I have a question for Calvinists...

[lukecash12]

See what I mean lukecash12 ?

I'm telling you, I haven't exaggerated or distorted anything. Calvinists really do believe this stuff!

You'd do well to figure out what your own Classical Arminian theology shares in common not just with Classical Calvinism but with the Classics (i.e. Aristotle and Plato). That's where all this nonsense comes from.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Your concern is ever so considerate, and may God bless you for it.

Please rest assured, monsieur, that I am well aware of the Neoplatonist philosophy from which Augustine derived much of his thoughts. If I may make a suggestion purely out of my own concern and love, it would help if we considered the principle of charity when we participate in dialogue together.

See posts #72 and #77 for explanations as to why "Calvinists" are actually "Reformed", and how not all of Calvin's writings are synonymous with Reformed thinking in general.

Such a god is unjust or the concept of justice has no meaning.

I sympathize with this sentiment, because believing in unconditional election and compatibilism violates what I think is a more reasonable notion of free will.

If God either actively or inactively causes everything, to the effect that every cause He either allows or initiates Himself guarantees the result, we not only do have freedom in any meaningful sense, but we are not fully persons. I don't believe in compatibilism not only for those reasons, which I've only scratched the very surface of in summarizing, but for hermeneutic reasons; those biblical reasons being the first and most important reasons.

 

[Clete]

Thank you Clete, this is proving to be an engaging and pleasant discussion thus far.

Here's how I believe a knowledgeable Calvinist would respond:

1. This is scholarly material by Calvin, not a statement of belief like the Westminster Confession. The Westminster Confession is the standard for people believing in Reformed theology (although different versions of it are used), of which Calvin is the chief proponent. Augustine also was formative for the movement, notably close to agreement with TULIP.

The reason that Reformed thinkers are called Calvinists is that they have been habitually called it, and simply find it easier to go along with now. Don't be surprised if "Calvinists" call each other Reformed instead, because that is what they truly are.

Hence, statements like these by Calvin are not necessarily representative of Reformed thinkers. Other very formative names, for Calvinists today, that deserve a mention aside from Calvin and Augustine are thinkers such as Martin Bucer, Heinrich Bullinger, John Knox, Francis Turretin, and especially Jonathan Edwards.

2. God is able to cause things both inactively and actively, through Himself, personal agents, and impersonal agents.

3. Reformed belief applies to more than just TULIP:

Total depravity
Unconditional election
Limited atonement
Irresistible grace
Preservation of the saints

Rather, it was a general statement of faith intended for the Church of England as a whole; the document was drawn up by the 1646 Westminster Assembly.

And I quote:



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westminster_Confession_of_Faith

lukecash12,

I don't know how to say this except to say you're just wrong.
I mean, of course Calvin was not the only source of what is called Calvinist doctrine but the only Calvinists you'll find that will deny this stuff are those that I refer to as lay persons. People who are just regular folks that sit in a pew on Sunday and believe whatever the preacher says because he's the expert and they aren't and aren't interesting in becoming one. Any educated Calvinist will not deny a word of what I've said and in fact they'd likely be offended by your attempt to soften their core doctrines. And make no mistake, they do consider this to be a core doctrine.

And you, an Arminian, are every bit as much a product of the Reformation as any Calvinist. Their attempt to rename themselves serves them in two ways. It serves to muddy the water by distancing themselves from Calvin (not because of his doctrine but because he was a horrible human being) and it serves to obscure Arminianism! I'm not sure why you'd be willing to go along with that.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Totton Linnet]

Are you even listening to me? No one said God will save those who reject Him, i am saying He allows people the will to do so.

You are not listening closely to God's word.

He says it was the devil who sowed tares in His wheat field, you think the tares can be converted into wheat. It is the same word Jesus said to the Pharisees "ye are of your father the devil..."

 

[Totton Linnet]

How about this?

Isaiah 45:19
I have not spoken in secret, from somewhere in a land of darkness; I have not said to Jacob's descendants, 'Seek me in vain.' I, the LORD, speak the truth; I declare what is right.

Yes, yes

He said that to Jacob's descendants...the elect. He didn't say it to Pharoah's descendants or to the children of Anakim...they had no freewill....

 

[Angel4Truth]

You are not listening closely to God's word.

He says it was the devil who sowed tares in His wheat field, you think the tares can be converted into wheat. It is the same word Jesus said to the Pharisees "ye are of your father the devil..."

Galatians 3:22 But the Scripture has confined all under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.

Romans 11:32 For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.

You are not listening to Gods word, when you claim the offer of salvation is not given to all men.

 

[Totton Linnet]

Galatians 3:22 But the Scripture has confined all under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.

Romans 11:32 For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.

You are not listening to Gods word, when you claim the offer of salvation is not given to all men.

Well God is speaking of the Jews and Gentiles there, but it is an interesting point. The reason He consigned all under sin is that He might have mercy upon all.

He consigned Abel under sin as well as Cain, even though He foreknew Abel and predestined him to be conformed to the image of His Son....but Cain was always the murderer, it was the preaching of the cross that brought out his murderous spirit in him.

He consigned righteous Abel under sin that he might preach the gospel to Cain....

 

[Clete]

Your concern is ever so considerate, and may God bless you for it.

Please rest assured, monsieur, that I am well aware of the Neoplatonist philosophy from which Augustine derived much of his thoughts. If I may make a suggestion purely out of my own concern and love, it would help if we considered the principle of charity when we participate in dialogue together.

The Greek philosophical basis of many of the core doctrine of Calvinism are shared, at least in part, by Arminianism, as you seem to be aware. On what basis have you rejected Sola Scriptura and permitted Greek philosophy to persist in your core doctrines?

See posts #72 and #77 for explanations as to why "Calvinists" are actually "Reformed", and how not all of Calvin's writings are synonymous with Reformed thinking in general.

I agree that "not all of Calvin's writings are synonymous with Reformed thinking in general". But what I've quoted here and the concepts introduced in the opening post is not among those writing and concepts of Calvin that Calvinists reject. Calvinists are embarrassed by Calvin as a person not by his doctrinal positions. Calvin was a murderous tyrant and that is why Calvinists don't want to be tied to him so directly.

In your previous post you mentioned the Westminster Confession and other foundational Calvinist documents and authors. Which of them teach anything contrary to what I've presented in this thread that you are suggesting isn't in line with "Reformed Doctrine"?

I sympathize with this sentiment, because believing in unconditional election and compatibilism violates what I think is a more reasonable notion of free will.

If God either actively or inactively causes everything, to the effect that every cause He either allows or initiates Himself guarantees the result, we not only do have freedom in any meaningful sense, but we are not fully persons. I don't believe in compatibilism not only for those reasons, which I've only scratched the very surface of in summarizing, but for hermeneutic reasons; those biblical reasons being the first and most important reasons.

Okay, cool! I would just say that it isn't about what we think, its about what is true or false. We are not dealing with issues that are matters of opinion. Either the Calvinist is wrong, you are wrong or both. There's nothing wrong with stating the truth with firmness and conviction. If someone gets offended by the truth, allow the offense to work it's ministry.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Totton Linnet]

If the church would embrace election they would see themselves as set apart from the world for to be a witness to the world.

...a city set upon a hill

 

[Angel4Truth]

If the church would embrace election they would see themselves as set apart from the world for to be a witness to the world.

...a city set upon a hill

Whats the purpose of witnessing to the world, if Christ only died for some and we cant come to Him according to you?

 

[Totton Linnet]

Whats the purpose of witnessing to the world, if Christ only died for some and we cant come to Him according to you?

You came to Him....your neighbour didn't, what is that? just bad luck?

or perhaps there was some good thing in you which made you choose Christ, is that what you think?

His sheep hear His voice and they follow Him...[but of some He says] ye are of your father the devil and his lusts will ye do.

Howl as much as they like, nobody will persuade God to save the devil's children.

 

[Totton Linnet]

Whats the purpose of witnessing to the world, if Christ only died for some and we cant come to Him according to you?

Because we have brothers and sisters out there who are bone of our bone and flesh of our flesh but who at the present time walk lonely, in darkness...afraid, waiting for a voice, a word of hope and comfort.

Desiring a Saviour, someone who will bring them out of their darkness, who will place their feet upon a rock who will be their God.

If the church would embrace election and see themselves set apart, a holy people we would be like a city set upon a hill to such.

There are MILLIONS in America who are seeking something set apart and different but they don't see it in the church, because the church herself is unsure...wobbly, uncertain in her message.

 

[Angel4Truth]

Because we have brothers and sisters out there who are bone of our bone and flesh of our flesh but who at the present time walk lonely, in darkness...afraid, waiting for a voice, a word of hope and comfort.

Desiring a Saviour, someone who will bring them out of their darkness, who will place their feet upon a rock who will be their God.

If the church would embrace election and see themselves set apart, a holy people we would be like a city set upon a hill to such.

There are MILLIONS in America who are seeking something set apart and different but they don't see it in the church, because the church herself is unsure...wobbly, uncertain in her message.

The bolded is a contradiction if one cannot seek Him.

 

[Totton Linnet]

The bolded is a contradiction if one cannot seek Him.

No it isn't

It is God who seeks us and finds us and saves us...if you were sat at table with the Lord and He said

"you did not choose Me but I chose you"

will you gainsay Him?

We are born again not by the will of man or by the will of the flesh but by the will of God.

Why do people insist that it is their own "freewill"

Listen I gotta go to bed...so good night God bless you...we'll take up cudgels again another time

 

[Angel4Truth]

No it isn't

It is God who seeks us and finds us and saves us...if you were sat at table with the Lord and He said

"you did not choose Me but I chose you"

will you gainsay Him?

We are born again not by the will of man or by the will of the flesh but by the will of God.

Why do people insist that it is their own "freewill"

Listen I gotta go to bed...so good night God bless you...we'll take up cudgels again another time

Ive already quoted all the relevant verses that clearly show He died for all, not some and that we all have the opportunity to receive and respond to the gospel or to reject it.

Sleep well.

 

[Totton Linnet]

SO you are saying that God did not close their eyes and stop their ears or harden their hearts

uh... oh... well... that's funny because God said He did.

 

[Granite]

I see you abandoned your other thread. Gee, that's cute.

 

[Clete]

I see you abandoned your other thread. Gee, that's cute.

I haven't abandoned it. No one has posted there in a few days but I'm still subscribed. Is there something you feel I should have responded too?

 

[Granite]

I haven't abandoned it. No one has posted there in a few days but I'm still subscribed. Is there something you feel I should have responded too?

Eh, my last post, if you feel like it. Free country and all that.

 

[Clete]

Eh, my last post, if you feel like it. Free country and all that.

I was comfortable with letting you have the last word but I'll look it over. It wasn't my intention to make you think I was ignoring it.

 

[Granite]

I was comfortable with letting you have the last word but I'll look it over. It wasn't my intention to make you think I was ignoring it.

Hey man, no worries.:cheers: