The triune nature of God shows that love, communication, relationship, etc. are eternal. I do not see that it is self-evident that a solitary being (if God was not triune) could not know truth, righteousness, holiness, etc. if He is all-wise and all-knowing. Even without other witnesses in the Godhead, a solitary God would still know that He is righteous, chosing the highest good for Himself. Not being able to discern good from evil is not a quality of God, whether solitary or triune. The triune God adds the dimension of love and further witness, but does not change essential wisdom and knowledge of truth/error, right/wrong.
Is Calvinism Right?
- Thread starter Exegete
- Start date
Rolf Ernst
New member
Godrulz--concerning your post #54--STRONG immutability not held by classical theologians? There is no fuller statement of the Reformed faith than the
Westminster Confession of Faith. Check what IT says about God's immutability; better yet, refer to the Bible.
Westminster Confession of Faith. Check what IT says about God's immutability; better yet, refer to the Bible.
e.g. Num. 23:19 (will not vs cannot); I Sam. 15:29; Mal. 3:6; James 1:17;
These verses affirm that God is not fickle or capricious, because He is faithful. It refers to His moral character and essential attributes, not His relations and experiences which are dynamic and responsive. Other verses show that God can and did change His mind in response to changing circumstances (e.g. Gen. 6:5-8; I Sam. 15:10,39; Jonah; Hezekiah; Jer. 18).
The Westminister Confession is not infallible (can you link or quote the relevant section in context?). It is a statement of Calvinism, though much of it is biblical. What Bible verses do you use to support strong immutability (if you even know what I mean by this term).
Strong immutability is Platonic or Thomas Aquinas. Even Calvinistic theologians can support 'weak' immutability (see IVP Jay Wesley Richards "The Untamed God: A philosophical exploration of divine perfection, simplicity, and immutability"). Richards rightly sees that there are two ways to be unchanging (immutable): contingently or essentially. The incarnation and Flood is proof that God is changing in some senses. Strong immutability is problematic in that it makes God static and impersonal, less free than His creation (among other biblical and philosophical issues).
Last edited:
Romans 9 is the strongest chapter in the Bible to argue against Calvinism and predestination in particular.
Care for me to prove it? (Again)
This is bull if I ever heard it. Practically the whole Christian church is Reformed to one degree or another and almost none of them even knows that Jeremiah has an 18th chapter much less what it actually says and wouldn't know what it means if they did know. And this includes you! Did you know that Romans 9 is making the exact same point that Jer. 18 is making before you read it in one of my posts?
Which way is that exactly? It seems to me that I take your proof texts as figures of speech and you take my proof texts as figures of speech. The difference is that I can explain what the figures mean and you cannot. You simply relegate them to meaningless babble or ignore them altogether while I explain what they mean and why.
That's impossible, although I have the feeling that you believe that you have actually done so.
I have yet to find a single Calvinist who was able to explain any number of texts at all, much less explain them in such a way as to actually support their theology. Generally when asked to explain what these verses mean I get silence, they don't even try to answer at all and when I do get an answer its always an explanation of how the verse means the precise opposite of what it says.
This statement is question begging Rolf. It's self contradictory but I don't expect for you to see it. It's a subject for another discussion.
Okay Rolf, read my lips. THERE ARE NO CONTRADICTIONS IN THE BIBLE! NONE! ZERO! ZIP!
The Bible means what it says. If you have a doubt about what a passage means you can generally read it to a third grader and ask him what it means and whatever he says will almost certainly be correct. Such a "third grader hermeneutic" is not possible in the Calvinist worldview because there are simply thousands of passages that cannot mean what they say.
This would be funny if it weren't so tragically hypocritical. The Calvinist doctrine of the immutability of God can be directly traced to pagan Greek philosophy, to man's faulty logic which you so adamantly railed against only two paragraphs ago.
Resting in Him,
Clete
Rolf Ernst
New member
Cleter uses a lot of assertions in his posts, but scripture references are few. And those he does use, he is not willing to stick around long enough to discuss fully.
Ecumenicist
New member
Question:
Is there any way that Peter could not have betrayed Christ, as Christ
prophesied? Is there any way that Judas could have not betrayed
Christ, as his betrayal was a necessary part of the entire Passion?
Dave
Is there any way that Peter could not have betrayed Christ, as Christ
prophesied? Is there any way that Judas could have not betrayed
Christ, as his betrayal was a necessary part of the entire Passion?
Dave
You are a liar and a fool. You will recant this statement or we are finished with this discussion. I quote scripture all day long or else allude to it in some obvious manner and when I do not I use sound reason. I take Martin Luther's statement as my person motto...
"Unless I am convicted by Scripture and plain reason...my conscience is captive to the Word of God."
Man! This sort of crap really pisses me off! I have no idea how many dozens of hours I've spent replying to these same arguments over and over and over again, much of which was in direct response to you personally! What do you think; that all the thousands of posts on this board that I have written suddenly disappear because you can't find a way to defeat me in a debate? People don't even have to read all my post! All one has to do is look at one single thread for crying out loud and they'll see my rebutting your exact arguments only about a dozen different times in a half dozen different ways. I've refuted Calvinism so many times I'm sick to death of it! How many ways can one guy find to repeat himself before he has to blow his brains out just to dull the boredom!
I'm not kidding, you will either recant this idiotic statement or I've responded to you for the last time.
Resting in Him,
:Clete:
Last edited:
Rolf Ernst
New member
Clete-- Concerning your post #70: you haven't refuted Calvinism. You only THINK you have because of your faulty interpretations of the few scriptures you use. Of all the people on this forum, you are the one who most often responds to the posts of others with vehement personal opinions without any scriptural basis. Just as you are so inclined to call others liars and fools, so you have done so again. Aren't we surprised! Have you never read the warning by Jesus that he who calls anyone a fool is in danger of hellfire, Clete?
It was only about a week ago that you called me a liar because of my assertion that I had used the same scriptures Arminians and OVers used as their proof texts to show that those same scriptures themselves not only do not support the arminian/ov heresies, but actually DISPROVE them. You called me a liar for saying so. Well, I have done some digging in past threads which knight (an arminian/OVer, of course) chose to REMOVE FROM THE LISTS OF THREADS. Apparently they made him uncomfortable. NOW--since you laid a charge against me of being a liar, my FRIEND, I will for your personal benefit, repost those same threads whose existence you vehemently denied. For SOME reason, Mr. Clete, you found nothing you could say in response to some of those posts. Please don't suddenly get to busy at work to be involved here now.
It was only about a week ago that you called me a liar because of my assertion that I had used the same scriptures Arminians and OVers used as their proof texts to show that those same scriptures themselves not only do not support the arminian/ov heresies, but actually DISPROVE them. You called me a liar for saying so. Well, I have done some digging in past threads which knight (an arminian/OVer, of course) chose to REMOVE FROM THE LISTS OF THREADS. Apparently they made him uncomfortable. NOW--since you laid a charge against me of being a liar, my FRIEND, I will for your personal benefit, repost those same threads whose existence you vehemently denied. For SOME reason, Mr. Clete, you found nothing you could say in response to some of those posts. Please don't suddenly get to busy at work to be involved here now.
Last edited:
Rolf Ernst
New member
In response to Clete's frequent charges against me of being both a liar and a fool, I will let posts placed long ago stand as my defenders against his charges. Clete said I was a liar because I claimed to have used the very scriptures Arminians/OVers use as proof of their position to show that rather than proving Arminianism or OVism, they instead proved the Reformed faith to be the scriptural view. Below is the text I posted on the Attributes of God Forum on 02-22-2004 as a
new thread titled: 2 Pet. 3:9 Defeats the Arminian/ Open Theist View of Scripture.
"The Lord is not slack concerning His promise as some count slackness, but is longsuffering to usward, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance." 2 Pet. 3:9
This verse is used by many to claim that the reformed (Calvinistic) view of scripture is not biblical; but to the contrary, when it is fully considered, it proves that Calvinism is scrioptural and that the Arminian/Open View of scripture is not biblical.
Chapters two and three show Peter's concern about false teachings. In the second chapter he uses examples to show that God is able to punish or reward all according to their deeds. In the third chapter, he deals with one error in particular: unbelievers will scoff at what they consider the overdue promise of His return. Peter's response to the scoffing is that God is not slack concerning it. He then shows the reason He has not yet returned. Rather than being slack, He, in longsuffering, is giving a space for repentance because He is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
The typical Arminian/Open Theist reaction to this: "see, He is not willing that any individual of mankind perish. He wants all (each and every one) to come to repentance.
My, my. We do have a problem here. If He is delaying that coming in judgement because He doesn't want any in the arminian sense (according to their understanding) to perish then His measure of longsuffering is self defeating because the fact is that every day in every age, the broad road that leads to destruction has many more on it than the narrow road that leads to life. The longer He withholds His coming, the greater the number who DO perish. A great number each day are perishing--some estimate at least 95% of those who die. Therefore the Arminian understanding of why God has not yet returned in judgement shows the motive of His longsuffering to be self defeating.
The Reformed view does not at all see God's longsuffering as self defeating. It views God's longsuffering as performing exactly what He purposed in it. Who is He longsuffering toward? He is longsuffering to "usward": towards the elect; those whom He chose in Christ before the foundation of the world and promised to Christ as His seed whom He wouild see (Isa. 53:10) and be satisfied. He is not willing that ANY of those to whom Christ is the "Everlasting Father; the Prince of Peace" should perish. He will withhold His coming until they ALL come to repentance, no matter how many of the non-elect perish.
And that is exactly the outcome of His longsuffering. As Paul says in
verse 15, "consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation."
The only view of scripture which is in full accord with this text is the Reformed (calvinistic) view.
new thread titled: 2 Pet. 3:9 Defeats the Arminian/ Open Theist View of Scripture.
"The Lord is not slack concerning His promise as some count slackness, but is longsuffering to usward, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance." 2 Pet. 3:9
This verse is used by many to claim that the reformed (Calvinistic) view of scripture is not biblical; but to the contrary, when it is fully considered, it proves that Calvinism is scrioptural and that the Arminian/Open View of scripture is not biblical.
Chapters two and three show Peter's concern about false teachings. In the second chapter he uses examples to show that God is able to punish or reward all according to their deeds. In the third chapter, he deals with one error in particular: unbelievers will scoff at what they consider the overdue promise of His return. Peter's response to the scoffing is that God is not slack concerning it. He then shows the reason He has not yet returned. Rather than being slack, He, in longsuffering, is giving a space for repentance because He is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
The typical Arminian/Open Theist reaction to this: "see, He is not willing that any individual of mankind perish. He wants all (each and every one) to come to repentance.
My, my. We do have a problem here. If He is delaying that coming in judgement because He doesn't want any in the arminian sense (according to their understanding) to perish then His measure of longsuffering is self defeating because the fact is that every day in every age, the broad road that leads to destruction has many more on it than the narrow road that leads to life. The longer He withholds His coming, the greater the number who DO perish. A great number each day are perishing--some estimate at least 95% of those who die. Therefore the Arminian understanding of why God has not yet returned in judgement shows the motive of His longsuffering to be self defeating.
The Reformed view does not at all see God's longsuffering as self defeating. It views God's longsuffering as performing exactly what He purposed in it. Who is He longsuffering toward? He is longsuffering to "usward": towards the elect; those whom He chose in Christ before the foundation of the world and promised to Christ as His seed whom He wouild see (Isa. 53:10) and be satisfied. He is not willing that ANY of those to whom Christ is the "Everlasting Father; the Prince of Peace" should perish. He will withhold His coming until they ALL come to repentance, no matter how many of the non-elect perish.
And that is exactly the outcome of His longsuffering. As Paul says in
verse 15, "consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation."
The only view of scripture which is in full accord with this text is the Reformed (calvinistic) view.
Rolf Ernst
New member
In post #70 above, Clete responds to my charge that he makes many assertions but uses few scriptures by calling me a liar and a fool, saying he quotes scripture all day long but if you check Clete's response to my post on 2 Pet. 3:9, this is what you will see:
"Typical calvinism!
Take the plain simple reading of the text and figure out how it means the exact opposite of what it says.
Brilliant! You've probably convinced everybody with your theologiucal back flip!
The fact is that reformed theology is not even based on Scripture in the first place. Augustine is the one that really got this particular ball rolling and he based his ideas solely on the teachings of aristotle and Plato. He actually refused to become a Christian until his bishop (I think his name was ambrose) explained that all of the talk in the old testament about God changing inmanyways. (including changing His mind) didn't really mean what they said. Augustine didn't become a Christian..."
yatta, yatta, yatta. On and on he goes. If you check the post he offers to refute my view of 2 Pet. 2: 3-9 you will not find ONE SCRIPTURE USED BY CLETE. Then he calls me a liar and a fool for simply pointing that out. EXCUSE ME!! BUT WHAT IS THIS FORUM ABOUT?? The scripture, or baseless assertions people
want to make against others who use scripture? Don't be a bully, Clete!!!!!!!!!!!!
"Typical calvinism!
Take the plain simple reading of the text and figure out how it means the exact opposite of what it says.
Brilliant! You've probably convinced everybody with your theologiucal back flip!
The fact is that reformed theology is not even based on Scripture in the first place. Augustine is the one that really got this particular ball rolling and he based his ideas solely on the teachings of aristotle and Plato. He actually refused to become a Christian until his bishop (I think his name was ambrose) explained that all of the talk in the old testament about God changing inmanyways. (including changing His mind) didn't really mean what they said. Augustine didn't become a Christian..."
yatta, yatta, yatta. On and on he goes. If you check the post he offers to refute my view of 2 Pet. 2: 3-9 you will not find ONE SCRIPTURE USED BY CLETE. Then he calls me a liar and a fool for simply pointing that out. EXCUSE ME!! BUT WHAT IS THIS FORUM ABOUT?? The scripture, or baseless assertions people
want to make against others who use scripture? Don't be a bully, Clete!!!!!!!!!!!!
Last edited:
Rolf,
This will be the last post I make in response to you.
I just want to say clearly and emphatically that you, based on these last two or three posts alone, are, in fact, both a liar and a fool and I feel exact zero obligation to explain or prove why; its enough that you know that what I’m saying is the truth.
In addition, I stand behind every word of every post I've ever made. I am by no means perfect and have made more than one mistake but I have also been quick to acknowledge those errors and recant them when they are pointed out to me. I am, without a doubt, one of, if not the most intellectually honest person on this website and I am not afraid to either call them like I see them, or admit when I am wrong.
In addition to being both a liar and a fool, you are also a colossal jerk and I'm sorry to say an even larger waste of my time. If you don't like such things being said about you, perhaps you should complain to the one whom you believe predestined it all in the first place, or else change the way you act and think.
Until such time as that happens, I say good riddance!
Resting in Him,
:Clete:
Rolf Ernst
New member
Why, my goodness--how typical of you, Clete! Why don't you trot out by your own hand the response you made to my post on
2 Peter 3:2-9? And don't edit it to add some bible verses. Just show everybody how "intellectually honest" you are by reposting your response to my post on that text as you originally made it. You claimed to quote scripture all day, and you claim my post was not scriptural YET not ONE verse by you to demonstrate where I was on any point wrong in my post which showed that 2 Pet. 3:2-9 did not prove the Arminian, but the Reformed view of scripture.
If my post was so full of doctrinal errors, surely you can find at least ONE verse to respond with!
Why don't you stick around? I have other posts of yours which prove the point I made about your heavy use of assertions which you could not back up with scripture. I am just beginning to demonstrate that some verses you claimed supported arminian/OV do not do so, but instead prove the Reformed view of scripture is biblical.
Hey!! Clete!! is the kitchen getting too hot for you? You accuse people of being liars and fools and then when they just BEGIN to show how unjust your accusations are, you take a hike. Why not stand your ground? I have posted just ONE of a number of my posts to demonstrate to the people before whom you
called me a liar and a fool that your accusation was unjust and now you run off.
SUGGESTION: Since you claim to cite scripture so frequently, why don't you prove your point by trotting a few of your old posts out?? Demonstrate where you have a practice of citing scripture to back up your many assertions. We are waiting breathlessly.
2 Peter 3:2-9? And don't edit it to add some bible verses. Just show everybody how "intellectually honest" you are by reposting your response to my post on that text as you originally made it. You claimed to quote scripture all day, and you claim my post was not scriptural YET not ONE verse by you to demonstrate where I was on any point wrong in my post which showed that 2 Pet. 3:2-9 did not prove the Arminian, but the Reformed view of scripture.
If my post was so full of doctrinal errors, surely you can find at least ONE verse to respond with!
Why don't you stick around? I have other posts of yours which prove the point I made about your heavy use of assertions which you could not back up with scripture. I am just beginning to demonstrate that some verses you claimed supported arminian/OV do not do so, but instead prove the Reformed view of scripture is biblical.
Hey!! Clete!! is the kitchen getting too hot for you? You accuse people of being liars and fools and then when they just BEGIN to show how unjust your accusations are, you take a hike. Why not stand your ground? I have posted just ONE of a number of my posts to demonstrate to the people before whom you
called me a liar and a fool that your accusation was unjust and now you run off.
SUGGESTION: Since you claim to cite scripture so frequently, why don't you prove your point by trotting a few of your old posts out?? Demonstrate where you have a practice of citing scripture to back up your many assertions. We are waiting breathlessly.
Last edited:
I know TOL encourages debate, but...DUDES!
I have been watching the exchange between Rolf and Clete in this thread and the one about Calvinism making Knight furious, and have even made a few replies. I have not bothered to reply again to Clete's replies to me because the Scriptures I would use to support my belief in God's omniscience and sovereignty are the same, most likely, as those that Rolf has used, or at least they would be nothing that Clete hasn't seen before.
I have been reading this forum for 2-3 months and I am coming to a greater understanding of the "Open View." I just tried reading Romans 9-11 with "Open View" glasses on, and I can see how the passage could be interpreted as consistent with that view. I suppose if I read it with "Reformed" glasses on, I would find an interpretation consistent with those offered by their commentators. I would like to think that my interpretation of that passage is based on reading it with clear glasses, but I'm honest enough to admit to you, and myself, that I am probably reading it with "Dispensationalist/4-point Calvinist" glasses on. I think we all tend to read and interpret the Scriptures in light of the system we've accepted, and that we all tend to think our system is the right one. I have seen only a handful of people change systems in my 30+ years as a Christian.
If it were possible to wipe the slate clean and base a system upon a book-by-book, chapter-by-chapter, verse-by-verse study of the Scriptures, I wonder what we'd REALLY come up with? Perhaps no system at all...
Rolf and Clete, I gather that you both believe in the deity of Christ, the literal resurrection of Christ, and salvation by grace through faith, and have many other important beliefs in common. I consider both of you to be within the boundaries of orthodoxy, consider both of you to be my brothers in Christ, and expect to meet both of you in eternity someday.
Do you consider each other to be brothers in Chirst?
Do you think that either of you live your life differently than the other because of your differing beliefs?
I have been watching the exchange between Rolf and Clete in this thread and the one about Calvinism making Knight furious, and have even made a few replies. I have not bothered to reply again to Clete's replies to me because the Scriptures I would use to support my belief in God's omniscience and sovereignty are the same, most likely, as those that Rolf has used, or at least they would be nothing that Clete hasn't seen before.
I have been reading this forum for 2-3 months and I am coming to a greater understanding of the "Open View." I just tried reading Romans 9-11 with "Open View" glasses on, and I can see how the passage could be interpreted as consistent with that view. I suppose if I read it with "Reformed" glasses on, I would find an interpretation consistent with those offered by their commentators. I would like to think that my interpretation of that passage is based on reading it with clear glasses, but I'm honest enough to admit to you, and myself, that I am probably reading it with "Dispensationalist/4-point Calvinist" glasses on. I think we all tend to read and interpret the Scriptures in light of the system we've accepted, and that we all tend to think our system is the right one. I have seen only a handful of people change systems in my 30+ years as a Christian.
If it were possible to wipe the slate clean and base a system upon a book-by-book, chapter-by-chapter, verse-by-verse study of the Scriptures, I wonder what we'd REALLY come up with? Perhaps no system at all...
Rolf and Clete, I gather that you both believe in the deity of Christ, the literal resurrection of Christ, and salvation by grace through faith, and have many other important beliefs in common. I consider both of you to be within the boundaries of orthodoxy, consider both of you to be my brothers in Christ, and expect to meet both of you in eternity someday.
Do you consider each other to be brothers in Chirst?
Do you think that either of you live your life differently than the other because of your differing beliefs?
I am reading D.A. Carson's "Exegetical Fallacies".
Ideally, we should exegete relevant Scriptures on various issues. We tend to degenerate into personal attacks and create more heat than light. To teach, we should be teachable. None of us are immune to exegetical fallacies (e.g. root fallacy...pineapple is not an apple on a pine tree yet we sometimes artificially divide Greek words up with the result of a false meaning...e.g. 'monogenes'...does not mean only begotten/beget, the two root words....the combined word means more like unique, one and only).
Ideally, we should exegete relevant Scriptures on various issues. We tend to degenerate into personal attacks and create more heat than light. To teach, we should be teachable. None of us are immune to exegetical fallacies (e.g. root fallacy...pineapple is not an apple on a pine tree yet we sometimes artificially divide Greek words up with the result of a false meaning...e.g. 'monogenes'...does not mean only begotten/beget, the two root words....the combined word means more like unique, one and only).