Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

    For an ad free experience on Online Baptist, Please login or register for free

Calvinism on the March


Recommended Posts

  • Members


In a given evangelistic message one can find those who are not moved at all, those who resist conviction and those that conviction brings them to Christ.

Why would the Holy Ghost convict those who won't come to Christ? Could it be so it can clearly be declared that the Lord warned them?

Judas received the same as the other disciples yet from before the foundation of the world Judas was to betray Christ. Was it a "waste"?


Matthew 7:22Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23And then will I profess unto them, I never "ENABLED" you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. Is that what your King James Bible says?

Sir, prophesying that the "son of perdition" would do what he did is NOT the same as making it happen. God's foreknowledge is far more wonderful than merely making his plans happen. He actually KNOWS the future before it happens; Even I can plan things and manipulate the outcome. God is not a puppeteer.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

In fact, instead of leaving those questions hanging in the air, I'll explain what the conundrum is for me, in case it helps you understand why I'm asking those questions.

I don't understand how any free will at all can exist if God is A) omnipotent, B ) has foreknowledge and C) is a Creator.

Let's imagine that God creates a person. Because God is omnipotent, He has the power to create or not create the person as He wishes. And He can create the person with any physical and mental attributes He wishes. And He has sovereign power over everything that person will experience--when and where he is born, when and how he dies, who he will meet, what he will hear etc. And because God has foreknowledge, He knows exactly what the person's destiny will be if created with those attributes and with those experiences.

So where's the room for free will? We could say that God chooses to give us free will. And we all believe our own decisions are not random but have causes, typically a combination of our situation and our 'character'. The problem is that if we also believe that God has created our situation and character with perfect knowledge of how those things will determine our destiny, how can our decisions not have been determined by causes that go back to God?

Putting it another way, God knows that if He creates you like 'X', you will (for instance) be born in 1928, spend the first 20 years of your adult life as a drunkard and will be born again at 36 before dying in a train crash a year later. And He knows that if He creates you a bit differently, you will be born in 1928, spend the first 20 years of your adult life as a drunkard but always reject the Gospel until dying in a train crash. With this power of creation combined with a knowledge of your destiny if created, He creates... Where is the room for free will here?

I'm not saying this is necessarily how God works, I'm just trying to explore what 'free will' actually means!

Ta

Carl

Edited by Alimantado
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

You mention "imagine" and "creator"
Carl, God made man "in his own image". We, like God, also possess creativity. As you mentioned, we have imaginations. Sadly, we have used our imaginations for evil, as Genesis 6 affirms. The first recorded act of man's creativity was during God's creation in Genesis 2:

Using Imagination for Good
Genesis 2:19And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.Good

Using Imagination for Evil
Genesis6:5And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

If God causes, (ordains, plans....whatever you want to call it) everything that happens, Why would He be grieved about wickedness the HE planned to begin with? He wouldn't because he did not cause man to be evil. Man used his own God-given creative ability to devise evil and man uses his God given will to go his own way and do what he wants. God is not going to punish you for something that's HIS fault to begin with. He provides the remedy for your wicked imagination and mine. It;s up to you to decide.....Just like God let Adam name the animals whatever Adam wanted to name them. He's letting you use your imagination and your will to do whatever you please also....just remember, there are always consequences for our choices. You are not an electrochemical reaction or a robot. You are a creative being with a will of your own.

Edited by heartstrings
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Back to the topic :umno: We will not satisfy each other's arguments & counter arguments in this thread.
The OP was concerned about the progress of "Calvinism" aka Reformed doctrine. Those of us who hold to the Reformed faith, who take a "Reformed baptist" stance, are happy with such progress, which we see as a deeper understanding of the Scriptures. Most of the arguments against "Calvinism" are secondary - derived from what we see as a misunderstanding. I can't argue against your prejudice, only point it out.

"Calvinist" theology has been in the forefront of Gospel witness since long before Calvin, though often associated with doctrines we cannot support.

People adopt Reformed theology because we see it in the Scriptures, NOT because we follow Calvin.

Rom. 14:4Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.

Edited by Covenanter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

What is there of Calvin's writings that would be good to read to learn exactly what Calvin himself had to say?

I know Adrian Rogers, though a staunch anti-Calvinist, spoke highly of Calvin's Institutes. Would this be the best thing to read or something else.


Please prove your statement.

Besides, my advice would be to get you a KJB, and a good old English dictionary with word origin references..I put my trust in the Jesus of the King James Bible, not "Calvin's Institutes", Adrian Rogers, or any other man.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members



Please prove your statement.

Besides, my advice would be to get you a KJB, and a good old English dictionary with word origin references..I put my trust in the Jesus of the King James Bible, not "Calvin's Institutes", Adrian Rogers, or any other man.

Listen to some of his sermons. Rogers often recommended Calvin's Institutes as one of the greatest works in Christianity.

You should already know I have a KJB. If you notice in my post, I said I was looking for something Calvin himself had wrote so I could see how what he himself wrote compares with what others say he said.

If I haven't posted enough here yet so you know, I'll say it again, I read my KJB every day and through the Holy Ghost I understand it well and I know my views on these matters. Again, I would simply like to read for myself some of what Calvin wrote because just from reading a few bits of what he wrote I've noticed many mistate what he had to say. Also, if Adrian Rogers and so many others have found some of Calvin's writings to be so beneficial I would like to see what that is too.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I gave up totally on Adrian Rogers when , in a broadcast sermon on Lot ("A disgrace to grace") said that once we have accepted Christ (using the salvation prayer) we are eternally secure; we can live filthy rotten lives, like Lot, & still be saved. That is NOT Calvinism, nor is it Gospel Christianity.

He did NOT quote: 6And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly;
7And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked:
8(For that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds;) 2 Peter 2.

I discussed the sermon with the presenters & they too rejected that teaching.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I gave up totally on Adrian Rogers when , in a broadcast sermon on Lot ("A disgrace to grace") said that once we have accepted Christ (using the salvation prayer) we are eternally secure; we can live filthy rotten lives, like Lot, & still be saved. That is NOT Calvinism, nor is it Gospel Christianity.

He did NOT quote: 6And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly;
7And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked:
8(For that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds;) 2 Peter 2.

I discussed the sermon with the presenters & they too rejected that teaching.

I've not heard that sermon from Rogers, but I have heard others take a similar approach which doesn't fit the whole Word of God.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members


Listen to some of his sermons. Rogers often recommended Calvin's Institutes as one of the greatest works in Christianity.

You should already know I have a KJB. If you notice in my post, I said I was looking for something Calvin himself had wrote so I could see how what he himself wrote compares with what others say he said.

If I haven't posted enough here yet so you know, I'll say it again, I read my KJB every day and through the Holy Ghost I understand it well and I know my views on these matters. Again, I would simply like to read for myself some of what Calvin wrote because just from reading a few bits of what he wrote I've noticed many mistate what he had to say. Also, if Adrian Rogers and so many others have found some of Calvin's writings to be so beneficial I would like to see what that is too.


Once again I ask, prove your statement. Prove that Adrian Rogers spoke highly of Calvin. A quote please.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

We will not satisfy each other's arguments & counter arguments in this thread.


How do you know? There may be many here that haven't talked about the matter before, at least with each other. You may have had enough of such conversations, but how can you say others won't value or learn something from the exchange? If you don't care for a conversation others are having, you are free to not read the posts. On the other hand, if your objection is that people are derailing the thread (post volume making discussion of the OP difficult), that's different, but I can't see that being the case at 10 posts per day.

If you still insist that others discuss nothing but the OP, will you, by way of an example, delete all of your own posts on this thread that are not strictly on the OP? There appear to be quite a few.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I gave up totally on Adrian Rogers when , in a broadcast sermon on Lot ("A disgrace to grace") said that once we have accepted Christ (using the salvation prayer) we are eternally secure; we can live filthy rotten lives, like Lot, & still be saved. That is NOT Calvinism, nor is it Gospel Christianity.

He did NOT quote: 6And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly;
7And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked:
8(For that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds;) 2 Peter 2.

I discussed the sermon with the presenters & they too rejected that teaching.


Quote from Brother Adrian please.
You know a half truth is still a lie sir.
f was a betting man, II would wager my lunch money that Adrian Rogers also metioned something about the "chastening hand of God";

The Bible teaches that a SAVED man has two natures and it teaches that the old nature, "the flesh" or the "old man" is just as wicked as he ever was. It teaches that "the flesh" wars against the Spirit and vise versa. A SAVED man is capable of doing anything a lost man is. The difference is, the man with the "new nature" does not have to sin. He can obey the command to walk in the Spirit. If he DOES NOT and lives after the flesh, like Brother Lot did, he can end up like Brother Lot did He sunk so low that he offered his precious daughters to a mob of perverts. he lost his beloved wife,lost his honor and respect, and then ended up in incest with his two daughters. The Bible clearly says that he was a just man....meaning that he was a believer. But all becuse he chose to pursure the world, he ended up with a ruined life. Yes, saved people can fall into sin, but is it worth the chastening hand of God or the destruction sin causes?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

You mention "imagine" and "creator". Carl, God made man "in his own image". We, like God, also possess creativity. As you mentioned, we have imaginations. Sadly, we have used our imaginations for evil, as Genesis 6 affirms. The first recorded act of man's creativity was during God's creation in Genesis 2:

Using Imagination for Good
Genesis 2:19And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.Good

Using Imagination for Evil
Genesis6:5And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

If God causes, (ordains, plans....whatever you want to call it) everything that happens, Why would He be grieved about wickedness the HE planned to begin with? He wouldn't because he did not cause man to be evil. Man used his own God-given creative ability to devise evil and man uses his God given will to go his own way and do what he wants...


Many thanks for taking the time to respond in detail, Heartstrings. I don't dispute that there are lots of verses in the Bible that suggest man has free will. I wasn't questioning the existence of such verses, I was raising what I see as a logical problem. How about we proceed with your questions, because they raise the same dilemma. You ask why God would be grieved about wickedness that he planned to begin with. I agree with your point--I don't see, logically, how that could work. But if we therefore say that God didn't plan the wickedness, it seems to me that we encounter another problem.

If God didn't plan the wickedness talked about in Gen 5:5, how did it happen? You say, "man used his own God-given creative ability to devise evil and man uses his God given will to go his own way and do what he wants."

Ok, so the cause of the wickedness is our God-given free will combined with our own desire--our wants. But as our 'wants' are a part of us, they must have in turn been created. So how did we get created with 'wants' (or desires) that are against God? I can think of these options:

1. God does not want to create free agents that have the desire to be against him, but they are all he is capable of creating.

2. God does not want to create free agents that have the desire to be against him, but someone other power obliges him to do so.

3. God does not want to create free agents that have the desire to be against him, but when he creates their desires, he is not sure how they will turn out.

4. God does not want to create free agents that have the desire to be against him, but He does not create their desires at all.

5. God wants to create free agents that have the desire to be against him, and does so.

Options 1 and 2 deny God's omnipotence. Option 3 denies his omniscience. Option 5 is the reformed position and Option 4 leaves us with the question: if God didn't create our desires (or characters or constitution or whatever you want to call it) then how did they come about?

Do you agree with my reasoning up to this point?

Carl Edited by Alimantado
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...