Does Calvinism limit God?

[jobeth]

Godoccassionallyrulz:

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.

Arguing from the specific to the general is not technically a logical fallacy. It is called inductive reasoning.

We use inductive reasoning to affirm that the sun will rise in the east tomorrow, because we have observed the sun rising in the east (ie. we have a consensus of specifics) and so we make an assumption (i.e. we generalize) that the sun always rises in the east and never in the west, north, or south.
In the same way, we have used inductive reasoning to affirm that God controls all events, because we have observed (i.e. we have a consensus of specific declarations in His word) God taking credit for both grandiose and mundane events and so we make an assumption (i.e. we generalize) that God controls all events, whether grand and mundane.

There was a man who refused to generalize.
This man believed he was dead. Many doctors sought to cure him of his mistaken identity. One doctor figured he could cure the man by showing him an actual dead person, week after week, and demonstrating for the man that dead men don't bleed.
And it happened that after many weeks of this demonstration, the doctor asked the man what we have learned in these past weeks.
The man replied "We have found that dead men don't bleed."

At that, the doctor grabbed the man's hand and pricked his finger, and blood oozed out. Then the doctor asked the man, "Now what do you think of that?"
The man stared in disbelief and then exclaimed, "Well, I'll be. Dead men do bleed, after all."

The moral is: You cannot convince the unconvincible.

 

[Rolf Ernst]

Godrulz--You naughty little boy--no reason to conclude that He contols all things? What is this, then? He "works ALL things..." Isn't that involvment in ALL things? How does He WORK all things? "...after the counsel of His own will."
"Now, young man, you march yourself up to that blackboard (here is some chalk) and you write fifty times, "I believe the Bible says that God works all things after the counsel of His own will, and I believe the Bible. So that means I am now a Calvinist." " And if your pastor says otherwise, tell him I said, limber up the fingers on your writing hand.

 

[godrulz]

I wish I was a young man. I am young at heart but my body says I am 44.

ACTS 4 Dr. Gregory Boyd "God of the Possible"

"While Scripture portrays the crucifixion as a predestined event, it never suggests that the individuals who participated in this event were predestined to do so or foreknown as doing so. It was certain that Jesus would be crucified, but it was not certain from eternity that Pilot, Herod, or Caiaphas would play the roles they played in the crucifixion. they participated in Christ's death of their own free wills.'

- This is explicit in Scripture. cf. Judas....

It is a preconceived theology to extrapolate from this verse that God controls everything. If it says He controls something, then He does. If it does not, we may be arguing from silence to support our own ideas.

"Is God to Blame? Beyond Pat answers to the problem of suffering" - Boyd

"It is one thing for God to use the evil intentions of people who have freely chosen evil...but it's quite another thing for God to predestine people to evil character of steet people to evil agianst their will. Scripture never records God doing the latter, though it provides many instances of the former. There is no moral dilemma created by affirming God's sovereign right to use evil for His own purpose. But there is an insurmountable moral dilemma created if God sovereignly predetermines that certain people engage in evil.

Acts 4:27,28; 2:23

Do these statements mean that God predestined these individuals to crucify the Messiah? No. To be sure, both passages clearly teach that God decided ahead of time that Christ would be handed over and killed. This much was predestined and foreknown. This much was part of his plan. But the passages don't suggest that God predestined or foreknew who would carry out his plan.
Again, some argue that it's impossible for God to guarantee a certain outcome without guaranteeing the means to that outcome. If Jesus was predestined to be crucified, they reason, then God had to predestine who would do it. But there is absolutely no basis for this claim.

Sociologists, biologists, stock market analysts, insurance agents and military strategists can predict group outcomes very accurately without being able to predict individual behavior. Even so, God who knows perfectly the probabilities of all individual and group behavior, could send his son at the right time to accomplish his plan (Rom. 5:6; Gal. 4:4). And God wouldn't have to predestine any individuals to commit evil to ensure this.

We may conclude that God SOMETIMES predestines events, but He doesn't predestine individuals. He sometimes uses the evil intentions of people to fulfill His predestined plans, but He doesn't predestine people to have these evil intentions."


Whether you agree with the above, it certainly is a plausible alternate explanation (unless you are a dogmatic hyper-Calvinist). I personally feels it is more consistent with all of Scripture and the revelation of God's character and ways (it makes humans and demons responsible/accountable for evil, and not the Holy God).

 

[jobeth]

Originally posted by John Reformed
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.

Better odious than dubious, imo.

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

Agreed. But we can discern them by their fruits, Jesus claimed.

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

Do you think you will not be required to speak at the judgement? Aren't we all (including Christians) required to give an account of our deeds, as to whether they were good or evil, at the judgement?

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

What does it mean for God to "know" you? Does God have to foreknow everything you will ever do, before He can say "I know you."?

If I say "I know John" and then John does something I never thought he could do, was I wrong to believe I knew John? Shouldn't I say instead, "I never really knew John."?

In the same way, if God does not know beforehand everything you will ever do, then can't He legitimately say "I never knew you."?

In order to be "knowable" by any knower (including God), don't you have to be predictable and reliable?

For my part, I am easy to know, because I am very predictable.

For instance, I cannot keep a secret. And everyone who knows me, knows that about me and they all foreknow that if they tell me a secret, it will no longer be a secret.
And I have a dear Christian friend who consistently shows up much later than he agreed to. I foreknow that when he tells me he'll see me at 2, that I won't actually see him until at least a quarter to 3.

Some people may say it's a liability to be so predictable that other people can foreknow what you will do in a given situation, but I don't see it as a liablity, but rather as an asset. I'd rather have friends I can count on to behave consistently, than friends who are flits. Wouldn't you?

Wouldn't God rather have people like Abraham, or Jacob or Job? People He can count on? People He can Foreknow?

How can God use an unreliable person? He might as well try to use a bent reed for a walking stick. Surely God knows better than to try to use someone for His purposes if He can never be certain what they might do. And if a person is not being used by God, and not getting direction from Him, then maybe that is the reason why. What do you think?

 

[John Reformed]

Foreknowledge of God - Acts 2:23; Rom. 8:29; 11:2; 1 Pet. 1:2), one of those high attributes essentially appertaining to him the full import of which we cannot comprehend. In the most absolute sense his knowledge is infinite (1 Sam. 23:9-13; Jer. 38:17-23; 42:9-22, Matt. 11:21, 23; Acts 15:18).

Fatalism destroys the personal nature of the Creator and of man.
The fatalist sees everything moving toward a fixed end with all the means toward that end being fixed as well. Its a configuration that has no room for a loving purpose or for individual worth. Each person is seen as little more than a gear in a great cosmic machine that grinds impersonally toward inevitable finality. Nothing can occur that is not part of the whole motion of the cosmos and therefore, since there is no personal God, there can be no real sin or rebellion. Fate is seen as the author of all that happens whether we call it "good" or "evil." To the fatalist, all is "meaningless, merciless and hopeless".

God governs according to his foreknowledge and free, immutable will
The concept of foreknowledge is often misunderstood. The New Testament Greek word that is usually translated "foreknowledge" is prognosis. It is a combination of the prefix pro- which means "before", and gnosis which means knowledge.

They key to understanding what it means to "know before" is to identify what kind of knowledge is meant. There are several ways we use the word "knowledge" or its verb "to know".

God knows all things without exception and without degrees. Therefore to say that he knows somethings as opposed to his knowing other things would be meaningless if it was referring to mere propositional awareness. When God is said to know one person in distinction from others it must refer to a special relationship he bears with that person, an intimacy. This is a common use of the verb "to know".

It was in this way that Adam "knew" his wife, and that God "knows" Israel and his own children. Notice how the Scriptures speak of God "knowing" some in a way that he does not know others.

Genesis 18:19 speaks of Abraham "I have known him, in order that he may command his children and his household after him to keep the way of the Lord by doing righteousness and justice..."
Jeremiah 1:5 "before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecreated you..."

Matthew 7:23 "and then I will declare unto them, `I never knew you; depart from me, you who practice iniquity.'"

John 10:14 "I am the good shepherd; and I know my own, and my own know me."

1 Corinthians 8:3 "If anyone loves God, he is known by Him."

Galatians 4:9 "Now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how is it that you turn back again to the weak and worthless elemental things..."

Romans 11:2 "God has not rejected His people whom He foreknew."

Obviously, if God knows all persons without exception and without imperfection, these verses cannot mean a mere propositional awareness. It must be a special covenantal bond established with some but not with others. That covenantal bond, which God establishes with some only, predates all things that could make it contingent upon things outside of God (Ephesians 1:4). Therefore the idea of "foreknowledge" is not a hypothetical knowing of things a person would do that somehow determine God's disposition toward them. It must be a covenantal bond sovereignly established by God toward certain persons and is equivalent to his election of some to redemption.

http://www.girs.com/library/theology/syllabus/theo7.html

 

[smaller]

now just nudge a little further in Romans 11 and see ALL of Israel SAVED, even though they were enemies of the Gospel. go figure....

 

[John Reformed]

Originally posted by smaller

now just nudge a little further in Romans 11 and see ALL of Israel SAVED, even though they were enemies of the Gospel. go figure....

"Even so then, at this present time there is a remnant according to the election of grace. And if by grace, then it is no longer of works; otherwise grace is no longer grace. But if it is of works, it is no longer grace; otherwise work is no longer work." (Romans 11.5-6)

Rom 9:8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these [are] not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

 

[smaller]

the "remnant" and the ALL are not the same eh?

 

[Rolf Ernst]

Godrulz--It is not necessary for God to predestine people to hell. They are going there anyway. Nor is it necessary for Him to predestine men to do evil. They do that of their own accord. All that is necessary is for Him to remove His restraint upon their evil nature and they breakforth into the iniquity from which He had earlier restrained them.

No one can lay a charge against God for releasing them to the evil of their own nature. Only they are to be blamed. God's restraint upon man's evil nature is by God's common grace; and that is a gift which man does not merit. If that man had forever been left to the inclinations of his own heart, he still would have had no right to complain against God.

 

[godrulz]

Originally posted by Rolf Ernst

Godrulz--It is not necessary for God to predestine people to hell. They are going there anyway. Nor is it necessary for Him to predestine men to do evil. They do that of their own accord. All that is necessary is for Him to remove His restraint upon their evil nature and they breakforth into the iniquity from which He had earlier restrained them.

No one can lay a charge against God for releasing them to the evil of their own nature. Only they are to be blamed. God's restraint upon man's evil nature is by God's common grace; and that is a gift which man does not merit. If that man had forever been left to the inclinations of his own heart, he still would have had no right to complain against God.

Some, not all Calvinists, believe in double predestination. It seems to me Calvin did believe God predestines some to heaven and some to hell. I understand that no one merits God's grace or is worthy of salvation. However, in no sense is the atonement limited. It is efficacious for all who believe (and God desires that ALL men repent and believe). In light of the death and resurrection of Christ for all mankind, He impartially draws all men to Himself. If they reject the light they have and persist in rebellion, they will be lost. Man, not God, is culpable for evil and eternal ruin.

 

[John Reformed]

Originally posted by godrulz

Some, not all Calvinists, believe in double predestination. It seems to me Calvin did believe God predestines some to heaven and some to hell. I understand that no one merits God's grace or is worthy of salvation. However, in no sense is the atonement limited. It is efficacious for all who believe (and God desires that ALL men repent and believe). In light of the death and resurrection of Christ for all mankind, He impartially draws all men to Himself. If they reject the light they have and persist in rebellion, they will be lost. Man, not God, is culpable for evil and eternal ruin.

Your apologetic has no Scriptural answer for the Q: why the vast majority were not given the opportunity to believe the gospel. Oh sure...I agree that the witness of God's law written on the heart, and, the witness from nature are provided by God. BUT, these witnesses only strip the offenders of any excuses. They save no one!

If free will is the determing factor in salvation, one would expect that God would have made sure that EVERYONE had a chance to exercise it.

I repeat: You have no Scriptural answer! Do you?

 

[godrulz]

All views must deal with the reality that not everyone hears or responds to the Gospel.

I trust the wisdom and love of God: "Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?" - Genesis 18:25

There is no definitive answer, but there are some things that are revealed.

You taunt is similar to the agnostic's lament : "What about the heathen who never heard?". They try to imply God is not fair.

We do know what happens to those who have heard the Gospel and rejected it (separation from God for eternity).
We also know that those who have not heard the Gospel are still culpable and guilty (Romans 1-3). They reject God's general revelation and violate their conscience and moral laws in their society.

People will be judged by the light they have. Someone who rejects Jesus Christ is worse off than someone who has never heard His name.

Others have sought after the Creator, and God supernaturally revealed Himself in a way that they could trust Him. God knows the heart.

The Great Commission is a commandment, and not a suggestion. We are responsible for this generation of souls. What we do with the Gospel in this generation could determine the destinies of many. There is an urgency and mandate to preach the Gospel. How can they believe if they do not hear and if no one is sent to preach? This is a terrible God-given responsibility. The Spirit actively draws all men to Himself, but the Church must proclaim Him to the nations. This is explicit in Scripture and gives us a hint of God's redemptive plan for men.


I assume the Calvinistic loophole is to make God responsible for those who do not hear or obey the Gospel. Calvin cringed at double predestination, yet still believed and taught it. It is simplistic to think that some are lost because God did not will their salvation or does not have the power to get the Gospel to them. i.e. He saves only the elect that He sovereignly choses to be saved. He choses to not save some...just because...He does not have to save any of us rotters.

This view distorts the character and attributes of God and is not consistent with God's universal moral law and revelation in Scripture.

Summary:

God desires all men to be saved.

The atonement is efficious for all who believe.

Not all men are saved. Those who knowingly reject the light they have are more culpable (but just as guilty of sin) than those who never heard of God in special revelation (they still had general revelation which could have led them to God). God will Judge in justice, mercy, truth, and holiness.

The Church is mandated to preach the Good News. What we do or do not do can impact the opportunities for people to receive the Gospel. This explains the Great Commission and urgency for us to follow and obey Christ and love others. We need to GO and Give that others might live. The Spirit is doing a mighty work in the land. God does not use sky-writing or angels. We are clay pots that He uses to show His glory and proclaim His message. The Church continues the ministry of Christ to save, heal, and deliver through the power of the Spirit.

To those who think everything is ALL OF GOD, it puts things at His feet that belong at ours. Is it God's fault people are hungry and do not hear the Gospel? Or is it the fault of selfish society that hoards the resources, goes to war, supports Hollywood, etc. (hungry). If the Church uses its resources in North America to build big buildings, have self-help seminars, buy big houses, get into major debt, take expensive holidays, go to college, never support ministries that reach the lost, etc....this is our fault. Woe to us if we passively drop the ball and say it was God's will that the heathen did not hear or were not in view when the Savior shed His blood. He did not just die for the so-called elect. He died for all men. The enemy of our souls comes to kill, rob, and destroy. These are the ones He died for. Rise up, O Church of God, and seek first His kingdom and the lost, rather than our own selfish, petty wants and desires.

 

[Z Man]

Godrulz,

What did the atonement accomplish?

 

[LightSon]

Godrulz,
Be vewy careful not to fall for Z trick question.

 

[Z Man]

Originally posted by LightSon

Godrulz,
Be vewy careful not to fall for Z trick question.

What trick question? It's a very simple question, really...

 

[godrulz]

It's a trap!

God desires to freely forgive in grace and mercy. He is not an unwilling God who needs to be appeased by blood sacrifice.

The problems in the atonement are not retributive (vengeance), but governmental. He is the Moral Governor of the universe and must uphold moral law. Sin must be punished, there must be a deterrent to future sin, there must be transformation in a life (be holy as I am holy), etc.

The atonement is more than moral influence. It is not a literal commercial transaction (ransom theory). It is to do with public justice. It allows God to wisely forgive since it demonstrates His great love, upholds His holiness and moral Law, and shows the destructive awefulness of sin.

Albert Barnes "The Atonement" is an old book that carefully lays out what the atonement is and is not, the problems faced necessitating an atonement, the difficulties faced by human judges in the areas of justice and pardon, the scope of the atonement, etc.

It appears that the atonement is made for all (unlimited). Since it is not a literal ransom (metaphor= bought with a price), this does not lead to universalism (all will be saved).

The grounds of salvation (reason for which) are the grace of God and the death/resurrection of Christ.

The conditions of salvation (not without which) are NOT works. We are saved by grace through faith, not by works lest we should boast. The conditions (for God to wisely forgive and uphold His moral government) of salvation are to receive Christ i.e. repentance, faith/trust, and continuance in the faith (with the Spirit's enablement).

There are 4 major theories of the atonement. Confusion happens if one wrongly assumes Calvinism's TULIP or the Commercial Transaction Theory/Retributive justice/ransom theory (as opposed to public justice; Moral Government of God).

So, God wants to freely forgive. He provided a plan of redemption. We may receive or reject His love and remedy (with the appropriate benefit or consequence).

Salvation is a love relationship (morals), not a metaphysical change in our genetics or body.

 

[LightSon]

to infinity,,, and beyond!!!!!!

You wouldn't try to lay a doctrinal trap for ol' godrulz, would you? :chuckle:

Be nice!

I don't really care, one way or the other. Enjoy....

I'm feeling a little quirky today. And now I'm off to mow my daunting lawn.

 

[Z Man]

So again, maybe I missed it or something, but could you simply tell me what exactly the atonement itself accomplished, like, in a sentence or two? When Jesus shed His blood on the cross, what was accomplished?

 

[Z Man]

Originally posted by LightSon

You wouldn't try to lay a doctrinal trap for ol' godrulz, would you? :chuckle:

Be nice!

I don't really care, one way or the other. Enjoy....

I'm feeling a little quirky today. And now I'm off to mow my daunting lawn.

Of course I'm not laying a trap. Just want to discuss the importance of what the atonement actually accomplished, according to Scripture.

Be nice? I thought fellowship week was over?

 

[John Reformed]

Originally posted by godrulz

I trust the wisdom and love of God: "Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?" - Genesis 18:25

This verse is a personal favirite of mine. It got me through some very tough times. I was a struggling neophyte trying to understand unconditional election.

You taunt is similar to the agnostic's lament : "What about the heathen who never heard?". They try to imply God is not fair.

It is not my intention to taunt you my friend. I am trying to help you by challenging your pre-suppositions. I assume you are concerned in straightening out my thinking as well.

We do know what happens to those who have heard the Gospel and rejected it (separation from God for eternity).
We also know that those who have not heard the Gospel are still culpable and guilty (Romans 1-3). They reject God's general revelation and violate their conscience and moral laws in their society.

People will be judged by the light they have. Someone who rejects Jesus Christ is worse off than someone who has never heard His name.

True. But, nevertheless, both will suffer God's wrath.

Others have sought after the Creator, and God supernaturally revealed Himself in a way that they could trust Him. God knows the heart.

If you are right, Paul was wrong when he wrote Romans 3 that none seek after God.

The Great Commission is a commandment, and not a suggestion. We are responsible for this generation of souls. What we do with the Gospel in this generation could determine the destinies of many. There is an urgency and mandate to preach the Gospel. How can they believe if they do not hear and if no one is sent to preach? This is a terrible God-given responsibility. The Spirit actively draws all men to Himself, but the Church must proclaim Him to the nations. This is explicit in Scripture and gives us a hint of God's redemptive plan for men.

It was centuries before christianity even appeared on distant shores. The fact is that the vast majority of mankind (prior to a 100 years ago) perished in their sin, and their supposed free will did them no good at all.

I assume the Calvinistic loophole is to make God responsible for those who do not hear or obey the Gospel. Calvin cringed at double predestination, yet still believed and taught it. It is simplistic to think that some are lost because God did not will their salvation or does not have the power to get the Gospel to them. i.e. He saves only the elect that He sovereignly choses to be saved. He choses to not save some...just because...He does not have to save any of us rotters.

It is not simplistic, it is Scriptural. The passages that deal with this doctrine fill the pages of the Bible. John 10; Rom 9, Ephesians 2 for starters.

This view distorts the character and attributes of God and is not consistent with God's universal moral law and revelation in Scripture.

Are you now reduced to ad hominum attacks?!?

Summary:

God desires all men to be saved.

The atonement is efficious for all who believe.

Sorry, but I could not find in the bible that God fails at anything. Id did find:

Eph 1:5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,