Does Calvinism limit God?

[godrulz]

I guess this includes the ongoing debate of whether regeneration precedes faith or if it is concurrent or subsequent to faith.

I believe salvation is primarily in the moral and relational realm and involves ultimate and subordinate choices.

I do not see it as a metaphysical/physical change (substance/essence) that God zaps us with apart from our willingness.

I disagree with extreme Total Depravity and Irrisistible Grace.

God initiates and we respond. As we repent and trust in Christ, we are regenerated (so I do not think regeneration precedes faith...God would not regenerate someone who does not intend to submit to His Lordship).

 

[jobeth]

Originally posted by godrulz

The context of I John 3 is talking about believers, not the Lord Jesus.

I disagee that 1 John 3:9 could not be applied to Christ. The qualifier in the text is who is "born of God". And we know that Jesus was born of God. Don't we?

Therefore, we cannot use it to make a case for or against the impeccability of Christ (whether He could or could not sin...bottom line is that He did not sin!).

We aren't arguing whether or not Jesus did sin. We agree He did not. Rather you asserted that Jesus could have sinned and I take acception to that based on 1 John 3:9

A basis understanding of Greek verb tenses also clarifies the meaning of the passage (it does not teach that it is impossible for us to sin after conversion).

I disagree. I no longer sin, nor is it any longer even possible for me to sin. You necessarily must have a freewill before you can sin. When I believed in freewill, then it was possible for me to sin and I did. But now that I believe that God controls everything, I can no longer believe that I have a freewill, and can no longer believe that I do anything outside of or against God's will.
Only those who believe they are free from God's control can sin. Those who believe in an Omnicausal God cannot sin.

Many other passages show the possibility of a believer sinning, and the need to repent and restore obedience and intimacy with God. This fits better with free will theism than the Perseverance of the saints of Calvinism (TULIP).

Yes, free will is logcially compatible with sin. An Omnicausal God is not logically compatible with sin. This is another reason, among many, that I am not a Calvinist.

we are warned about the possibility of apostasy and the need to enter into and maintain a relationship with God (vs once saved always saved= unconditional eternal security).

Whether a person has eternal security or not, logically depends upon the question of who saves you.
If you believe God saves you of His own will and agency, then you can logically believe He is able to keep you saved.
But if you saved yourself of your own will and agency, then your perseverence also depends upon your will and agency to keep you saved.

 

[godrulz]

The phrase 'born of God' is applied to regenerated believers, not to the sinless Son of God.

It is not possible for you to sin? There is a heresy that adds another work of sanctification that makes it impossible to sin. This is neither Scriptural nor supported by any Christian's experience.

I Jn. makes it clear that believers can and do sin. We do not need to and can live victoriously, but it is still possible to have fleshly lapses. You could go out and steal, murder, or fornicate. You should not want to as a believer, but godly pastors and King David did sin. Your ideas do not make sense (unless I misunderstand you).

 

[Z Man]

Originally posted by godrulz

I believe salvation is primarily in the moral and relational realm and involves ultimate and subordinate choices.

I do not see it as a metaphysical/physical change (substance/essence) that God zaps us with apart from our willingness.

God initiates and we respond. As we repent and trust in Christ, we are regenerated (so I do not think regeneration precedes faith...God would not regenerate someone who does not intend to submit to His Lordship).

In other words, salvation is of man. You can't get around it. You said that you believed salvation to be primarily in the "moral and relational realm", and involves "choices" from us. Thus salvation can only happen if we become moral and choose to have a relation with God. Salvation becomes a work of man.

You said it yourself point blank:

I do not see it as a metaphysical/physical change (substance/essence) that God zaps us with apart from our willingness.

This can be reworded to say exactly the same thing:

I do not see [salvation] as a change that God [gives] us APART from OUR WILLINGNESS.

In other words, you flatly stated that salvation is not of God's will, but of man's. ONLY if man wills it will he ever have the hope of being saved. Thus, salvation is placed into our hands, and depending on what we "sow", we can expect to "reap" either eternal death or eternal life. We put in obediance and faith and we can expect to be paid from God our wages, which would be salvation.

Such hogwash. Surely you see the heresy in the doctrine of "free will"? It basically says that salvation is of man, and if we don't do certian things, then we can never be saved.

:nono:

 

[John Reformed]

Originally posted by lee_merrill

Jobeth's point here is quite apt, this does address well those who are holding that free will apart from God's will is essential to humanity.



Here's a possibility! (so to speak )

How about if there is room in God's will? That is, we may make free choices within God's will? i.e. people in heaven can't choose to sin, but they may really choose anything that is not sinful?

Here is an example:

1CO 7:38 So then, he who marries the virgin does right, but he who does not marry her does even better.

Paul is saying that both alternatives are available, that the "better" choice is not the only choice. You can choose! God's will is not a monorail...

And there is more to come:

LK 19:17 'Well done, my good servant!' his master replied. 'Because you have been trustworthy in a very small matter, take charge of ten cities.'

See also Rev. 3:21!

Blessings,
Lee

The philosopher who is convinced of the existence of a vast Power by whom all things exist and are controlled, is forced to inquire where the finite will can find expression under the reign of the Infinite. The true solution of this difficult question respecting the sovereignty of God and the freedom of man, is not to be found in the denial of either, but rather in such a reconciliation as gives full weight to each, yet which assigns a preeminence to the divine sovereignty corresponding to the infinite exaltation of the Creator above the sinful creature. The same God who has ordained all events has ordained human liberty in the midst of these events, and this liberty is as surely fixed as is anything else. Man is no mere automaton or machine. In the Divine plan, which is infinite in variety and complexity which reaches from everlasting to everlasting, and which includes millions of free agents who act and inter-act upon each other, God has ordained that human beings shall keep their liberty under His sovereignty. He has made no attempt to give us a formal explanation of these things, and our limited human knowledge is not able fully to solve the problem. Since the Scripture writers did not hesitate to affirm the absolute sway of God over the thoughts and intents of the heart, they felt no embarrassment in including the acts of free agents within His all-embracing plan. That the makers of the Westminster Confession recognized the freedom of man is plain; for immediately after declaring that "God has freely and unchangeably ordained whatsoever comes to pass," they added, "Yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established."

While the act remains that of the individual, it is nevertheless due more or less to the predisposing agency and efficacy of divine power exerted in lawful ways. This may be illustrated to a certain extent in the case of a man who wishes to construct a building. He decides on his plan. Then he hires the carpenters, masons, plumbers, etc., to do the work. These men are not forced to do the work. No compulsion of any kind is used. The owner simply offers the necessary inducements by way of wages, working conditions, and so on, so that the men work freely and gladly. They do in detail just what he plans for them to do. His is the primary and theirs is the secondary will or cause for the construction of the building. We often direct the actions of our fellow men without infringing on their freedom or responsibility. In a similar way and to an infinitely greater degree God can direct our actions. His will for the course of events is the primary cause and man's will is the secondary cause; and the two work together in perfect harmony.

In one sense we can say that the kingdom of heaven is a democratic kingdom, paradoxical as that may sound. The essential principle of a democracy is that it rests on "the consent of the governed." Heaven will be truly a kingdom, with God as the supreme Ruler; yet it will rest on the consent of the governed. It is not forced on believers against their consent. They are so influenced that they become willing, and accept the Gospel, and find it the delight of their lives to do their Sovereign's will.
(Lorraine Boettner)

 

[lee_merrill]

The same God who has ordained all events has ordained human liberty in the midst of these events, and this liberty is as surely fixed as is anything else. Man is no mere automaton or machine. In the Divine plan, which is infinite in variety and complexity which reaches from everlasting to everlasting, and which includes millions of free agents who act and inter-act upon each other, God has ordained that human beings shall keep their liberty under His sovereignty. (Lorraine Boettner)

That is good, John! One for the quote book...

I would only add that I believe that unbelievers don't have freedom, that they are indeed slaves to sin and the devil, and do always and only what their master says.

But I agree that there is freedom within God's will, that it is not a monorail, that there is not just one possible choice that is God's will in any given situation. And that believers have freedom in heaven, too! Though not free-will, they can't choose to sin, it's impossible. For they are completely in God's will, and God's will includes choices, but not sin.

Blessings,
Lee

 

[godrulz]

Arminians, Calvinists, Open Theists are all Protestants who recognize that salvation is from God through faith in Jesus Christ. We are saved by grace through faith and not by works. This is not negotiable.

To represent our/my views as salvation by works or man is disingenuous and shows a lack of understanding of principles like relationship, morals, choice, grounds of salvation vs conditions of salvation, etc.

Relationship is in the realm of morals and not metaphysics. It is incorrect to extrapolate that this means that we become moral on our own apart from God and that our efforts are the basis for reconciliation rather than the person and work of Christ.

See the old book "The Atonement" by Albert Barnes (Bethany Pubishers)...

 

[jobeth]

Originally posted by godrulz

The phrase 'born of God' is applied to regenerated believers, not to the sinless Son of God.

The scripture tells us that "Those who are children of God do not continue to sin, for God's very nature is in them; and because God is their Father, they cannot continue to sin", then those of us who cannot sin are those who are the true children of God and those of you who continue to sin are not the true children of God, and do not have God's very nature.

Worse yet: "If we say that we know him, but do not obey his commands, we are liars and there is no truth in us." This verse applies to you, not me.
But: "If we obey God's commands, then we are sure that we know him." This verse applies to me, not you.

It is not possible for you to sin? There is a heresy that adds another work of sanctification that makes it impossible to sin. This is neither Scriptural nor supported by any Christian's experience.

But it is scriptural that in the later days, Christ will have succeeded in perfecting His church. That time is now being fulfilled.

Jude 1:24 (TEV)
To him who is able to keep you from falling and to bring you faultless and joyful before his glorious presence—

Who is more joyful than one who has received approval from their master for fulfilling all His will?

I Jn. makes it clear that believers can and do sin.

No. 1 John makes it clear that those who are truly born of God do not continue to sin. They have been cleansed from all unrighteousness, just as He promised He would do.

We do not need to and can live victoriously, but it is still possible to have fleshly lapses. You could go out and steal, murder, or fornicate.

I can do nothing without being ordained from above.

You should not want to as a believer,

I do not want to do anything except as my Lord requires of me.

If the Lord orders me "Go kill so and so", and I do it, then that is not sin, but instead is obedience. It is only by the Mercy of God that He has not commanded me to kill anyone.

but godly pastors and King David did sin. Your ideas do not make sense (unless I misunderstand you).

Isaiah was a godly pastor, and the Lord commanded him to start preaching naked and barefoot, and Isaiah did preach naked and barefoot for 3 years. Isaiah is not guilty of sin, but is "guilty" of obedience.

We know King David sinned because David and the Lord agreed that David sinned.
In the same way, if you sin and the Lord agrees with you, then no one can say you did not sin.

We know that Abraham obeyed God when Abraham offered Isaac as a burnt offering, because both Abraham and the Lord agreed that Abraham obeyed God.
In the same way, if I obey God, and God agrees with me, then no one can say I sinned.

We do not know whether the people in Isaiah's day thought Isaiah was crazy, or demon-possessed, or just a really terrible sinner; but if they thought Isaiah was doing anything other than obeying God, they were wrong.

Likewise, we do not know whether Sarah thought that her husband was demon-possessed, or was pathological, or was a homicidal maniac too dangerous to live with; but if she thought anything other than that Abraham obeyed God, she was mistaken.

 

[jobeth]

the makers of the Westminster Confession recognized the freedom of man is plain; for immediately after declaring that "God has freely and unchangeably ordained whatsoever comes to pass," they added, "Yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin,

What nonsense.
Either God is the cause of everything that happens or God is not the cause of everything that happens.

What's the difference between goats and sheep?

Goats say, "Thus saith the Lord, BAAAAAAAAUT."

Sheep say, "Thus saith the Lord, AAAAAAAAAAMEN!"

Lorraine Boetner and the authors of the Westminster Confusion of Faith are GOATS because they say God controls everything, BAAAAAAAUT.

I am a sheep who says God controls everything, AAAAAAAAAMEN!

 

[John Reformed]

Originally posted by jobeth

What nonsense.
Either God is the cause of everything that happens or God is not the cause of everything that happens.

What's the difference between goats and sheep?

Goats say, "Thus saith the Lord, BAAAAAAAAUT."

Sheep say, "Thus saith the Lord, AAAAAAAAAAMEN!"

Lorraine Boetner and the authors of the Westminster Confusion of Faith are GOATS because they say God controls everything, BAAAAAAAUT.

I am a sheep who says God controls everything, AAAAAAAAAMEN!

Jobeth,

Hyper-Calvinism is an odious doctrine that leads to anti-nomianism, fatalism, complacency and arrogance. I would advise you to take the whole counsel of God into consideration. It matters not a whit what either you or I "say"; What saith the Lord is our sure foundation.

Jam 4:11 Speak not evil one of another, brethren. He that speaketh evil of [his] brother, and judgeth his brother, speaketh evil of the law, and judgeth the law: but if thou judge the law, thou art not a doer of the law, but a judge.

The Lord Himself will seperate the goats from the sheep; Not John Reformed or Jobeth.

As for myself, I am not relying on the purity of my docrtine for salvation...I am relying on Jesus Christ, and Him alone.

2Cr 13:6 But I trust that ye shall know that we are not reprobates.

 

[LightSon]

Originally posted by John Reformed
...
As for myself, I am not relying on the purity of my [doctrine] for salvation...I am relying on Jesus Christ, and Him alone.
...

:up:

 

[godrulz]

God honors faith (especially in the person and work of Jesus Christ), and not theological excellence (though a core base of essential truth is necessary e.g. Deity and resurrection of Christ, existence of God).

 

[John Reformed]

Originally posted by godrulz

God honors faith (especially in the person and work of Jesus Christ), and not theological excellence (though a core base of essential truth is necessary e.g. Deity and resurrection of Christ, existence of God).

I see the understanding ana acceptance of soun doctrine as an evidence (as opposed to a requirement) of salvation.

 

[godrulz]

Originally posted by John Reformed

I see the understanding ana acceptance of soun doctrine as an evidence (as opposed to a requirement) of salvation.

I thought 'ana acceptance of soun' doctrine was Latin! I see it is a typo.

A cult member like JW or Mormon must renounce false teaching and embrace sound doctrine as a prerequisite to salvation. It is a battle for the mind. This is why we must reason from Scriptures and preach the Gospel (Christ) with power and authority.

God does not predestine some people to be brainwashed in cults. This is deception from the enemy and rebellion by individuals.

Timothy (II 2:24) talks about instructing people in the hope that GOD will free them (grant repentance) leading them to a knowledge of the truth. They will come to their senses and escape from the trap of the devil (not God's predestination), who has taken them captive to do his (devil) will. There is more than one WILL in a moral universe.


Latin theologians recognized 3 aspects of faith:

notitia = knowledge

assensus= mental assent

fiducia= trust

Our modern 'easy believism' lacks core content and repentance at times. The Gospel touches the will, intellect, and emotions. The devil believes in God and trembles (and he is not saved).

There is a place for apologetics (see Paul) in addition to the work of the Spirit.

 

[LightSon]

Originally posted by godrulz

God does not predestine some people to be brainwashed in cults.

:think:
How about that, John Reformed? In your view, does God predestine people to join a cult?

 

[John Reformed]

Originally posted by LightSon

:think:
How about that, John Reformed? In your view, does God predestine people to join a cult?

I could argue from reason alone, as brother godrulz is wont to do (He even criticizes my Latin! I don't like to brag but I am a graduate of a fine Catholic grammar school). Instead...I would address your attention to Acts 4:23-28. This is clearly a didactic teaching from which we may learn a great deal.

When they were released, they went to their friends and reported what the chief priests and the elders had said to them. And when they heard it, they lifted their voices together to God and said, “Sovereign Lord, who made the heaven and the earth and the sea and everything in them,who through the mouth of our father David, your servant, said by the Holy Spirit,

“‘Why did the Gentiles rage,
and the peoples plot in vain?
26 The kings of the earth set themselves,
and the rulers were gathered together,
against the Lord and against his Anointed’

27 for truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, 28 to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place.

I hope you will not think me unfair if I turn the question back to you fellas. After all my question is based on Scripture, which should make it a cinch to answer.

Q. It appears that God predestined certain individuals to do certain things that accomplished the most heinous crime in history. Please explain.

 

[Rolf Ernst]

Godrulz--it is interesting that you use the analogy of a quarterback throwing a ball. God promised Ahab that the day of judgement was set against him. For years Ahab lived on, probably thinking God had no power to slay him as He had promised. But the time of judgement drew near. To the evil spirits, God said, "which of you will be a lying spirit in the mouth of Ahab's prophets so that he will go into battle to die?" One volunteered. On the day of battle, Ahab persuaded the king of Judah to wear his royal robes, but Ahab himself donned the armor of a warrior so he would be less conspicuous. All to no avail.
A warrior drew a bow "at a venture"; that is, without aiming. Notice this, Godrulz-- by God's providence the force of pull, the direction and elevation of the arrow were precise. The arrow struck Ahab between the joints of his armor "turn out of the battle, for I am wounded." As God had warned years earlier, the dogs licked hius blood from the floor of his chariot. Oh! I am sorry, Godrulz. I forgot that you believe MUNDANE things are not controlled by Him. Well, have a good day anyway. Wait a minute! Here is another one to think about. In the law concerning the cities of refuge, those who die by "accident," as when one man swings an axe and the head flies off, killing another man, the man slain is said to be given into that man's hand by God.
Well, shucks! I guess this jest ain't yer day, friend. If you would just shift your position to a belief in God's absolute, all encompassing
providential rule, you would win more games, and you would also understand why the quarterback should praise God for little victories and be submissive in defeat. You know, come to think of it, that says sumthin' also 'bout why the farmer should bow his head and thank God for HIS bounty before eating; but then, again, if he don't believe in God controlling MUNDANE THINGS like rain and harvest, it is hard to be properly thankful. Well, see ya 'round the farm.

 

[LightSon]

The Acts 4:23-28 passage, the Ahab anecdote, the Assyrian scenario in Isaiah 10: 5-12. All these scenarios can be used to show the compatiblistic nature between God's sovereignty and man's "free-will".

Again, Joseph's words to his brethren: "you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good."

I don't have a problem with these passages to show the sovereignty of God. But MUST these examples be the rule? Perhaps they are the exception to the rule. Perhaps God allows us unhindered free-will most of the time, but then, for His own purposes, He plays a more active role to bring about a fore-ordained plan.

I really don't know if the general rule that Calvinists draw from these specific cases is valid.

In other words, just because you can show Biblically that sometimes God (in specific situations) "pulls strings" behind the actions (and choices) of man, does not necessarily mean that God ALWAYS orchestrates the outcomes involving the actions and choices of man.

As I read the scriptures, it seems that God (as Sovereign) reserves the right to engage with man in these controlling ways, but I just don't see that He always exercises that divine right.

 

[godrulz]

Lightson: Good clear, cogent insights...exactly a balanced reading of Scripture (not reasoning alone as some wrongly accuse me of...we all are drawing conclusions from an INTERPRETATION of biblical principles and revelation...forget the superspiritual put-down that I only use human reasoning and others think they have the scoop from God's mind directly and are never wrong).

Rolf: I agree with your specific examples. God can and does control some things, but there is no reason to conclude He controls all things. This is a logical fallacy of arguing from the specific to the general.

Kicking a soccer ball or throwing a football ARE mundane things. God does not roll the dice in a gambling casino...cmon....

If God wants to take out Ahab with an arrow, or slay Ananias and Sapphira, or have Hitler or Saddam Hussein shot in the head...He could do this. This would be the exception of His intervention in judgment rather than the norm of making a QB throw a football and rigging a game that is under the jurisdiction of human sportsmanship, not Divine control...cmon...use your noodle and distinguish a Scriptural example that attributes something to God and common sense that does not make every little thing in the universe God's hand. There is no Scriptural warrant to assume that. Zacchais (sp?) climbed a tree on his own, but Jesus turned it into a divine appointment.

 

[godrulz]

John: Careful not to read to much into a passage. God predestined that an atonement would be provided. He sent the Son who died. This does not mean that God controlled every detail leading up to the crucifixion. If Roman X would not pound the nails, Roman Y could have. The specific Roman did not have to be predestined or forced to do it. God would accomplish His general purpose regardless of the specific details (that are not explicitly revealed). It did not matter where Jesus put His foot exactly as He carried the cross. The point is that He did carry the cross and died according to plan (without the control of every minute detail).

A general group was used to accomplish the plan. This does not necessitate that every individual do exactly something or not something for the plan to be implemented.

cf. They tried to kill Jesus prematurely. This was not allowed. This does not mean that every act in the life of Jesus involved divine intervention...e.g. what He ate for breakfast on any given day.