's not about God or His will; it's about us and our will.
:vomit:
What's wrong with God having complete control? Why does that make Him mean to you?
It takes less ability to predestine everything than it does not give creatures genuine freedom. Reality dictates that God's will is not the only factor in the universe. He loved us and freedom so much that He took a risk by giving us limited involvement. This makes prayer meaningful and efficacious (vs academic exercise for our benefit).
It is not God's fault that the majority of people have not heard the gospel or are already in hell. He does not want anyone to perish, but ALL to come to repentance (2 Peter 3:9). Man can thwart God's will, or you make God responsible for horrific evil (contrary to His attributes and character).
God is ultimately in control and His intentions will come to pass (but not all his desires will). This is not either/or, but both/and...it is God's will and other moral agent's will...Jesus came to oppose sin and Satan, not affirm evil as the 'will of God' (Jesus is a revelation of God...His ministry contradicts your premise that everything is the will of God).
God is not a Deist god who passively sits there while the world runs wild. He can and does actively intervene, but He has chosen to create the type of world where moral agents have some genuine freedom.
God looked for a man to stand in the gap, but could not find one, so avoidable judgment happened. He did wait for us to respond. He was going to destroy men, BUT NOAH was found to be righteous so He responded accordingly.
A wrong understanding of sovereignty will lead to conclusions that malign the revelation of God in Scripture and the reality of the universe we experience. It does not make God 'mean' to have complete control. God could be a benevolent dictator. This simply is not the biblical portrait of the responsive God who created us in His image.
It is not God's fault that the majority of people have not heard the gospel or are already in hell. He does not want anyone to perish, but ALL to come to repentance (2 Peter 3:9). Man can thwart God's will, or you make God responsible for horrific evil (contrary to His attributes and character).
God is ultimately in control and His intentions will come to pass (but not all his desires will). This is not either/or, but both/and...it is God's will and other moral agent's will...Jesus came to oppose sin and Satan, not affirm evil as the 'will of God' (Jesus is a revelation of God...His ministry contradicts your premise that everything is the will of God).
God is not a Deist god who passively sits there while the world runs wild. He can and does actively intervene, but He has chosen to create the type of world where moral agents have some genuine freedom.
God looked for a man to stand in the gap, but could not find one, so avoidable judgment happened. He did wait for us to respond. He was going to destroy men, BUT NOAH was found to be righteous so He responded accordingly.
A wrong understanding of sovereignty will lead to conclusions that malign the revelation of God in Scripture and the reality of the universe we experience. It does not make God 'mean' to have complete control. God could be a benevolent dictator. This simply is not the biblical portrait of the responsive God who created us in His image.
Check the Greek. A true Christian does not continue to habitually sin (present, continuous tense). He should not sin, but theoretically can sin since sin is a wrong moral choice. I Jn. 1:9 is provision for Christians (in context), that IF we sin (isolated vs habitual) there is repentance, forgiveness, and obediece again.
jobeth
Member
I agree that Satan is the agent through whom illness and sickness comes, that Satan can do nothing without first getting permission from God, and the Lord can override and destroy Satan's work any time He chooses to do so.
1 John 3:8 (KJV)
He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.
Why do you say that the fact that God controls Satan is a "weak argument"? I would say that fact is foundational to all our understanding of God and Satan.
If it were not so, then we would be deists, not monotheists.
The point is not that Jesus "opposes" sin, sickness, and Satan, in principal, but that Jesus "defeats" sin, sickness, and Satan in actuality.
The fact is, that Satan can do nothing, apart from God. We are commanded to fear God, not Satan.
Rev. 14:7 (KJV)
Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters.
If everything "bad" that happens is attributed to Satan, then where is there any room for God's judgement?
I don't get it. Are you saying that Satan is the one who makes men deaf, blind, and dumb, and not God?
If God does not make men deaf, or blind, or dumb, then why does He claim He does?
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?
It seems to me that you (and Boyd) are saying that God does not mean what He says.
Well, you "say" that there are no gods that conflict with what God wants, but you must believe there are, since you credit much of what happens in the world to Satan and to men, rather than to God.
Empower humans? No.
Acts 3:12 (KJV)
And when Peter saw it, he answered unto the people, Ye men of Israel, why marvel ye at this? or why look ye so earnestly on us, as though by our own power or holiness we had made this man to walk?
Of our own will and agency, we can do nothing. It is only by the power of GOD, that miracles happen.
So you say. I disagree that your explanation is more consistent than mine is.
In fact, your explanation could make Satan MORE powerful than God, if there is more "evil" in the world than there is "good".
Do you think there is more "evil" in the world, or more "good"?