Omniscience means fatalism.

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Perhaps I could have worded this more clearly:

If in the discussion the topic of election comes up, I deal with it as I have here often, beginning with all who call upon the name of the Lord will be saved. Those that do—a great multitude no man can number—are the elect. Those that do not are not the elect. In fact, they may never be the elect, if they never do what they are commanded to do.​

In other words, to counter the assumption by others that claim the elect can be anyone, my point is that the elect are a specific great multitude. The non-elect will never do what they are commanded to do. The sentence above could have been bettered stated as "In fact, they may never be the elect, since they never do what they are commanded to do."


Herein is the root of much confusion by the anti-Calvinist. You assume that the choosing of God ignores the free will (choosing per one's inclinations) of the person so chosen. You assume God's choosing does violence to the chosen person's free will. No.

God's providence acts within all the free, necessary, and contingent circumstances presented to the person. The person freely chooses according to these circumstances. God's acts set things in motion per the natural order of things. When God acts outside the natural order of the free, necessary, or contingent, this is extraordinary providence, or miracles.

No miracle is taking place when God sets in motion the free, necessary, or contingent circumstances that will result in the choices, good or bad, by any person. Rather it is just God's ordinary providence. The setting of things in motion are but God's necessarily good actions upholding what He has created. The choices made based upon these free, necessary, or contingent circumstances set in motion by God become moral actions, good and evil, when chosen my the moral agent, a human being (or an angel).

Sure, God, the First Cause, set's in motion circumstances that will always be in alignment with what He has volitionally willed, that is, ordained/decreed. But He does so in concurrence with the liberty of spontaneity (Biblical free will) of the moral creature. It is always the second cause which brings in the element of sin. God moves to action; He never moves to sinful action. God never moves men by secondary causes to act in accordance with new inclinations. This would make God the author of sin.

I believe that God has decreed all things that shall come to pass. I also maintain that God offers no violence to the freedom of the will but men act in full accord with their own choices. I don't see a contradiction in those two views because I can distinguish between the decree and its execution. The decree is absolute while the execution takes contingency and conditionality into account as things which God has also decreed. We can speak of ultimate causality so far as the decree of all things is concerned. But in terms of the execution of the decree we only allow active influence by God in relation to grace and redemption; we must deny active influence by God in relation to sin and damnation, because the Bible rejects all thought that God sins or tempts to sin, or damns men for any reason other than their own voluntary choice to sin.


This statement is in contradiction to the heretical hyper-Calvinistic view of eternal justification. They lurk about and I want to draw a line in the sand here. For more, see this:
http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...-Faith-Alone&p=4869475&viewfull=1#post4869475

AMR

Perhaps you ought to take a gander at something you're about to post, then you wouldn't have to elaborate and change your original stance. Just a thought. Face it, Calvinists believe humanity has NO discernible 'free-will' of its own when it comes to salvation, eternal life, and forgiveness of ALL their sins. Furthermore, Calvinists believe that God 'chose' His Elect before the foundation of the world according to His Sovereign Will. You certainly have a 'fanciful' way of writing. It sounds elaborate, intelligent, well thought out, and practiced, however, no matter how well written, it still changes the 'Character of God,' and repudiates the 'Gospel of the grace of God' that the Apostle Paul preached. And, that's a shame.

Calvinists tend to be quite articulate and can make things 'appear' logical/reasonable. That's the precise reason why their 'false doctrine' and misinterpretation of Scripture is so 'dangerous' to the 'True Gospel.' and to Christendom itself. Only those who KNOW the true Gospel (Paul's Gospel) can see the falsehoods taught by Calvinism.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Perhaps you ought to take a gander at something you're about to post, then you wouldn't have to elaborate and change your original stance. Just a thought.

Seems overly harsh given that my original stance and the suggested change of the wording of that unchanged stance are stating the same thing. I simply devolved it a wee bit to answer your question about it.

I assumed you asked the question to which I was responding in sincerity to learn of the practices you were questioning. I provided a detailed response. I did not realize the purpose of your question was actually to enjoin ridicule.

It is also odd that you apply a standard to me that you do not to yourself. The fact that I am responding directly to you is because you posted a direct question to Lon, but then later made a sardonic post basically claiming, "See folks, Calvinists won't answer the question". At that juncture I pointed out to you that your post quoting Lon was not in fact directed to anyone but Lon, per your formulations therein. So you recast your question such that I responded.

Now perhaps your gandering at your post quoting Lon concluded all Calvinists may respond. I do not know. It was helpful when you elaborated and changed your original stance from "Lon, do you..." to "Calvinists, do you..." :AMR:

The rest of your response seems the usual sarcasms, opinions, and canards, and will not be quoted. That is a shame and a disappointment. I was hopeful you wanted to understand more about these matters from those that you are targeting, such that you would at least be better informed. Shame on me for taking the bait.

AMR

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Seems overly harsh given that my original stance and the suggested change of the wording of that unchanged stance are stating the same thing. I simply devolved it a wee bit to answer your question about it.

I assumed you asked the question to which I was responding in sincerity to learn of the practices you were questioning. I provided a detailed response. I did not realize the purpose of your question was actually to enjoin ridicule.

It is also odd that you apply a standard to me that you do not to yourself. The fact that I am responding directly to you is because you posted a direct question to Lon, but then later made a sardonic post basically claiming, "See folks, Calvinists won't answer the question". At that juncture I pointed out to you that your post quoting Lon was not in fact directed to anyone but Lon, per your formulations therein. So you recast your question such that I responded.

Now perhaps your gandering at your post quoting Lon concluded all Calvinists may respond. I do not know. It was helpful when you elaborated and changed your original stance from "Lon, do you..." to "Calvinists, do you..." :AMR:

The rest of your response seems the usual sarcasms, opinions, and canards, and will not be quoted. That is a shame and a disappointment. I was hopeful you wanted to understand more about these matters from those that you are targeting, such that you would at least be better informed. Shame on me for taking the bait.

AMR

It's a shame you are of that opinion. By the way, in the future, if you wish to communicate with 'Old GM,' try and delivery me the 'Readers Digest Version' and maybe, force yourself to cut back on the fanciful word and sentence motif. In other words, make it simple, please.

 

[Clete]

Exo 32:32-33 KJV
(32) Yet now, if thou wilt forgive their sin--; and if not, blot me, I pray thee, out of thy book which thou hast written.
(33) And the LORD said unto Moses, Whosoever hath sinned against me, him will I blot out of my book.

God himself said that the book of life is not immutable.

Brilliant.

I wonder how the Calvinist makes that verse mean the opposite of what it says? You know they do it somehow.

 

[Clete]

Perhaps I could have worded this more clearly:

If in the discussion the topic of election comes up, I deal with it as I have here often, beginning with all who call upon the name of the Lord will be saved. Those that do—a great multitude no man can number—are the elect. Those that do not are not the elect. In fact, they may never be the elect, if they never do what they are commanded to do.​

In other words, to counter the assumption by others that claim the elect can be anyone, my point is that the elect are a specific great multitude. The non-elect will never do what they are commanded to do. The sentence above could have been bettered stated as "In fact, they may never be the elect, since they never do what they are commanded to do."


Herein is the root of much confusion by the anti-Calvinist. You assume that the choosing of God ignores the free will (choosing per one's inclinations) of the person so chosen. You assume God's choosing does violence to the chosen person's free will. No.

God's providence acts within all the free, necessary, and contingent circumstances presented to the person. The person freely chooses according to these circumstances. God's acts set things in motion per the natural order of things. When God acts outside the natural order of the free, necessary, or contingent, this is extraordinary providence, or miracles.

No miracle is taking place when God sets in motion the free, necessary, or contingent circumstances that will result in the choices, good or bad, by any person. Rather it is just God's ordinary providence. The setting of things in motion are but God's necessarily good actions upholding what He has created. The choices made based upon these free, necessary, or contingent circumstances set in motion by God become moral actions, good and evil, when chosen my the moral agent, a human being (or an angel).

Sure, God, the First Cause, set's in motion circumstances that will always be in alignment with what He has volitionally willed, that is, ordained/decreed. But He does so in concurrence with the liberty of spontaneity (Biblical free will) of the moral creature. It is always the second cause which brings in the element of sin. God moves to action; He never moves to sinful action. God never moves men by secondary causes to act in accordance with new inclinations. This would make God the author of sin.

I believe that God has decreed all things that shall come to pass. I also maintain that God offers no violence to the freedom of the will but men act in full accord with their own choices. I don't see a contradiction in those two views because I can distinguish between the decree and its execution. The decree is absolute while the execution takes contingency and conditionality into account as things which God has also decreed. We can speak of ultimate causality so far as the decree of all things is concerned. But in terms of the execution of the decree we only allow active influence by God in relation to grace and redemption; we must deny active influence by God in relation to sin and damnation, because the Bible rejects all thought that God sins or tempts to sin, or damns men for any reason other than their own voluntary choice to sin.


This statement is in contradiction to the heretical hyper-Calvinistic view of eternal justification. They lurk about and I want to draw a line in the sand here. For more, see this:
http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...-Faith-Alone&p=4869475&viewfull=1#post4869475

AMR

Calvinism is a mental disorder.

How is it possible to read this and not see the obvious self-contradictory nature of it as if people doing things by free will and by God's decree are not mutually exclusive ideas because the words "the execution" are underlined in the sentence that makes the claim.

I wonder if Calvinists like AMR even bother to make the claim that Calvinism is a logically coherent belief system or if they're content with simply believing it without the need for rational consistency?


I would say that the irrational version of Calvinism that AMR puts forward here is preferable to the more pure forms of Calvinism put forward by Calvin himself and others on TOL. At least AMR is giving lip service to the obvious fact that we choose our own actions and that God holds people responsible for the sin that they choose to perform. What he doesn't realize is that such a position makes him functonally an open theist. If not in doctrine or belief, at least in practice. He lives his life (outside of TOL and other doctrinal discussions) as though Open Theism were true and expects others to do the same.

Of course, at bottom, all people do that. People can choose to deny the nature of reality but they cannot choose to do so without consequence. People can reject the idea of choice but they cannot avoid choosing. They can believe that only certain specific people are "elect" but, as Rosenritter brilliantly pointed out in post 500 of this thread, the elect and non-elect look and act alike and so all must be treated as if that doctrine was not true and as if Open Theism were true. The same applies to virtually all of the distinctively Calvinist doctrines. One cannot get out of bed without acting like an Open Theist.

Clete

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Calvinism is a mental disorder.

How is it possible to read this and not see the obvious self-contradictory nature of it as if people doing things by free will and by God's decree are not mutually exclusive ideas because the words "the execution" are underlined in the sentence that makes the claim.

I wonder if Calvinists like AMR even bother to make the claim that Calvinism is a logically coherent belief system or if they're content with simply believing it without the need for rational consistency?


I would say that the irrational version of Calvinism that AMR puts forward here is preferable to the more pure forms of Calvinism put forward by Calvin himself and others on TOL. At least AMR is giving lip service to the obvious fact that we choose our own actions and that God holds people responsible for the sin that they choose to perform. What he doesn't realize is that such a position makes him functonally an open theist. If not in doctrine or belief, at least in practice. He lives his life (outside of TOL and other doctrinal discussions) as though Open Theism were true and expects others to do the same.

Of course, at bottom, all people do that. People can choose to deny the nature of reality but they cannot choose to do so without consequence. People can reject the idea of choice but they cannot avoid choosing. They can believe that only certain specific people are "elect" but, as Rosenritter brilliantly pointed out in post 500 of this thread, the elect and non-elect look and act alike and so all must be treated as if that doctrine was not true and as if Open Theism were true. The same applies to virtually all of the distinctively Calvinist doctrines. One cannot get out of bed without acting like an Open Theist.

Clete

Excellent post.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Two of the original proponents of what's become known as Calvinism is John Calvin and Augustine of Hippo. This 'false doctrine' originated in the minds and imaginations of these two men and others. Calvinism is an affront to Christendom, and especially the written Word of God. (The Holy Bible) Calvinism MUST misinterpret Scripture, and change the 'Character of the God of the Bible' to fit their false doctrine and misrepresent the Gospel, as well. I have no doubt that Calvinism like all other 'false doctrine' has its origin pointed directly towards Satanic influence. Knowing the 'Character of God' how are we to accept the idea that, God before the foundation of the world, (by His Sovereign Will) chose a number of humans to SAVE and the REST was created with a inability to receive, forgiveness of their sins, and eternal life.

Calvinists advocate the idea that, Christ ONLY died for the sins of God's chosen Elect. Romans 10:17 "So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." Calvinists would interpret this verse as "God gives His Elect the faith to believe and withholds faith from the rest of humanity. Calvinists would take a verse like: Ephesians 2:8 "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:" The Scripture plainly states that, For by Grace are we saved through (our) faith and that our salvation is not based on our WORKS but is a GIFT of God. Calvinists, basically run Scripture through their 'Calvin filter' and add their false doctrine, thereby, changing the Scripture to fit their false, belief 'SYSTEM.'

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

I've noticed that Calvinists try to tell non-Calvinists that they do not fully understand the Calvinist doctrine. That's one of their excuses. After all, if the non-Calvinist doesn't fully understand this false doctrine, then, HOW can the non-Calvinist debate the subject properly?

 

[Rosenritter]

Could I make a request that some of the posts against Calvinism be gentled down a bit?

There's a practical purpose for this. We as humans react differently when we think we are under emotional or aggressive attack, but we are more likely to be able to act on a logical or spiritual level when we are approached peaceably. At this time I have seen two Calvinist participants on this thread and I have some good things to say for both of them. If we want them to participate let's not drive them off. They are brothers in Christ.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Could I make a request that some of the posts against Calvinism be gentled down a bit?

There's a practical purpose for this. We as humans react differently when we think we are under emotional or aggressive attack, but we are more likely to be able to act on a logical or spiritual level when we are approached peaceably. At this time I have seen two Calvinist participants on this thread and I have some good things to say for both of them. If we want them to participate let's not drive them off. They are brothers in Christ.

You have the right to 'REQUEST' however, what posters write is their own business. You also have the right to give your opinion, but you ought not to try to CONTROL what others say. :nono:

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

As a believer in the 'Gospel of the grace of God' as preached/taught by the Apostle Paul, I believe Calvinism to be a hindrance to 'Paul's Gospel.' Therefore, I'm very passionate about ANY false doctrine that rejects that one and ONLY Gospel, for today.

 

[Rosenritter]

You have the right to 'REQUEST' however, what posters write is their own business. You also have the right to give your opinion, but you ought not to try to CONTROL what others say. :nono:

I'm fairly certain the original text said request...

 

[Rosenritter]

As a believer in the 'Gospel of the grace of God' as preached/taught by the Apostle Paul, I believe Calvinism to be a hindrance to 'Paul's Gospel.' Therefore, I'm very passionate about ANY false doctrine that rejects that one and ONLY Gospel, for today.

I totally understand passion and you know that I am in agreement on most specific points and details here, at least... but it's hard to reach someone when they don't feel like they have an opportunity to answer. If there's more of us (and there seem to be) that's another factor as well.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

I totally understand passion and you know that I am in agreement on most specific points and details here, at least... but it's hard to reach someone when they don't feel like they have an opportunity to answer. If there's more of us (and there seem to be) that's another factor as well.

WHO hasn't had an opportunity to answer? There have been a plethora of answers on this thread. What are you actually complaining about? If you have a problem with certain posters on this thread, make your complaints on the 'Woodshed.' Seems like you have 'control issues?' Must you be in control in order to feel relevant?

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

I'm fairly certain the original text said request...

Well, it appears as if you're not happy about certain posters on this thread. Perhaps you ought to try another thread that will make you feel more comfortable and less anxious?

 

[Rosenritter]

Well, it appears as if you're not happy about certain posters on this thread. Perhaps you ought to try another thread that will make you feel more comfortable and less anxious?

I hadn't named anyone but now that you mention it you seem a bit angry right now. The suggestion was that less anger might do more for the end goal...

 

[Clete]

Just a point of clarification...

In my last post I made remarks about AMR's version of Calvinism vs a "more pure" version of Calvinism.

I am fully aware that the WCF (Westminster Confession of Faith) states....

"God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established." - source​

That, unfortunately, doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of people who call themselves Calvinist, reject the notion of a will, in terms of choosing one's actions, and they almost universally reject the idea of a free will outright.

The distinction is an important one because AMR's post read almost like it had been written by a Catholic rather than a Calvinist and what he referred to as "hyper-Calvinism" is actually just logically consistent Calvinism.

At any rate, the point of my post wasn't about attempting to define or redefine Calvinism but rather to point out how Calvinists (of any stripe) are forced to think, speak and act as if their doctrine is false and that Open Theism is the truth.

Clete

 

[Rosenritter]

Just a point of clarification...

In my last post I made remarks about AMR's version of Calvinism vs a "more pure" version of Calvinism.

I am fully aware that the WCF (Westminster Confession of Faith) states....

"God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established." - source​

If you read the Westminster Confession of Faith above in the understanding that God ordained that his creatures have free will, in the normal understanding of that term, then it actually seems to make sense.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

I hadn't named anyone but now that you mention it you seem a bit angry right now. The suggestion was that less anger might do more for the end goal...

From the tone of your post, it sounds as if you're a wee bit angry at 'Old GM, as well.' However, I have a solution, how about we 'agree to disengage communication with one another for a period of time? Remember Paul and Barnabas?

 

[Clete]

If you read the Westminster Confession of Faith above in the understanding that God ordained that his creatures have free will, in the normal understanding of that term, then it actually seems to make sense.

How so?

God created us with a will. Meaning that we have the ability to do or to do otherwise at our own volition. Since God Himself created us and had the freedom and ability to do so in any way He desired, then, in that sense, God ordained that we have a will.

This is not in any sense what the Calvinist mean by will or by ordained. Nor is it necessary to suppose that the decision to give us a will was made in what the Calvinists mean by "eternity". For all we know, God decided to give us a will the equivalent of a week before He started creation.

One of the most annoying things about these so called "confessions" of faith, is that they make no effort to establish the doctrines nor to differentiate certain docttrines as first principles vs ones that are derived from those first principles. They are simply bald statements of the doctrines without even so much as an attempt to define the terms used. As such, I find that they are all but worthless. Anyone from any branch of the Calvinistic theological universe can claim allegience to the WCF while holding wildly different doctrinal positions on what would otherwise seem to be foundational issues.

At any rate, I'm interested in your comment and would love it if you'd expand on it. Just how do you see it potentially making sense?

Clete