|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Calvinism - One Stop Thread - 7/11/2005 4:03:55 PM
|
|
|
NewinChrist
Posts: 89
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: TheoJunkie
Just a note: the correct spelling is "assimilated".
And the correct phrase is "Resistance is history. You are assimilated."
And the correct response is "Thank God."
Yes, these were the last comments from those who embrace the gospel of calvinism..
"So what if they resist.. they will be assimilated..."
..and..
"Eventually they (those who resist the spirit) will come to Christ.."
I had asked about the Hebrews 10 scriptures which speak of the greater punishment 'for those who would trodden under foot the Son of God and count the blood of the covenant wherewith they were sanctified as an unholy thing despite the spirit of grace'.. and these were the responses.. oh yeah, and funny faces too.. but the "so what..they will be assimilated has got to be the best I've heard yet.. and then there's your "Thank God"..
This is where it basically left off before being closed down for the weekend..
...anyway..
Hope everyone had a nice weekend !
Thanks be to our Saviour and Lord Jesus Christ.. the God of the living, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob !
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism - One Stop Thread - 7/11/2005 4:12:31 PM
|
|
|
turretinfan
Posts: 5276
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Death to Life by the Power of the Spirit
Status: offline
|
NIC,
I would like to point out a distinction; some who are calling themselves Calvinists here are proposing the first, and some the second theology (as I see things):
1) That God, by His Spirit, works in the hearts of the elect changing their wills so that they ultimately do not resist (although they may or may not "resist" the call of the gospel, prior to regeneration).
2) That God, by His Spirit, overcomes the resistance of the heart of wicked elect thereby regenerating them.
I'm not sure either one is completely accuracte vis-a-vis Calvin's actual teachings, but both are adequate explanations of irresistable grace. The usual explanation does permit "grace" to be a reference to other kinds of grace than saving grace. Accordingly, it would not be contradictory to assert that other kinds of grace than saving grace are resistable and oft resisted.
-Turretinfan
_____________________________
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism - One Stop Thread - 7/11/2005 4:42:48 PM
|
|
|
TheoJunkie
Posts: 2201
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Death to Life
Status: offline
|
NIC,
The Gospel is good news... not bad news.
Thank God.
_____________________________
-John
God is God. Get used to it.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism - One Stop Thread - 7/11/2005 4:55:34 PM
|
|
|
chrisxs
Posts: 13
Joined: 7/1/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: turretinfan
NIC,
I would like to point out a distinction; some who are calling themselves Calvinists here are proposing the first, and some the second theology (as I see things):
1) That God, by His Spirit, works in the hearts of the elect changing their wills so that they ultimately do not resist (although they may or may not "resist" the call of the gospel, prior to regeneration).
2) That God, by His Spirit, overcomes the resistance of the heart of wicked elect thereby regenerating them.
I'm not sure either one is completely accuracte vis-a-vis Calvin's actual teachings, but both are adequate explanations of irresistable grace. The usual explanation does permit "grace" to be a reference to other kinds of grace than saving grace. Accordingly, it would not be contradictory to assert that other kinds of grace than saving grace are resistable and oft resisted.
-Turretinfan
This sounds like a good explanation of the doctrine of irresistable grace, but can you back it up with scripture? I do not find it.
The Bible is clear that the Holy Spirit and the grace of God can be resisted - Acts 7:51 talks about the Jewish leaders being stiffnecked and resisting the Holy Spirit. Hebrews 10, as NIC quoted, talks about those who insult the spirit of grace (and that is talking about believers). Genesis 6 says that Gods spirit will not always strive with man, and it nowhere indicates he will overpower them.
The Bible nowhere indicates that there is a "special" grace given that is irresistable above this. It says that the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to ALL men (in Titus - through the incarnation of Christ and the conviction of the Holy Spirit)
The Holy Spirit convicts men of sin, righteousness and judgement (John 16) but it does not say that he converts them prior to regeneration. Spurgeon said in regards to the belief that regeneration precedes faith:
quote:
If I am to preach faith in Christ to a man who is regenerated, then the man, being regenerated, is saved already, and it is an unnecessary and ridiculous thing for me to preach Christ to him, and bid him to believe in order to be saved when he is saved already, being regenerate. But you will tell me that I ought to preach it only to those who repent of their sins. Very well; but since true repentance of sin is the work of the Spirit, any man who has repentance is most certainly saved, because evangelical repentance never can exist in an unrenewed soul. Where there is repentance there is faith already, for they never can be separated. So, then, I am only to preach faith to those who have it. Absurd, indeed! Is not this waiting till the man is cured and then bringing him the medicine? This is preaching Christ to the righteous and not to sinners (The Warrant of Faith, Sermon at Metropolitan Tabernacle, September 20th, 1863)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism - One Stop Thread - 7/11/2005 5:07:16 PM
|
|
|
turretinfan
Posts: 5276
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Death to Life by the Power of the Spirit
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: chrisxs
This sounds like a good explanation of the doctrine of irresistable grace, but can you back it up with scripture? I do not find it.
Yes, I can back it up with Scripture.
quote:
The Bible is clear that the Holy Spirit and the grace of God can be resisted - Acts 7:51 talks about the Jewish leaders being stiffnecked and resisting the Holy Spirit. Hebrews 10, as NIC quoted, talks about those who insult the spirit of grace (and that is talking about believers). Genesis 6 says that Gods spirit will not always strive with man, and it nowhere indicates he will overpower them.
If "it" means Genesis 6, you are correct, but John 16:33 says that God has "overcome the world," doesn't it?
quote:
The Bible nowhere indicates that there is a "special" grace given that is irresistable above this. It says that the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to ALL men (in Titus - through the incarnation of Christ and the conviction of the Holy Spirit)
It has appeared to all men, but it has not rested on all. The grace that brings salvation is a special grace, whether "special" is used with it or not.
quote:
The Holy Spirit convicts men of sin, righteousness and judgement (John 16) but it does not say that he converts them prior to regeneration. Spurgeon said in regards to the belief that regeneration precedes faith:
Ah, but it does say that: Psalm 19:7 -- The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul:
As for Spurgeon - I don't consider him much of theologian - a great and eloquent preacher, but not very systematic. The bottom line of the portion you cited, though, is that one preaches the gospel as though to an unregenerate person. He affirms the order of regeneration, faith, and repentence taught generally.
-Turretinfan
_____________________________
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism - One Stop Thread - 7/11/2005 5:22:46 PM
|
|
|
bygraceiamsaved
Posts: 1748
Status: offline
|
It's hard to just sit and let Spurgeon be misquoted. All of a sermon is necessary in order to get the context of a quote. Same with Calvin or anyone else who is quoted. The sermon "Warrant of the Faith"context of "The Warrant of Faith" sermon which was quoted out of context was the law and the gospel.
Here is Spurgeon's "In defense of Calvinism."
http://www.spurgeon.org/calvinis.htm
quote:
I do not come into this pulpit hoping that perhaps somebody will of his own free will return to Christ. My hope lies in another quarter. I hope that my Master will lay hold of some of them and say, "You are mine, and you shall be mine. I claim you for myself." My hope arises from the freeness of grace, and not from the freedom of the will.
Charles Haddon Spurgeon
And a whole sermon on regeneration by Charles Spurgeon.
http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0130.htm
and the whole Warrant of Faith sermon in it's entirety to enable proper context.
http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0531.htm
Spurgeon was 100% Calvinist and did believe in regeneration first and foremost, what he railed against were the hyper-calvinists who believed that one need not preach the gospel at all to anyone as those who are elected to come to faith will be brought to faith without the gospel which of course is ludicrous and unbiblical. There were some hyper-calvinists who believed the gospel should only be preached to certain ones which is equally ludicrous and unbiblical. He stood up to those who were both hyper calvinists and to Arminians believing both to be wrong.
I consider Spurgeon to be both a great theologian and a great expositor of the Bible. He knew it inside out and upside down. He is an excellent read in both categories.
< Message edited by bygraceiamsaved -- 7/11/2005 5:35:19 PM >
_____________________________
"Man is never sufficiently touched and affected by the awareness of his lowly state until he has compared himself with God's majesty"---John Calvin
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism - One Stop Thread - 7/11/2005 5:44:02 PM
|
|
|
bygraceiamsaved
Posts: 1748
Status: offline
|
From the Warrant of the Faith"
II. The WARRANT OF BELIEVING is the point upon which I shall spend my time and strength this morning. According to my text, the warrant for a man to believe is the commandment of God. This is the commandment, that ye "believe on his Son Jesus Christ."
Self-righteousness will always find a lodging somewhere or other. Drive it, my brethren, out of the ground of our confidence; let the sinner see that he cannot rest on his good works, then, as foxes will have holes, this self-righteousness will find a refuge for itself in the warrant of our faith in Christ. It reasons thus: "You are not saved by what you do but by what Christ did; but then, you have no right to trust in Christ unless there is something good in you which shall entitle you to trust in him." Now, this legal reasoning I oppose. I believe such teaching to contain in it the essence of Popish self-righteousness. The warrant for a sinner to believe in Christ is not in himself in any sense or in any manner, but in the fact that he is commanded there and then to believe on Jesus Christ. Some preachers in the Puritanic times, whose shoe latchets I am not worthy to unloose, erred much in this matter. I refer not merely to Alleyne and Baxter, who are far better preachers of the law than of the gospel, but I include men far sounder in the faith than they, such as Rogers of Dedham, Shepherd, the author of "The Sound Believer," and especially the American, Thomas Hooker, who has written a book upon qualifications for coming to Christ. These excellent men had a fear of preaching the gospel to any except those whom they styled "sensible sinners," and consequently kept hundreds of their hearers sitting in darkness when they might have rejoiced in the light. They preached repentance and hatred of sin as the warrant of a sinner's trusting to Christ. According to them, a sinner might reason thus—"I possess such-and-such a degree of sensibility on account of sin, therefore I have a right to trust in Christ." Now, I venture to affirm that such reasoning is seasoned with fatal error. Whoever preaches in this fashion may preach much of the gospel, but the whole gospel of the free grace of God in its fulness he has yet to learn. In our own day certain preachers assure us that a man must he regenerated before we may bid him believe in Jesus Christ; some degree of a work of grace in the heart being, in their judgment, the only warrant to believe. This also is false. It takes away a gospel for sinners and offers us a gospel for saints. It is anything hut a ministry of free grace.
Others say that the warrant for a sinner to believe in Christ is his election. Now, as his election cannot possibly be known by any man until he has believed, this is virtually preaching that nobody has any known warrant for believing at all. If I cannot possibly know my election before I believe—and yet the minister tells me that I may only believe upon the ground of my election—how am I ever to believe at all? Election brings me faith, and faith is the evidence of my election; but to say that my faith is to depend upon my knowledge of my election, which I cannot get without faith. is to talk egregious nonsense.
http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0531.htm
_____________________________
"Man is never sufficiently touched and affected by the awareness of his lowly state until he has compared himself with God's majesty"---John Calvin
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism - One Stop Thread - 7/11/2005 6:10:33 PM
|
|
|
turretinfan
Posts: 5276
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Death to Life by the Power of the Spirit
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: bygraceiamsaved
I consider Spurgeon to be both a great theologian and a great expositor of the Bible. He knew it inside out and upside down. He is an excellent read in both categories.
Spurgeon's sermons are a great read. I've never read a work of systematic theology by him, and I would be unsurprised to find out that he did not write one. He was an orator, not an academic.
Getting back to the subject of the thread, though:
Here's a typical attack on Calvinism that I hear often:
Calvinism says that everything that comes to pass, comes to pass because God decreed that it would be that way. Sin occurs. Therefore God decreed that it occur. Since God was free to decree as he liked, that means that God wants sin to occur. Yet, everyone knows that God hates sin. So then Calvinism must be wrong, because it suggests that God wants sin to occur contrary to his revealed hatred of sin.
This is frequently accompanied by charges that Calvinism makes God the author of sin.
Rather than battle this straw man, I will wait till someone subscribes to the argument (with or without variation thereon) and then I will happily show the flaw of the argument.
If no one will subscribe to it, I will assume that everyone recognizes its errors, or that at least Calvinism is free (on this forum) of people asserting such a charge against it.
Cordially,
-Turretinfan
_____________________________
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism - One Stop Thread - 7/11/2005 6:12:13 PM
|
|
|
TheoJunkie
Posts: 2201
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Death to Life
Status: offline
|
quote:
Spurgeon said in regards to the belief that regeneration precedes faith:
Just to kick this dead horse..
Spurgeon was merely saying that it is absurd to evangelize believers because they are already saved. And of course it is. Instead, we are to evangelize unbelievers.
_____________________________
-John
God is God. Get used to it.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism - One Stop Thread - 7/11/2005 6:39:10 PM
|
|
|
TheoJunkie
Posts: 2201
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Death to Life
Status: offline
|
Good to see you Dan.
_____________________________
-John
God is God. Get used to it.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism - One Stop Thread - 7/11/2005 8:04:41 PM
|
|
|
NewinChrist
Posts: 89
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: TheoJunkie
NIC,
The Gospel is good news... not bad news.
Thank God.
The gospel of God is certainly good news.. did anybody suggest that it wasn't..?
The gospel of calvinism isn't good news though for those who are not allowed to believe it.. in fact.. according to the gospel of calvinism.. nobody does anything, nor needs to do anything at all.. because according to it, He will either pull that string or He won't.. and that's ALL there is to it..
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism - One Stop Thread - 7/11/2005 9:39:20 PM
|
|
|
EddieL
Posts: 522
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Rustburg, Virginia
Status: offline
|
Heb 4:2 - Heb 4:2 For indeed the gospel was preached to us as well as to them; but the word which they heard did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in those who heard it.
Externally, on the one hand, the gospel is preached, becoming physical sound which travels into physical ears. Internally, on the other hand, the Spirit regenerates the heart, producing a heart of faith. Without faith, the gospel is just a set of words (“it does not profit”). Faith without the gospel is trust in God waiting for a means of salvation.
So, again, our disagreement is not about the power of the gospel. Our disagreement is about the source of faith in the gospel. The gospel is the way God saves people in our theology, just as it is in yours. You just believe that a man brings his own faith to the gospel, and we believe that God regenerates the man so that faith will be mixed with the gospel.
BTW, I'm very grateful that God went farther than just presenting me with the gospel. If His grace had stopped there, I'd still be a dedicated sinner on the way to a well-deserved Hell. If we want to use human language such as "pulling puppet strings", then I'll work out my salvation with fear and trembling, because it is God Who pulls my strings both to do and to will for His good pleasure.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism - One Stop Thread - 7/11/2005 10:15:22 PM
|
|
|
micah4
Posts: 47
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: The Lost City of the Ancients
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: turretinfan
Here's a typical attack on Calvinism that I hear often:
Calvinism says that everything that comes to pass, comes to pass because God decreed that it would be that way. Sin occurs. Therefore God decreed that it occur. Since God was free to decree as he liked, that means that God wants sin to occur. Yet, everyone knows that God hates sin. So then Calvinism must be wrong, because it suggests that God wants sin to occur contrary to his revealed hatred of sin.
This is frequently accompanied by charges that Calvinism makes God the author of sin.
Rather than battle this straw man, I will wait till someone subscribes to the argument (with or without variation thereon) and then I will happily show the flaw of the argument.
Hi Turretin,
Here's a variation I'll subscribe to which is no straw man, but is direct from Jonathan Edwards:
quote:
Thus it is necessary, that God’s awful majesty, his authority and dreadful greatness, justice, and holiness, should be manifested. But this could not be, unless sin and punishment had been decreed; so that the shining forth of God’s glory would be very imperfect, both because these parts of divine glory would not shine forth as the others do, and also the glory of his goodness, love, and holiness would be faint without them; nay, they could scarcely shine forth at all.
If it were not right that God should decree and permit and punish sin, there could be no manifestation of God’s holiness in hatred of sin, or in showing any preference, in his providence, of godliness before it. There would be no manifestation of God’s grace or true goodness, if there was no sin to be pardoned, no misery to be saved from. How much happiness soever he bestowed, his goodness would not be so much prized and admired, and the sense of it not so great . . .
So evil is necessary, in order to the highest happiness of the creature, and the completeness of that communication of God, for which he made the world; because the creature’s happiness consists in the knowledge of God, and the sense of his love. And if the knowledge of him be imperfect, the happiness of the creature must be proportionably imperfect. (Jonathan Edwards, "Concerning the Divine Decrees," in The Works of Jonathan Edwards )
Edwards here flat out states that not only does God decree evil, but effectively claims that God cannot be perfectly known or revealed without it- and even further claims that evil is necessary for the highest degree of good. Now, this is a bit different than saying that God is the "author" of sin- but it's very similar. Perhaps Edward's doesn't expressly claim that God "desires" or "wants" sin to occur- but since he claims it is "necessary" for the highest happiness of the creature, then God either "wants" sin to occur, or he doesn't want the "highest happiness of the creature". I don't see how this objection is can be characterized as a strawman when these sorts of claims are so repeatedly emphasized by Calvinists; this is only one example! Edwards postulation of God's relationship with evil is even more precarious than some, because his argument leads directly and unavoidably to the claim that it is necessary to disobey God in order for the creature's "highest happiness". What kind of an assault is that on God's commandments? Does God command that which results in an inferior outcome? Can you really sign up for the idea that God's creatures are most happy when they disobey him? Does this not turn God's injunctions to man entirely on their head, if disobedience to them is not merely permitted, but actually "necessary"?
_____________________________
I place the blame squarely on tight pants.
| 0oN\ :: P3NM0 :: 5_L5!N!^7V) --
V!`d079 0=|P !705
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism - One Stop Thread - 7/11/2005 11:32:56 PM
|
|
|
EddieL
Posts: 522
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Rustburg, Virginia
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: micah4
quote:
Thus it is necessary, that God’s awful majesty, his authority and dreadful greatness, justice, and holiness, should be manifested. But this could not be, unless sin and punishment had been decreed; so that the shining forth of God’s glory would be very imperfect, both because these parts of divine glory would not shine forth as the others do, and also the glory of his goodness, love, and holiness would be faint without them; nay, they could scarcely shine forth at all.
If it were not right that God should decree and permit and punish sin, there could be no manifestation of God’s holiness in hatred of sin, or in showing any preference, in his providence, of godliness before it. There would be no manifestation of God’s grace or true goodness, if there was no sin to be pardoned, no misery to be saved from. How much happiness soever he bestowed, his goodness would not be so much prized and admired, and the sense of it not so great . . .
So evil is necessary, in order to the highest happiness of the creature, and the completeness of that communication of God, for which he made the world; because the creature’s happiness consists in the knowledge of God, and the sense of his love. And if the knowledge of him be imperfect, the happiness of the creature must be proportionably imperfect. (Jonathan Edwards, "Concerning the Divine Decrees," in The Works of Jonathan Edwards )
Edwards here flat out states that not only does God decree evil, but effectively claims that God cannot be perfectly known or revealed without it- and even further claims that evil is necessary for the highest degree of good.
Isn't this true, though? Evil serves the purpose of demonstrating the goodness of God, and is used by God to comform us into the image of Christ.
quote:
Now, this is a bit different than saying that God is the "author" of sin- but it's very similar. Perhaps Edward's doesn't expressly claim that God "desires" or "wants" sin to occur- but since he claims it is "necessary" for the highest happiness of the creature, then God either "wants" sin to occur, or he doesn't want the "highest happiness of the creature".
God hates sin, but very obviously wants it to occur. This is just obvious because God is powerful enough to stop evil if He truly wanted to, but here evil is. Its presence demonstrates 1 of 2 things: God can't stop evil or God has a purpose for it.
Yet, if you look at any sinful act, where is God's Spirit? Is the Spirit of God at work to create evil or sin?!? Nope. Not even once. The spiritual influence behind sin is never God, even though the evil occurs at God's Divine Decree. Did God "author" the sin of the crucifixion? Well, we know He ordained it, but does that make Him its "Author"? Did the Spirit of God motivate Pilate or the Jewish leaders or the Roman soldiers? Never. Yet, Jesus is crucified by the express will of the Father.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism - One Stop Thread - 7/11/2005 11:49:55 PM
|
|
|
Ezra
Posts: 1784
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: micah4
But this could not be, unless sin and punishment had been decreed; so that the shining forth of God’s glory would be very imperfect,... nay, they could scarcely shine forth at all.
If it were not right that God should decree and permit and punish sin, there could be no manifestation of God’s holiness in hatred of sin,....
Micah4:
Greetings. Where have you been hiding? Thanks for the quote from Jonathan Edwards, who we may use as an outstanding example of Calvinistic teaching.
Notice that Edwards has not produced one single verse of Scripture to support his baseless allegation that "GOD DECREES SIN AND EVIL". He simply assumes that it is so (BTW the verses that are trotted out to try and support this, when properly interpreted, DO NOT support this doctrine).
The moment anyone makes such an allegation, regardless of all the flowery language to support it, he or she blasphemes God (knowingly or unknowlingly is not the issue).
Here's the logical result of believing such a doctrine:
1. Satan was predetermined (decreed) to rebel against his Creator.
2. God intentionally created His own Adversary and the Adversary of all humanity as well as God's children. All the atrocities that have ever been committed are therefore ultimately attributed to God!
3. God decreed and predetermined that Adam and Eve would disobey Him and bring the curse not only upon humanity but the universe. Think of the enormity of this "evil decree".
3. God decreed that through the machinations of Satan, sin and evil would prevail upon the Antediluvian world so that He could literally wipe out His own creation (with the exception of a handful).
4. God has decreed that sin and evil will prevail upon this earth so that He can pour out awful judgments and burn it up. An unbeliever hearing or reading this would say "What an awful God. He seems to be worse than Satan!"
One could go on and on, but you get the point. IOW God becomes the ultimate source of sin and evil, and Satan get's off scot free (after all he was decreed to rebel, he couldn't help himself. The same applies to Adam).
Now where do you think the source of such twisted thinking lies?
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism - One Stop Thread - 7/12/2005 1:14:27 AM
|
|
|
bygraceiamsaved
Posts: 1748
Status: offline
|
quote:
Thus it is necessary, that God’s awful majesty, his authority and dreadful greatness, justice, and holiness, should be manifested. But this could not be, unless sin and punishment had been decreed; so that the shining forth of God’s glory would be very imperfect, both because these parts of divine glory would not shine forth as the others do, and also the glory of his goodness, love, and holiness would be faint without them; nay, they could scarcely shine forth at all.
If it were not right that God should decree and permit and punish sin, there could be no manifestation of God’s holiness in hatred of sin, or in showing any preference, in his providence, of godliness before it. There would be no manifestation of God’s grace or true goodness, if there was no sin to be pardoned, no misery to be saved from. How much happiness soever he bestowed, his goodness would not be so much prized and admired, and the sense of it not so great . . .
So evil is necessary, in order to the highest happiness of the creature, and the completeness of that communication of God, for which he made the world; because the creature’s happiness consists in the knowledge of God, and the sense of his love. And if the knowledge of him be imperfect, the happiness of the creature must be proportionably imperfect. (Jonathan Edwards, "Concerning the Divine Decrees," in The Works of Jonathan Edwards )
Amen......and I agree Ezra, it is a wonderful example of Calvinist teaching...
Isaiah 45:5-9 I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me: 6 That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the LORD, and there is none else. 7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. 8 Drop down, ye heavens, from above, and let the skies pour down righteousness: let the earth open, and let them bring forth salvation, and let righteousness spring up together; I the LORD have created it. 9 Woe unto him that striveth with his Maker! Let the potsherd strive with the potsherds of the earth. Shall the clay say to him that fashioneth it, What makest thou? or thy work, He hath no hands?
2. Amos 3:6 Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it?
3. Jeremiah 18:11 Now therefore go to, speak to the men of Judah, and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, saying, Thus saith the LORD; Behold, I frame evil against you, and devise a device against you: return ye now every one from his evil way, and make your ways and your doings good.
4. Micah 2:1-3 Woe to them that devise iniquity, and work evil upon their beds! when the morning is light, they practice it, because it is in the power of their hand. 2 And they covet fields, and take them by violence; and houses, and take them away: so they oppress a man and his house, even a man and his heritage. 3 Therefore thus saith the LORD; Behold, against this family do I devise an evil, from which ye shall not remove your necks; neither shall ye go haughtily: for this time is evil.
5. Ecclesiastes 7:13-14 Consider the work of God: for who can make that straight, which he hath made crooked? 14 In the day of prosperity be joyful, but in the day of adversity consider: God also hath set the one over against the other, to the end that man should find nothing after him.
6. Psalms 78:49 He cast upon them the fierceness of his anger, wrath, and indignation, and trouble, by sending evil angels among them.
7. Amos 8:11-12 "Behold, the days are coming," says the Lord GOD, "That I will send a famine on the land, Not a famine of bread, Nor a thirst for water, But of hearing the words of the LORD. 12 They shall wander from sea to sea, And from north to east; They shall run to and fro, seeking the word of the LORD, But shall not find it.
8. Zephaniah 1:12 "And it shall come to pass at that time That I will search Jerusalem with lamps, And punish the men Who are settled in complacency, Who say in their heart, 'The LORD will not do good, Nor will He do evil.'
9. Lamentations 3:37-38 Who is he that saith, and it cometh to pass, when the Lord commandeth it not? 38 Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good?
7. Job 1:12-22; 2:7-10
a. Job 34:10-12
8. Proverbs 16:4 The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.
_____________________________
"Man is never sufficiently touched and affected by the awareness of his lowly state until he has compared himself with God's majesty"---John Calvin
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism - One Stop Thread - 7/12/2005 1:26:24 AM
|
|
|
Chief
Posts: 104
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
Ezra,
More imporantly one must ask who created Lucifer and who created Adam? If God is all-wise and all-knowing it would have been within His power to have created man and angels without the possibility of transgressing against Him. To suggest that God had not decreed all things to come to pass is to say that God had a made the worst oversight by creating creatures that would eventually strain His good creation.
One would be right to assert that God is not the author of sin and that man is responsible for his own sins. But in the midst of this assertion we are not to also dismiss God's perfect counsel and will that nothing is given up to chance because nothing or noone else has the power over His creation. If this is not so, then God is weak and can be overcome by another power.
Ask yourself also this also - why must there be trees in the middle of the garden that have eventually become the instrument of man's fall? Who place the tree there and who made the tree attractive to the eyes? Was the serpent's present in the garden a chance encounter or what God had decreed?
We may try to wiggle ourselves far from this truth but the fact remains as I have underscored in so many posts (and you may have not read them all  )that God in His determinate wisdom decreed the most wicked event in the world. The death of His Son in the hands of man. God had decreed that man must participate. He had purposed even before the foundation of the world that Jesus would come to earth to be murdred. If then therefore there is a murder decreed by God there must be a murderer or murderers that would accomplish this.
After praising God as the Creator Acts 4:24 we read in vv27-28 part of the prayer not accusing God of sin but acknowledging His sovereignty even on this most heinous crime - "For truly in this city there were gathered together against Your holy servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel (the ones culpable)...TO DO WHATEVER YOUR HAND AND YOUR PURPOSE PREDESTINED TO OCCUR. The NIV states it as "They did what your power and will had decided beforehand should happen."
Hard to understand and even accept knowing that we worship a holy and just God. But Peter and John knew better. Instead of shying away from this in fear that unbelievers might accuse God of perpetrating sin or authoring sin or somehow just blame the men the killed Jesus without reference to God's sovereignty, they glorified in God and praised Him this way.
Similar to Job's statement to his wife after his health, nature, a fire from heaven, the Chaldeans and the Sabeans (humans with wills of their own) have conspired to devatate him and his household. After all these things he did not sin against God with his speech and even acknowldge that we must learn to accept adversity or evil from God which does not exclude that attacks of the Chaldeans and the Sabeans.
The worst thing to do about this is to shove it as far away from our sight and just concentrate on human will and human culpability and build our doctrines of God's sovereignty around that. If they were bold enough to mention this in the throne of grace, in the presence of God and glorify Him with it, I do not see any reason why we cannot acknowledge this in our doctrines. And I do not see why in the midst of their prayer that I should mark this doctine of God's sovereignty a heresy.
Palms 76:10 For the wrath of man shall praise You...
Ephesians 1:11 (God)...worketh ALL THINGS after the counsel of his own will.
< Message edited by Chief -- 7/12/2005 1:41:59 AM >
_____________________________
This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.- Saul of Tarsus
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism - One Stop Thread - 7/12/2005 1:47:35 AM
|
|
|
micah4
Posts: 47
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: The Lost City of the Ancients
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: EddieL
quote:
ORIGINAL: micah4
Edwards here flat out states that not only does God decree evil, but effectively claims that God cannot be perfectly known or revealed without it- and even further claims that evil is necessary for the highest degree of good.
Isn't this true, though?
Not in the slightest.
quote:
Evil serves the purpose of demonstrating the goodness of God...
Evil doesn't demonstrates the goodness of God, evil demonstrates the evil-ness of evil. The integrity of a friend who is faithful is not "demonstrated" by a turncoat who stabs you in the back. The integrity of a faithful friend is demonstrated in his acts of faithfulness. The blessings of peace are not demonstrated in the horrors of war, they are demonstrated in the lives of the peaceful. The fountain of truth is not powered by a pit of lies. Evil is not good and good is not evil. War isn't peace, freedom isn't slavery, ignorance is not strength.
quote:
...and is used by God to comform us into the image of Christ...
The spirit of God working in us conforms us to the image of Christ, not evil circumstances disrupting us. God is always working for the good of those who love him and are called according to his purpose in any circumstance- but the suggestion that this is best accomplished via "evil" is positively ludicrous. If I catch my son stealing, I may "use" this to teach him something about honesty- but am I going to think that it was "best" that he should have stolen, so that I could teach him this? If he takes a knife to school and stabs a classmate in his third grade classroom, I would darn well teach him something, but if I went and told the teacher it was "good" that this happened, I would think I should be locked in a psych ward. If somebody murders my son, I may learn something about how difficult it is to forgive--- but this is "better" than a world where people don't murder one another? Sure pal. Evil's a wonderful thing. That's why I wake up every morning and pray for plenty of evil to come my way. Are you a parent? Do you pray for plenty of evil to befall your children, so that they can attain to their "highest happiness?" I hope you do, because you wouldn't want to be a bad parent and neglect seeking God's best character-forming batch of evil for them. Maybe you should pray that a drunk driver will hit them, and leave them paralyzed from the neck down. They would probably learn a great deal about being conformed to the image of Christ from that. Or maybe you should pray that they'll be stricken with an incurable, crippling disease. What a blessing that would be! Just think how much it would demonstrate the goodness of God. Not a sane parent in this world wishes these things on their children, and if they did they should probably have their children taken away from them. Yet this is precisely the type of parenting you would ascribe to our heavenly father??
quote:
quote:
Now, this is a bit different than saying that God is the "author" of sin- but it's very similar. Perhaps Edward's doesn't expressly claim that God "desires" or "wants" sin to occur- but since he claims it is "necessary" for the highest happiness of the creature, then God either "wants" sin to occur, or he doesn't want the "highest happiness of the creature".
God hates sin
Yes
quote:
, but very obviously wants it to occur.
Right... this is _very_ obvious because of the numerous times where he encourages, exhorts, and enjoins people to stop doing right and learn to do wrong.
quote:
This is just obvious because God is powerful enough to stop evil if He truly wanted to, but here evil is. Its presence demonstrates 1 of 2 things: God can't stop evil or God has a purpose for it.
Or god has a purpose in granting men freedom, which in no way implies that God has a "purpose" for any and every result of a given occurence of evil, or that he "intended" or "decreed" that said evil should occur, or that he "obviously wants" men to choose wrongly, which is preposterous on the face. If God wants men to choose wrongly, then nothing is left in the meaning of choosing wrongly. You can be sure that when evil, in the sense of moral evil as opposed to calamity, or righteous judgment- occurs- it is always contrary to and opposed to God's purpose.
quote:
Yet, if you look at any sinful act, where is God's Spirit? Is the Spirit of God at work to create evil or sin?!? Nope. Not even once.
This is entirely disputable if you hold to the standard Calvinistic/Deterministic view of providence and sovereignty which reduces to leaving nothing to account for the occurence of "any sinful act" (or any act whatsoever, for that matter) other than the monergistic action of God, whether this action expresses itself in a manner you say is "through his Spirit" or through some twice-removed Deistic grand clockmaker mechanism.
quote:
The spiritual influence behind sin is never God
Well, I don't see why that should be a problem for you; after all, it's *beamingly* obvious to you how desperately God wants sin to occur- why the reservations about just letting him go ahead and be the spiritual influence behind it?
quote:
Did God "author" the sin of the crucifixion? Well, we know He ordained it, but does that make Him its "Author"? Did the Spirit of God motivate Pilate or the Jewish leaders or the Roman soldiers? Never.
I don't know what it means to be an "author" of sin- it's certainly not a well defined term, to me it seems to have been purposefully opted by calvinists for the evasive utility the term's looseness affords them. You'll get your pants in a bunch that God just absolutely isn't the author of sin, and on the other hand scream bloody murder at the suggestion that anybody or anything other than God could control or determine anything that happens in the universe. If God is minutely controlling every occurence, and nobody in the universe has independent determinative capacity other than God, then nobody other than God is in a position to "author" anything- sin, righteousness, or otherwise. So God apparently wants, decrees, controls, and determines the occurence sin- but he's not it's "author". Well, at that point I'm not sure what role is left for the "author" to take on anyway, it seems to me any role of significance has already been appropriated by God, leaving the "author" fully divested of any contribution to the process whatsoever (other than being "proximal" to its occurence, so that he can take the blame, I guess). So God's never the "author" of sin; great. But with what you've left the author as, I don't see any import as to whether God (or anybody else) is called the author of sin or not.
Whatever the "author of sin" implies, I can't imagine why being the "author" of sin adds anything negative above and beyond "wanting sin to occur"-- which God "obviously" does. If I want my neighbor to get shot, and he goes out and gets mugged and shot by somebody I don't know, was my wanting him to get shot any better because I didn't do it, but somebody else did? Is my joy over his death more appropriate on account of the fact that somebody else pulled the trigger? I think once you've ascribed "wanting sin" to God, there's very little added disadvantage to just making him the Author (which calvinistic determinism absolutely does, anyway) or the influence behind it.
< Message edited by micah4 -- 7/12/2005 2:15:20 AM >
_____________________________
I place the blame squarely on tight pants.
| 0oN\ :: P3NM0 :: 5_L5!N!^7V) --
V!`d079 0=|P !705
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
