Calvinists have a problem. According to the theory of Calvinsim, God has two wills in conflict : one will desiring for mankind to repent and be saved, and the other for most of mankind to perish in Hell. There are some issues with this attempt to harmonize a faulty theory and plain Scripture.
Number one- Eph 1:11 b- a favorite verse used by Calvinists-being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will: So which will does God work out? Nowhere does Scripture say God has two wills that conflict. Once again Calvinists have no Scripture to support their claims. We are just to take their word on it.
Number two- James 1:8- A double minded man is unstable in all his ways. Would not God be doubleminded if He has two wills that contridict each other?
John MacArthur said this in his study Bible: " Ultimately, God's choices are determinded by His sovereign, eternal, purpose, not His desires." So God can have "desires" that are contrary to His sovereign, eternal purpose? God double minded? Inconceivable!
Dave Hunt summed it up nicely with this in his book What Love Is This : The Calvinist is caught in the horns of a dilemma. How can he maintain the position that God decrees and causes all, and yet exonerate God for the wickedness and eternal punishment of the vast majority of mankind? He falls back on the theory that God really doesn't want this state of affairs, and yet His eternal purpose and His decrees demand it. What a contradiction!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
22 comments:
Number one, your lack of understanding rears its ugly head.
Number two, you must therefore believe that the God of the universe sits back in anguish because nothing is going the way He wants it to.
Some God you have there.
Number three, Dave Hunt is an idiot when it comes to reformed theology (http://vintage.aomin.org/DHOpenLetter.html).
He makes that clear by using one of y'all favorite straw men: "How can he maintain the position that God decrees and causes all, and yet exonerate God for the wickedness and eternal punishment of the vast majority of mankind? "
I know we're covered this repeatedly, yet you're still clueless. There is a big difference between God causing something to happen, and God willing to allow something to happen. Don't parrot Hunt's idiocy, bro. That would be like me saying that God caused 9/11, since He could have stopped it but didn't.
Like it or not, you have but two options:
1. Admit that God is not sovereign, not in control of mankind, and incapable of getting His way.
2. Admit that God is powerful enough to stop all sin but freely chooses to allow things to play their current course, meaning that what happens happens because God wills, or allows, it to happen.
Take your pick, but quit claiming that Calvinism has God to thank for men's sin.
Since you can't seem to wrap your mind around the idea God has two wills, tell me:
When it is said God does as He pleases in heaven and earth (Psalm 135:6), and it does not please Him that the wicked die (Ezekiel 33:11), why do wicked men die?
In Ephesians 1:11, you point out God works all things after the counsel of His will. True dat. Is sin His will, Jerry? If not, how does that fit with Ephesians 1:11?
Trying to make James 1:8 fit God is, I'm sure, like me saying God chooses people for salvation (2 Thessalonians 2:13), and you replying the choice is different from the choice of men. You can't have God's choice meaning God's choice - that is, that His choice is not contigent on anothers' will - even though you have no reason to say His choice is different than ours. You think God cannot limit our choice... why, then, do you think we can limit God's? I say all that to make a point: that James 1:8 obviously does not apply to God, and that the double standard you set is ludicrous.
As for what those two guys say, I don't much care. Deal with my posts, not theirs.
Palmer -A Calvinist- " He could have prevented it, but He did not prevent it: ergo, He willed it. Thus one must conclude ,'It is even biblical to say that God has foreordained sin' ". The Five Points of Calvinism.
Calvin- A Calvinist- "Man wills with an evil will what God wills with a good will."
Palmer again in his book Sovereignty- "This is the awesome biblical asymmetry: God ordains sin, and man is to blame"
Calvin again in his Institutes- " It is impossible to deny that God foreknew what the end of man was to be before he made him, and foreknew, because he had so ordained by His decree."
Pink- A Calvinist in his book the Sovereignty of God writes this concerning the sin of Adam- " He decreed beforehand that he should do so."
I could go on, but I would like for the record to show that the leading Calvinist of yesteryear seem to think that God is the author and cause of sin.
If the basis of one's idiocy is the use of strawmen, you have a problem. For instance :
"you must therefore believe that the God of the universe sits back in anguish because nothing is going the way He wants it to."
"Admit that God is not sovereign, not in control of mankind, and incapable of getting His way."
These are just two strawmen in this response alone. Call yourself what you want.
Dave Hunt has responded to James White here- http://www.thebereancall.org/calbook.htm
In all of this you have still yet to answer what the post was even about. Does God have two conflicting wills? How hard is that to answer?
Ryan- I will respond to you later. I would also like to refresh your memory of something you wrote on Feb 23rd :On a side note, it is good to see we are able to debate things calmly and respectfully. You can't imagine the rudeness of some people these days.
I kind of picked up on a few vibes with the beginning and end of your reply that would indicate- for lack of a better word- frustration. I don't mind it, though. I just kind of picked up on it...
"Palmer -A Calvinist- " He could have prevented it, but He did not prevent it: ergo, He willed it. Thus one must conclude ,'It is even biblical to say that God has foreordained sin' ". The Five Points of Calvinism."
Choosing to allow something is NOT authoring and causing it.
"Calvin- A Calvinist- "Man wills with an evil will what God wills with a good will.""
Being willing to allow something is NOT authoring and causing it.
"Palmer again in his book Sovereignty- "This is the awesome biblical asymmetry: God ordains sin, and man is to blame""
Ordaining the occurance of something is NOT authoring and causing it.
"Calvin again in his Institutes- " It is impossible to deny that God foreknew what the end of man was to be before he made him, and foreknew, because he had so ordained by His decree.""
Choosing to allow something is NOT authoring and causing it.
Pink- A Calvinist in his book the Sovereignty of God writes this concerning the sin of Adam- " He decreed beforehand that he should do so."
Decreeing what is foreknown is NOT authoring and causing it.
"I could go on, but I would like for the record to show that the leading Calvinist of yesteryear seem to think that God is the author and cause of sin."
NOwhere in those quotes do we find the words "creator" or "causer". Maybe if you read their books (instead of relying on what your anti-reformed writers tell you), you would see the distinction between allowing something to happen and making it happen. Out of curiousity....have you read any book on reformed theology, in its entirety, by a reformed writer?
"If the basis of one's idiocy is the use of strawmen, you have a problem. For instance :
"you must therefore believe that the God of the universe sits back in anguish because nothing is going the way He wants it to."
"Admit that God is not sovereign, not in control of mankind, and incapable of getting His way."
These are just two strawmen in this response alone. Call yourself what you want."
Ok, let's make it easier for you:
1. Do you agree with the first statement? If not, why not?
2. Do you agree with the second statement? If not, what is the fuss over?
"Dave Hunt has responded to James White here- http://www.thebereancall.org/calbook.htm"
Loads of fun, I'm sure.
"In all of this you have still yet to answer what the post was even about. Does God have two conflicting wills? How hard is that to answer?"
Nope. Just because God doesn't desire the destruction of the wicked doesn't mean it's against the will of a sovereign God that it happens. Nothing happens that God doesn't allow to happen, thus all that happens (as it is within His control) is because He wants it to happen more so than He wants to intervene.
I suppose I'm frustrated because you've had over a month to consider my post on the 26th, the post itself has still gone without a rebuttal, and I have to sit on my hands waiting for one while you continue saying things like:
"Once again Calvinists have no Scripture to support their claims. We are just to take their word on it."
and
"There are some issues with this attempt to harmonize a faulty theory and plain Scripture."
I don't think you like me. You never seem to answer my questions or posts directly. Just an observation.
P.S. my frustration hasn't illicited rudeness, has it? If so, I'm sorry. If not, what has that citation to do with anything?
Help me out Brother Ryan- what post are you speaking of?
That post from the 26th was ignored.
You ignored my request for Scriptural evidence for your claim that all men, saved or not, will be raised the last day.
You repeatedly assert salvation = regeneration, even though we are saved through regeneration. We are saved through faith as well, and yet I doubt you think faith = salvation.
Somehow, you believe people under sin's power - unregenerates - can do good, when just proceeding through the chain of Scripture forbids it:
1. All men sin (Romans 3:23)
2. The man who sins is under sin's power (John 8:34)
3. The man who is under sins power cannot:
a. Understand God
b. Seek God
c. Do good
d. Do righteousness
e. Do anything Profitable
f. Please God
g. Subject himself to God's law
(a-e are supported by Romans 3:9-12, f and g are supported by Romans 8:7-8).
Sometimes I'll answer your questions and you'll repeat them, like with that Luke 11 passage.
You refuse to acknowledge men are first given to Jesus, then they come. Also, because the given will come and won't be cast out, not everyone can be given in the first place. It's obvious, and yet you think I'm "grasping at straws."
And the there's just random stuff, like how you say you agree with my interpretation of almost all my verses, but then for some reason disagree with the conclusion (see: regeneration and sola scriptura). Then you stop the posting. And you always take a jab at Calvinism. I'm guilty of this too from the opposite, but it's all just frustrating in general. Oh well.
Ok. Ryan first- This part is in regards to your first response.
Psalms 135:6- Whatsoever the LORD pleased, that did he in heaven, and in earth, in the seas, and all deep places.
This verse simply says that the Lord does as He pleases. It does not say that everything that happens He is pleased with. Do you wish to use this verse as proof that God causes all, including sin?
Eph 1:11 101- Worketh- study the word and how it is used. Notice the phrase is “counsel of His will” not His will. Big difference. If all is going according to the perfect will of God, then why pray that His will be done in earth as it is in Heaven? Why pray at all? Furthermore, the only request of His that Jesus asked us to pray for is for workers to go into the harvest. If Calvinism were true and if God got His perfect will every time , the request is meaningless.
I never said the passage in James applied to God. What I will say is that if God has two wills in conflict then there would be unstableness in His “thinking”, if you will. As for you not caring about what other people say, tough luck. This post is about the faulty theory of Calvinism, and the faulty thinkers that support it.
You have still not provided Scripture that proves God has two wills in conflict. If God has two wills in conflict, then He is double minded. Period. This is impossible, as you well know. Once again your response is proof that we must take Calvinism’s word about God having two wills in conflict, regardless of what that would mean about the power and character of God.
This is about your other grievance on the 26th. Let me begin by reminding you that as clearly posted under the section labeled “ comment standards” I have a stopping point. I am under zero obligation to answer you or anyone else. I really don’t care if anyone responds or not. I will continue to warn about unscriptural theories regardless of 100 responses or none. You do not seem to understand that I have a life, and very little has to do with this blog. This is a side hobby I have, along with fishing, hunting, family time, riding my motorcycle, preaching, ministry, side work, gardening, traveling, etc etc. I am more than willing to converse with you or anyone else, but it is on my terms. I could care less what mainstream academia thinks of my style or method. As my Daddy use to say “ Like it or lump it.”
I answered what man can do unregenerated here- http://anti-calvinism.blogspot.com/2008/03/100-dead-but-not-100-alive-afterwards.html
You accuse me of this- "You ignored my request for Scriptural evidence for your claim that all men, saved or not, will be raised the last day."
Is there a judgement, Ryan? Who will be there? What is the last day?
You wrote- "You repeatedly assert salvation = regeneration, even though we are saved through regeneration. We are saved through faith as well, and yet I doubt you think faith = salvation."
This is all the proof we need to show that the theory of Calvinism is unsettled even amoung leading Calvinists. You guys cannot even agree on this. MacAuthur and Spurgeon believe salvation= regeneration, as found here
I wonder what Richard thinks? I will have a post about this very thing.
Now, I have to read some books real quick for Richard, so I would sit on my hands for a while before responding. HAHAHAHA :)
Richard- One but has to re-read carefully the statements by Calvinists to see that your defense of said statements is strained at best. Here is yet another statement by Pink : “ God initiates all things, regulates all things” and one by Palmer: “ How is it that a holy God, who hates sin, not only passively permits sin but also certainly and efficaciously decrees that sin shall be?” Leading Calvinist Palmer goes on to say “ The Bible has well over a hundred examples in which God brought sin to pass” Boettner writes God “creates the very thoughts and intents of the soul” Sproul believes “ God created sin”
Those quotes should meet you criteria for what you claimed the other statements did not say.
I find it humorous you ask if I read books about Calvinism when I was the one that gave you everything Calvin ever wrote. I was studying Reformed Theology while you were still a teenager, son. I have more books than most my age, with many of them written by the very ones I quoted. Not that that matters. Regardless of what books I read, it has no bearing on the fact Calvinism is a theory, and a shaky one at that.
Is that your line of defense- “What have you read?” That is like me being unable to preach against drunkenness, because I have never been drunk. So what- I can’t preach against a Muslim until I read the Quran? Suppose I read every book ever written about the subject- what would that change? Besides, why can’t I read the Bible and find this elusive theory?
And you still did not answer the question.
Ok- last call. I am making some changes to my blog. I have other projects in the works, and I simply have no time to debate with you fine debaters. I will continue to post, but they will probably be more in depth and lengthy.
As I made it clear from the beginning, I can do with this post as I see fit- so no whining about cutting off people or responses and the like.
Hey bro, no doubt you will find a lot of variance within reformed circles in matters not related to soteriology. You have dispensationalists, covenant theologians, etc. You have pre-trib, post-trib, mid-trib, young earth, old earth, yada yada yada.
The point is, you're wandering outside of reformed theology in an attempt to discredit reformed soteriology on the basis of non-soteriological positions that you yourself don't hold.
In any case, we're now off of Calvinism and into determinism, compatablism, all kinds of fun stuff. As you said yourself, Calvies disagree among themselves quite a bit. That's cool. Non Calvies and Arminians do the same, so you've really proved-disproved nothing.
While your allusion to Calvin's works are fine and dandy, I specifically asked "have you read any book on reformed theology, in its entirety, by a reformed writer?" You did not answer this question, which only incriminates you for doing the same thing Hunt did; rail out against reformed theology before doing homework. Anywho, just an observation.
Now, concerning the will of God. Some people think there are two: His perfect and His permissive. You seem to disregard this idea, even quoting James 1:8.
Let us say that you're correct (which I believe to be true, because I also believe God has one will).
Here is the question:
Is God's will being done?
Yes or no?
If yes, what is the argument?
If not....why?
As an aside, the wife and I are moving back to VA and I'll be transferring my M.M. over to LBTS.
Even related to soteriology you will find great variances. We need to look no further than finding 2,3,4 point Calvinists to even see that.
What I have proved is that there is a group of people that cling to a title such as Reformed or Calvinist- while there is seemingly no authority or entity that have set in stone what the theology is. What sets people like me aside is we hold no title that is some man's last name. Sure, I may have believed as Jacob A. did on things, but it is because of "thus saith the Lord", not thus saith so and so. I don't go around calling myself a Paulite or Paulinian. I don't go around saying I am a Davidian or Mosesite or Lukeanian etc etc.
Suppose I quote Cloud, who has read more than you on the subject? WHat would you say then? If you are willing to say Hunt did not do his homework, when he wrote probably the most hated book in Calvinism with several hundred footnotes, that is your deal. Somehow I don't think he is the one that failed to do the research. I read probably the best work I have on the atonement by a Calvinist. Apparently not a 5 pointer. That would be part of the variance I mentioned earlier. Besides, you cannot even show me one book by any author that is about Reformed Theology where another author claiming to be a Reformed Theologian agrees about all the salvation aspect. If so, let us know the title. On top of that, those things that are not about soteriology are only debated because of Calvinism. The theory itself demands that certain things not pertaining to soteriology be questioned and discussed, then certainly disagreed on.
Mt 6:10 Lu 11:2 Why these?
Jerry,
Two simple questions. If the death of Christ atoned for the sins of every man woman and child that ever lived, is currently living and ever will live, how then can anyone go to hell? What sin(s) are they being punished for if Christ already payed for all of them?
-Tom
P.S. To be fair, since I know you don't like "proof texts" (which at times seems to mean 'Don't use any scripture to defend your claim') try to answer this one without any 'proof texts'
Please futher explain the statement:
" since I know you don't like "proof texts" (which at times seems to mean 'Don't use any scripture to defend your claim') try to answer this one without any 'proof texts' "
question #1- By giving the grace of God an ineffectual welcome and refusing to reconcile ourselves to Him.
question #2- unrepented sin
raphael
raphael,
But that's contradictory. Is not "ineffectually welcoming" the grace of God and "refusing to reconcile ourselves to Him" sin? Then Jesus has already suffered for those sins. God CANNOT justly punish twice. If Christ paid for the sin, then it's paid for. The sinner owes no debt to God.
In connection to question 2, is not unrepentance a sin? Of course it is. Now see the above paragraph.
What then did the death of Christ actually accomplish? Did his death actually atone for the sins of all mankind or did it only potentially atone for the sins of all mankind?
By His life, death, and resurrection Christ made the forgiveness of sins possible IF: we repent, confess, are baptized, obey Him, listen to His words and continue in faith.
However the consequences of sin still weigh us down and require struggle for which we know the grace of God will intercede for us.
Christ conquered death, not by eliminating it but by rising from the dead. He conquered sin, not by eliminating it but by giving us the means to fight it successfully and to get up again should we fall.
"All manner of sin shall be forgiven unto men, but the blasphemy against the Holy
Spirit will not be forgiven unto men." Matt 12: 31-32
What is repentance? Godly sorrow that leads to a change of heart.
What are the sins against the Holy Spirit? Sins that make a change of heart extremely unlikely- stubbornness in sin, final impenitance, rejection of known truth, apostasy.
"If we go on sinning willfully after we have received the knowledge of truth, there remains no more sacrifice for sins...It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God." Heb 10:26-31
raphael
Raphael, it sounds as though you believe two things:
1. Baptism is necessary to be saved.
2. Salvation can be lost.
Is this accurate?
1)"Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved." Mark 16:16
"I tell you the truth, no one can enter into the Kingdom of Heaven unless he is born of water and the spirit." John 3:5
"Repent and be baptized every on of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins and you will receive the Holy Spirit." Acts 2:38
Jesus told us to be baptized and although he was sinless, was baptized Himself as an example to us. Of course it is necessary.
2)No one can certainly know of their salvation. It is better to submit our understanding to the obedience of faith, ("He became the author of eternal salvation to all that obey Him." Heb 5:9) than to entangle ourselves in a mess of errors , far removed from our comprehension. Rom 11: 33-34 reminds us that there are depths to God we cannot fathom but in which we put our trust.
"Therefore whoever thinks he is standing should take care not to fall." 1 Cor 10:12
"Lest anyone of you become hardened by the deceitfulness of sin, For we are made partakers of Christ if we hold the beginning of our confidence steadfast unto the end."Heb 3:13-14
One day we will all stand naked before God and He alone will judge us. There will be no excuses, no bible to back your interpretation of scripture. Remember- He wrote the book. He knows what it says. You will be responsible for not only yourself but those entrusted to you, those you taught. "It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God."
"How much wiser and better to confess our ignorance on mysteries, than idly dispute on mysteries." -AUGUSTINE
raphael
Raphael- check your John 3:5 and tell me this- How can you get water baptism out of that passage?
Furthermore, when God wrote I John 5:13 (These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.) what did He mean? How does that compute with your statement "No one can certainly know of their salvation."
Hi Rap.
1 John 2:19 says:
"They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us."
How do you interpret this?
As to Mark 16:16, check it out:
"Whosoever believes (A) and is baptized (B) shall be saved (C)."
This is a true statement.
A+B=C
However, according to John 3:16, "Whosoever believes (A) shall have eternal life (C)."
So...A=C.
This clearly indicates that salvation for everyone that believe. You have salvific faith? Saved. End of story.
Now, back to Mark 16:16.
Here ya go..."Whosoever believes (A) and drives a Saturn (D) shall be saved (C).
A+D=C.
I believe, so according to John 3:16 I am saved. I also drive a Saturn. Therefore, A+D=C is a true statement. (D) was not a condition to be met before salvation was granted; (A) was. As we saw, (A)= (C).
I could continue, but hopefully you get the point. Whosoever believes and ANYTHING shall be saved. The only reason baptism was even mentioned is because in that day, new converts were getting baptized pretty much right on the spot. If getting dunked was something to be done before God could save you, He'd have said so in every portion of Scripture referring to salvation. It was "repent and believe the gospel" coming from the mouth of Christ. Not "repent and believe the gospel and get dunked in water."
Anyways, I suggest ya invest in one of these...sounds like you need one:
http://tominthebox.blogspot.com/2008/02/disciples-of-christ-introduce-24-hour.html#links
I await your reply, but I doubt I'll give it much treatment. Your theology is built upon prooftexts that are unreconcilable with the whole of Scripture. You're determined to have a hand in your salvation via human effort to get wet, and you're trusting in your own merit to continue to keep you saved. If you've taken that stance in spite of Scripture, I don't imagine my post will change your way of thinking much. Have a nice day.
It is easy to misunderstand and oversimplify the living Word of God. I know that through the Son of God I may have eternal life and in Him I put my confidence. My hope and trust is in Him not by not only beleiving IN Him, but by beleiving Him and listening to His every word and beleiving He can do all things- even save me.
Christ made a covenant (a conditional promise- a life for a life) with His blood. Not a legal contract (excange of goods or services- our sins for His life). He died for our sins and expects nothing less from us: to die to our sins and live in Him.
I hope and pray that I will not abandon Him.
raphael
Post a Comment