Right Divider
Body part
The Calvinist "doctrine of election" is hogwash invented in an evil mind.
In the BIBLE, there are several different types of election and none of them match the Calvinist hogwash.
On the omniscience of God
- Thread starter JudgeRightly
- Start date
In the BIBLE, there are several different types of election and none of them match the Calvinist hogwash.
Bladerunner
Active member
yet until the fall of Adam, there was no evil in Eden...Yet after the fall.....It states that : "and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:" From this point we can surmise that death and sin was a curse upon mankind........"upon all men; All have sinned" The passage does NOT READ 'Death passed upon all men who have sinned'.......Use your noggin a little.
Bladerunner
Active member
It is obvious that we are at odds as far as correct reading and interpretation......Rem. this and it is straight to the point.....ONLY GOD KNOWS!
Bladerunner
Active member
Here let me give you the majority of scripture for each point..
Attachments
Right Divider
Body part
This verse is about an "elect" called the Lord Jesus Christ.
Isa 42:1 (AKJV/PCE)
(42:1) Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, [in whom] my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles.
Bladerunner
Active member
you saying Jesus Christ is the elect in this verse?
Right Divider
Body part
Are you really that dense?
@Clete
I apologize for the delayed response. I have been going through some changes over the last week and in the process I lost my login information.
You may (or may not) be happy to know that I am no longer a Calvinist. I may create a thread to explain how exactly that happened.
Long story short, I no longer believe that finite men can explain an infinite God by creating a systematic theology. With God, it’s not as simple as 2 + 2 = 4. God is beyond any mathematical equation we can try to narrow Him down to, therefore I now reject it.
I apologize for the delayed response. I have been going through some changes over the last week and in the process I lost my login information.
You may (or may not) be happy to know that I am no longer a Calvinist. I may create a thread to explain how exactly that happened.
Long story short, I no longer believe that finite men can explain an infinite God by creating a systematic theology. With God, it’s not as simple as 2 + 2 = 4. God is beyond any mathematical equation we can try to narrow Him down to, therefore I now reject it.
Bladerunner
Active member
really, is that the best you can do..rewrite it to make it more understandable.
Right Divider
Body part
It was as clear as can be.
If you can't understand the obvious, that's on you.
No thank you, I feel like I have been brainwashed and no longer wish to participate in theological discussions. I will go back to studying on my own and coming to my own conclusions. Do whatever needs to be done with these accounts. Thank you and God Bless.
In Calvinist theology, the doctrine of election asserts that, before the creation of the world, God sovereignly and unconditionally chose certain individuals for salvation. This selection is not based on any foreseen merit, faith, or action on the part of the chosen, but solely on God's mercy and divine will. Those whom God has elected will inevitably come to faith in Christ and attain salvation, as God's grace to the elect is both irresistible and effective. This doctrine underscores God's absolute sovereignty in the process of salvation and is a central tenet of Calvinist soteriology.
Those aren't my words. They happen to be a quote from Wikipedia and it is quite accurate. However, people, especially intellectually dishonest people like yourself, find any association of something with Wikipedia as a good reason to dismiss it whether it happens to accurate or not, therefore I have gone through the trouble of getting the doctrine from the proverbial horse's mouths, including from both prominent Calvinists and from source document....
In Calvinist theology, the doctrine of election, specifically termed "unconditional election," asserts that God, by His sovereign will and without any foreseen merit or action on the part of individuals, has chosen certain people for salvation. This choice is not based on human actions or decisions but solely on God's mercy and purpose. As articulated by theologian R.C. Sproul, "God does not foresee an action or condition on our part that induces Him to save us. Rather, election rests on God’s sovereign decision to save whomever He is pleased to save." - Ligonier Ministries
"Election is the unchangeable purpose of God whereby, before the foundation of the world, He has out of mere grace, according to the sovereign good pleasure of His own will, chosen from the whole human race...a certain number of persons to redemption in Christ." - Canons of Dort
"By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life, and others foreordained to everlasting death" (WCF 3.3).
"Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life, God, before the foundation of the world was laid...hath chosen in Christ, unto everlasting glory, out of His mere free grace and love, without any foresight of faith or good works" (WCF 3.5).
“Election is the cause of good works, and not the reverse.” - (Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 22, Section 1)
“By predestination we mean the eternal decree of God, by which He determined with Himself whatever He willed to happen with regard to every man. All are not created on equal terms, but some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation.” - (Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 21, Section 5)
“God is moved to mercy for no other reason but that he wills to be merciful.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 22, Paragraph 8)
“… predestination to glory is the cause of predestination to grace, rather than the converse.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 22, Paragraph 9)
“Therefore, those whom God passes over, he condemns; and this he does for no other reason than that he wills to exclude them from the inheritance which he predestines for his own children.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 23, Paragraph 1)
“We cannot assign any reason for his bestowing mercy on his people, but just as it so pleases him, neither can we have any reason for his reprobating others but his will.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 22, Paragraph 11)
Now, that is my understanding of the doctrine of election. More precisely, it IS the doctrine of election. The degree to which you disagree with it, is the degree to which you disagree with one of the most important tenets of Calvinism. I doubt very much that you could even rightly call yourself a Calvinist at all if you disagree with what is posted above.
Well, I have no idea whether you'll see this post or not but the single thing that I would leave you with is this...
First of all, you've taken an important first step in your rejection of Calvinism. It is flagrantly irrational, not to mention unbiblical. I would however caution you against over reacting and concluding that because Calvinism turned out to be false that no understanding of God is possible at all.
Attempting to FULLY understand God is a false and foolish goal. He far transcends His creation. That, however, does not mean that He cannot be understood at all. Quite the contrary. We were created by Him for the purpose of having a relationship with Him. It would therefore be equally foolish to throw up one's hands and, in exasperation, declare God to be beyond any understanding. Just because we are finite doesn't mean we are stupid or that God failed to create us with the ability to have a meaningful relationship with Him. In actual fact, we are not as finite as the Calvinists would have you believe. Our existence, once begun will not ever end. The bible tells us that God has put infinity into our hearts and our length of days will indeed approach infinity. There is, in fact, a verse of scripture that concisely says what this wordy paragraph attempts to communicate...
Ecclesiastes 3:11 He has made everything beautiful in its time. Also He has put eternity in their hearts, except that no one can find out the work that God does from beginning to end.
One thing, in particular, that you need to grab hold of and cling to no matter what....
There is no such thing as an irrational truth!
Indeed, to be irrational is what it means for something to be false. Therefore, any doctrine you find that teaches something that is self-contradictory or that contradicts some other known truth can and should be confidently rejected on that basis alone.
Why?
Because God is Truth - capital T. Meaning that He is the very embodiment of truth itself. John calls God the Son, the Logos (John 1). The Greek word "logos" conveys the same means as the English word "reason" as in "a proper process of thought" or "correct use of logic". Notice the similarity between the Greek word "logos" and the English word "logic". That isn't coincidental.
Also, God has given us a rather thick book by which He communicates to us, not only that He exists but who He is, what sort of person He is, what He likes and what He doesn't like, what sort of person He wants us to be and what sort of person He calls a friend. From both God's word and from simple reason, we can know with certainty that God is living, personal, rational, relational, loving and righteous. These aren't the only attributes of God but they are the foundational attributes of God. I say that because these are the qualitative attributes of God. The quantitative attributes are things that have to do with how much power God has, how big He is and how much God knows, etc. The bible itself teaches us that God's righteousness (i.e. the quality of His character) is the foundation of His authority.
- Psalm 89:14 Righteousness and justice are the foundation of Your throne; Mercy and truth go before Your face.
- Psalm 97:2 Clouds and darkness surround Him; Righteousness and justice are the foundation of His throne.
So to sum this up I would urge you to do the following two things...
- Start from the premise that God is living, personal, rational, relational, loving and righteous. (i.e. things like kindness and justice are included in those by extension).
- ALL doctrine must be BOTH biblical AND rational.
@Sherman - Maybe you could send this post to him via email. Is that permitted? I really want him to see it!
Last edited:
That flat out is NOT what the passage says! Sin is not the curse, sin is the cause of the curse!
A curse, by the way, which has been undone!
Romans 5:15 But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by the one man’s offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many. 16 And the gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned. For the judgment which came from one offense resulted in condemnation, but the free gift which came from many offenses resulted in justification. 17 For if by the one man’s offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.)
18 Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. 19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous.
In other words, your doctrine here would only be correct if the innocent Jesus hadn't willingly offered up His own life as a means to rectify the very problem that you are attempt to suggest hasn't been rectified!
I'm telling you, there will not be one single person anywhere who finds himself in Hell because of Adam's sin, except perhaps Adam (i.e. I expect to see Adam in Heaven but I don't actually know anything about Adam's relationship with God at the time of his death).
Ezekiel 18:20 The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.
God is just!Therefore, Calvinism is false!
Well, yeah! It basically does! The verse explicitly states "BECAUSE all sinned".
Where's the hostility coming from? I haven't insulted you at all and have done nothing but respond directly to the points you have made with clear arguments. Arguments that you have mostly ignored or blown off as though I don't have any idea what I'm talking about. If either of us has a reason to be offended here it's me. Not that I'm surprised by your conduct. Calvinists are all clowns who, if brains were dynamite, wouldn't have enough to blow the fuzz off a peach.
Last edited:
Lon
Well-known member
2 Timothy 2:24 And a servant of the Lord must not quarrel but be gentle to all, able to teach, patient
I've seen leaps and bounds in you on this, Clete. Keep it up brother!
While you are doing well, there are a good number of laughing 'likes' on his posts. While icons are rudimentary, a lot of people of opposing theology feel heat on TOL. Maybe not you at all.
Many years ago (20?) Knight made a thread just for me. The discussion was my theology vs. his in what was supposed to be a friendly discussion. The main problem with that thread was it was superficial. We were arguing the details without really seeing the forest for the trees. It wasn't a productive thread because we were missing the forest for the trees, looking too much at the details rather than the overarching themes in conflict. When we buy a whole system of theology, there are priori that need dealt with first. Details can get there, but it is the long way around because we aren't dealing with the over arching themes of contest, but the pawns in play as it were. Chess near always starts with pawns.
He has a solid grip on his Calvinist theology. This is the over-arching theme to be addressed. Our truths reflect our overarching paradigms and they are the major warriors in this combat (Total Depravity). You are doing well here, Clete (I'm listening for one). Doing the wave "Theology! Theology! Theology!" Truth will out. In Him -Lon
I appreciate the kind words but I can't take credit for having changed. I have all the insufferably stupid people on ignore. I've always been as patient as can be with anyone who posts actual arguments.
Nice analogy!
I understand precisely what you mean. Most theological disagreements of any importance are almost always rooted in paradigm level concepts. That's a BIG problem because most of the time the connections made within one paradigm are completely invisible from within another and what ends up happening is that a particular detail from one paradigm is being analyzed and usually rejected on the basis of how it would fit within a different paradigm, which is question begging.
That happens to be also one major reason why Calvinism is so easy to refute. Their paradigm isn't all that different from other sects of Christianity. Rather than building a consistent theological system based on a particular premise, what they've done is to force the regular Christian paradigm to fit their premises by redefining nearly every significant word that has any application to the Christian worldview. If one does nothing at all but simply stick with the normal meaning of very common words, their system falls completely apart.
Mid-Acts dispensationalism, on the other hand, is quite different. It's nearly impossible for it to fit inside most Christian's head unless and until they have the light bulb moment when their paradigm shifts and it suddenly so clear and obvious that it's literally difficult to believe that they didn't see it before and then the table is turned and they become frustrated at how difficult it is to get that light to come on for other people.
I do not believe that Calvinism is able to be solidly grasped. It is inherently irrational. It is intentionally irrational.
"How it was ordained by the foreknowledge and decree of God what man's future was without God being implicated as an associate in the fault, as the author or approver of transgression, is clearly a secret so much excelling the insight of the human mind, that I am not ashamed to confess ignorance." - (Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 23, Section 8)
"Man falls according as God's providence ordains, but he falls by his own fault. Therefore, let us hold to the distinction, which is clearly shown in Scripture, that man’s perdition depends on God’s predestination in such a manner that the cause and matter of it are found in himself." - (Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 23, Section 8)
"The real trouble is that our idea of these things is bound to involve mystery at certain points. This is inevitable because, as Scripture makes plain, we are dealing with divine realities, and divine realities transcend human comprehension." - (J.I. Packer - Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God, p. 23)
"There are truths in Scripture that are clearly taught but which seem to be in tension with one another. The classic example is divine sovereignty and human responsibility... These are not contradictions but an antinomy." - (R.C. Sproul - Chosen by God, p. 27)
In short, they see the contradictions within their system and do not care. Worse than that, they want for there to be contradiction! Their doctrine demands that there be contradiction and so expect to find it and would count it as a problem if they didn't. Calvinists assert that theological mysteries are inevitable because finite human minds cannot grasp the infinite nature of God. For them, a fully self-consistent theological system would imply a diminished view of God.A person who has accepted such things has the opposite of a firm grasp but has cut the mooring lines of his mind!
When reason yields to "mystery's" tide,
The Word is veiled and truth denied.
What once was clear before our eyes,
Now shifts and fades in dark disguise.
The mind once bright with fullest light,
Now dims to dank and darkest night.
In wisdom's way a path I find,
but mystery's ways are undefined.
(Yeah, I wrote that!
)Bladerunner
Active member
I dare say that you could give me so many verses that totally support your interpretation of the Bible.
Bladerunner
Active member
Yes, we agree here
No, we are not told HOW GOD determines the Elect other than His divine will....we cannot assume that he has excluded those parts you seem to know that all about (any foreseen merit, faith, or action on part of the chosen). In fact we cannot exclude anything when it comes to the Elect for to put it simply, we do not know.
Yes, we can agree here
Which doctrine,,, there are 5 + 1 (sovereign will of GOD). the only one you present is "is both irresistible and effective."
will rem this next time I venture to quote from WIKI. Its accuracy is another point of view.
why is it people of other theologies (yourself included) resort to disparaging the other debater or person in the conversation....?????
There are many areas where Wiki is more accurate that those areas like Biblical theology where there are many who can and do change Wiki to their view of the Bible. Of course, it is a good aide for those that believe in other theologies as you do.
The author here is stating we do not know how GOD chooses. Yet, in the following statement, the author states that His choice is not based on anything we do....WE DO NOT KNOW that as a fact. The Bible, God's WORD does not tell us.
While I like to listen to R.C. Sproul, his words above (in Bold type) tells me to be very carefull when listening to him, why,,,,HE DOES NOT KNOW that God does not foresee an action or condition on our part that induces Him to save us. Yet, He comes back with the a statement that is more in line of what GOD's Word tells us.
While I do not agree with many parts of the Canons of Dort, I willl agree with this.
do not agree with this statement from Westminister.......
I do not abide by any part of the WCF
This statement leads to all kinds of problems....as is Election is not the cause of GOOD WORKS. With Justification, comes Sanctification or the learning from the Holy Spirit and producing good works.
I do not agree with many ideas that John Calvin had...what He did do was to make the Doctrines of Election (known as Tulip) popular.
I agree
This statement is a bit overboard and is saying that God's Grace depends of His Glory. The other way around, His Grace shows off His Glory,.
This is another wild view of John Calvin, I disagree.
How can a person be reprobated (assigning a person to have bad character and habits
by GOD...God did not make Man to sin.......John Calvin brought out the doctrines of Election(by the way doctrines that are and were denied by the RCC) and made them popular. Before this time of the Reformation, these doctrines and many others were hidden by the RCC and brought out by Martin Luther and is sidekick John Calvin. You have only touched on 1/5 of the doctrines of Election...Where are the rest???
In the above statements, I have responded to your post and have relied on you to present them in a truthful/accurate form of which I have not fact checked.
Have a good evening.
So, after writing a rather lengthy response to this post, I hit some weird combination of keys and accidentally wiped the entire thing out. What follows is, believe it or not, an abbreviated version....Yes, we agree here
No, we are not told HOW GOD determines the Elect other than His divine will....we cannot assume that he has excluded those parts you seem to know that all about (any foreseen merit, faith, or action on part of the chosen). In fact we cannot exclude anything when it comes to the Elect for to put it simply, we do not know.
Yes, we can agree here
Which doctrine,,, there are 5 + 1 (sovereign will of GOD). the only one you present is "is both irresistible and effective."
will rem this next time I venture to quote from WIKI. Its accuracy is another point of view.
why is it people of other theologies (yourself included) resort to disparaging the other debater or person in the conversation....?????
There are many areas where Wiki is more accurate that those areas like Biblical theology where there are many who can and do change Wiki to their view of the Bible. Of course, it is a good aide for those that believe in other theologies as you do.
The author here is stating we do not know how GOD chooses. Yet, in the following statement, the author states that His choice is not based on anything we do....WE DO NOT KNOW that as a fact. The Bible, God's WORD does not tell us.
While I like to listen to R.C. Sproul, his words above (in Bold type) tells me to be very carefull when listening to him, why,,,,HE DOES NOT KNOW that God does not foresee an action or condition on our part that induces Him to save us. Yet, He comes back with the a statement that is more in line of what GOD's Word tells us.
While I do not agree with many parts of the Canons of Dort, I willl agree with this.
do not agree with this statement from Westminister.......
I do not abide by any part of the WCF
This statement leads to all kinds of problems....as is Election is not the cause of GOOD WORKS. With Justification, comes Sanctification or the learning from the Holy Spirit and producing good works.
I do not agree with many ideas that John Calvin had...what He did do was to make the Doctrines of Election (known as Tulip) popular.
I agree
This statement is a bit overboard and is saying that God's Grace depends of His Glory. The other way around, His Grace shows off His Glory,.
This is another wild view of John Calvin, I disagree.
How can a person be reprobated (assigning a person to have bad character and habits
John Calvin brought out the doctrines of Election(by the way doctrines that are and were denied by the RCC) and made them popular. Before this time of the Reformation, these doctrines and many others were hidden by the RCC and brought out by Martin Luther and is sidekick John Calvin. You have only touched on 1/5 of the doctrines of Election...Where are the rest???
In the above statements, I have responded to your post and have relied on you to present them in a truthful/accurate form of which I have not fact checked.
Have a good evening.
First of all I do not disparage you for the sake of disparagement, nor do I do it because you hold a different doctrinal position. I do it because you've earned it. When you stop being snide, snarky and intellectually dishonest and start being substantive and responsive then our conversation will be far more congenial and productive. I'd have to say that this post of yours is at least a step in the right direction because I don't detect any snark but one liners are a waste of time as is changing the subject.
As for most of the rest of the post, my response is simply that I do not care what you think the doctrine of election should be any more that Calvinists would. That isn't what my post was about and even if it were, you don't get to define it. You made the assertion that I do not understand what the doctrine of election is and my post was presented as proof that I do. The degree to which you disagree with the doctrine is entirely and completely irrelevant to what the doctrine actually teaches which is precisely as I have presented it both here in this thread and throughout my 25 plus years of debating it on this website.
Also, I should spend some time emphasizing that you do not get to cherry pick doctrines that you want to believe. Words mean things and ideas have consequences. The doctrines of Calvinism are not derived from scripture. Calvinist like to pretend that they are and they have whole lists of proof-texts that they like to quote when asked to do so but that isn't really where their doctrines come from, including the doctrine of election. Their entire system, including all five TULIP doctrines along with your favorite, the idea that God is in absolute and exhaustive control of every single thing that happens, are logically derived from one single premise. That premise being the absolute immutability of God. Meaning that God cannot change in ANY WAY whatsoever. If that doctrine is false in any way, regarding any aspect of God's existence whatsoever, the entire system comes crumbling to the ground.
If you accept that single premise then you are logically required to accept the entire system as they teach it! A lot of really intelligent men who are much smarter than you have thought this stuff through for centuries. You just simply don't get to pick it apart and think your appeal to the bible matters in the least. You can quote the bible until you're blue in the face and it won't move an educated Calvinist one single inch because they know full well that these doctrines are logically necessary if they are to believe in immutability which is their crown jewel, their prized pearl for which no price is too high to pay. They will sacrifice ANY doctrine whatsoever in order to preserve the solitary idea that God cannot change because they believe to do so is blasphemy.