John Calvin and Calvinism.

[Grailhunter]

Who proposed free will for God to have to deny it? He created everything from the beginning.



What is a monster?

So if God created you to be the controller of your own future, then God is good. But if He created you in order to control your future, then He is a monster.

This exposes a lot about your man centered thinking.



I am not talking about a puppet show. The Holy Almighty God works everything for His own purpose. Christ is the point, not you.



Discombobulated. Please take more care.

A god that doesn't control everything is not Almighty at all.

LOL
No body is controlling me. I choose Christ.
The god you speak of is most likely Satan. What you are saying is that Satan predestined things so he would have a guaranteed quota. Satan worship even though I know God would not allow him to do it, much less be evil enough to do it Himself.

 

[Grailhunter]

No, that would be Jacobus Arminius. And it was then just as it is now, because of hard-headedness and pride. Yes, Jacobus Arminius has influenced many, many people down through the centuries, especially people in the West.


The only thing John Calvin might have been (because we don't really know) really frustrated about was the obstinance and blindness of others.


LOL! We all struggle with doubt, frustration, and anxiety regarding all sorts of things. But with regard to the Bible, John Calvin obviously had no lack of confidence.


That's not what he preached at all. He did preach the sovereignty of God, but that's an immutable truth of God's Word... a quality of God that is indisputable. As Job says, "(God's) purposes cannot be thwarted" (Job 42:2). And as Paul says:

"Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways! “For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counselor? Or who has given a gift to him that he might be repaid?' For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen." (Romans 11:33-36)
​

Neither said that in any way, shape or form.

"...the intention of man's heart is evil from his youth" (God Himself, Genesis 8:21)​

"...the hearts of the children of man are full of evil, and madness is in their hearts while they live, and after that they go to the dead" (Ecclesiastes 9:3)​

"All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned—every one—to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all" (Isaiah 53:6).​

They didn't teach this, either. What people should be able to do is to distinguish autonomy from mere free will. Many will not do this, and that's the cause of their lack of understanding.


Well, now this is interesting. What they preached was the majesty and the splendor of God. Yes, there is a sadness to be aware of here, but that is that, out of pride and perceived offense, some still see God as monstrous and hold Him in contempt.


No one is forced to do anything. Everyone gets what he/she wants. But God did make each one for a specific purpose, for sure. This is His right as Creator. He is the potter and we are the clay:

"But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, 'Why have You made me like this?' Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show His wrath and to make known Yis power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of His glory for vessels of mercy, which He has prepared beforehand for glory ~ even us whom He has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?” ​

Nowhere does Paul say we do not make a choice regarding God and His salvation, and even a free-will choice (there is no other kind of choice) at that. In fact, the strong implication is that we absolutely do make a free-will choice. But it depends on God, which is exactly what Paul says earlier in Romans 9, namely verse 16.


Nope. And nope. But he did believe in a Right and a wrong.

Grace and peace to you.

After reading this it is easy for me to say, you are wrong on all counts.
Paul would never accuse God of the evil that you people do.
With the robot reality that you guys fantasize about there would have been no reason for Christ.
No absolute stupidity.
Predestined as reality has no merit purpose.

 

[Rudometkin]

No body is controlling me.

God doesn't work in you? What do you know?

Believers know that it is God who works in them to will and do of His good pleasure.

Philippians 2:13
For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.

No body is controlling me.

This reminds me of those who say, "God has no hands on me! The Potter has no hands!"

Isaiah 45:9
...Does your work say, ‘The potter has no hands’?

 

[Grailhunter]

God doesn't work in you?

Working with people is something God has done in the whole Bible.....that is not predestination.

 

[Rudometkin]

Working with people is something God has done in the whole Bible.....that is not predestination.

Now you jump to merely focusing on predestination.. please stay on track.

You said nobody is controlling you. Does God work in you, or not?

 

[Grailhunter]

Now you jump to merely focusing on predestination.. please stay on track.

You said nobody is controlling you. Does God work in you, or not?

Again...words means things. God can work with people, no one denies that. work with is not control....work with is not predestination.

 

[Rudometkin]

Again...words means things. God can work with people, no one denies that. work with is not control....work with is not predestination.

Words mean things. God works in you. Work in is not work with. You keep saying God works with, but He says He works in.

Work in is control.

 

[Grailhunter]

Words mean things. God works in you. Work in is not work with. You keep saying God works with, but He says He works in.

Work in is control.

Disagree on all points

 

[FHII]

Right. And I would argue that if there are folks out there who cling to Calvinist views regarding sin "because they wish or desire to live a sinful life" do not really understand Scripture regarding sin at all ~ or they just ignore Scripture's teaching regarding sin. In addition, they don't really understand what Calvin himself said and wrote regarding sin. Really, such folks, whether aware of it or not, fool themselves, and are a walking contradiction. That would bring into question whether such a person was really a Christian at all.

What I have put in bold is what really frustrates me about folks who want to discuss Calvin and "Calvinists". I don't believe many have read his work through.

About 10 years ago I studied Calvin hard: his life and what he wrote. I have forgotten much of what I learned, but do recall what he said is a far cry from what people think he believed. I have often quipped that Calvin wasn't even a Calvinist!

I simply have to give up on some folks... If you are willing to criticize the man, you should educate yourself about him by reading directly what he said. And many are unwilling to do so.

 

[Rudometkin]

(Point 1) Words mean things. (Point 2) God works in you. (Point 3)...etc.

Disagree on all points

OK. You disagree that God works in you and that words have meanings.

We didn't get very far, but I figure we are done here. God bless.

 

[Enoch111]

If you are willing to criticize the man, you should educate yourself about him by reading directly what he said.

I gave you and others EXACT QUOTES from Calvin -- some biblical and some anti-biblical on the same exact passages! Same man, split personality.

 

[Heart2Soul]

Great question, Nancy.

What if you're evangelizing to Esau?

Romans 9:13
...Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.

Hated in this verse is not to be applied equally with the English definition of hate/hated.
In Romans Paul explains what God meant by this saying.
Rom 9 (NKJV)
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

⁶ But it is not that the word of God has taken no effect. For they are not all Israel who are of Israel,
⁷ nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham; but, "In Isaac your seed shall be called."
⁸ That is, those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted as the seed.
⁹ For this is the word of promise: "At this time I will come and Sarah shall have a son."
¹⁰ And not only this, but when Rebecca also had conceived by one man, even by our father Isaac
¹¹ (for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls),
¹² it was said to her, "The older shall serve the younger."
¹³ As it is written, "Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated."
¹⁴ What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not!
¹⁵ For He says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion."
¹⁶ So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy.
¹⁷ For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth."
¹⁸ Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens.
¹⁹ You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?"
²⁰ But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, "Why have you made me like this?"

Here lies the answer to it all

…
²² What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction,
²³ and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory,
²⁴ even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?
²⁵ As He says also in Hosea: "I will call them My people, who were not My people, And her beloved, who was not beloved."
²⁶ "And it shall come to pass in the place where it was said to them, 'You are not My people,' There they shall be called sons of the living God."

 

[FHII]

I gave you and others EXACT QUOTES from Calvin -- some biblical and some anti-biblical on the same exact passages! Same man, split personality.

And I told you that your quotes were selective and did not represent Calvin truthfully due to what you left out!

Just because you quote someone doesn't mean you are truthfully showing their point of view! And Biblically we are told not to do that: see Ecc 12:13!

Now, when I informed you that you had misrepresented Calvin by not fully reading his words and citing them, what was your response? Did you go back and check? No! You simply said you didn't need to! You said it was poison and it was wrong to read it (Or something to that effect). Had you gone back and read the full text and still had objections, I could at least deal with you. At least I would be dealing with a man that had educated himself about the topic.

The bottom line is that you did a hatchet job on Calvin's work. You were told that you did it, and you didn't care that you did. So I can't concern myself with you on this topic and I am doubtful about anything else.

I despise personal attacks so it is without pleasure I charge you with this. My problem is not with you, but with your method of your conclusion. Anyone who refuses to hear the full conclusion is not worthy of debating. You cannot compete with wilful ignorance.

 

[Rudometkin]

What I have put in bold is what really frustrates me about folks who want to discuss Calvin and "Calvinists". I don't believe many have read his work through.

About 10 years ago I studied Calvin hard: his life and what he wrote. I have forgotten much of what I learned, but do recall what he said is a far cry from what people think he believed. I have often quipped that Calvin wasn't even a Calvinist!

I simply have to give up on some folks... If you are willing to criticize the man, you should educate yourself about him by reading directly what he said. And many are unwilling to do so.

The way I understand it, they probably attack him on what they figure are unfavorable logical conclusions of some of his words, and then use his other words to reveal his apparent contradictions. That is sneaky.

Suppose Calvin says God creates and controls all things. Since evil is a thing, critics will conclude that Calvin teaches God creates and controls evil. In the critic's mind, creating evil would necessarily make God a 'monster'. So the critics will conclude that Calvin taught God is a monster. Then they can say Calvin contradicted himself when he said God is Good, Holy, Righteous and Just in creating and controlling all things. They just want to attack what they think is his poor doctrine.

So they may attack Calvin by attacking his idea of God. But if you truly believe God Righteously creates all things, then you will conclude God is Righteous in creating evil. There is no logical problem. He creates all things for Himself, and He is Righteous in all His ways.

Proverbs 16:4
The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.

Psalm 145:17
The LORD is righteous in all his ways, and holy in all his works.

 

[Grailhunter]

OK. You disagree that God works in you and that words have meanings.

We didn't get very far, but I figure we are done here. God bless.

No that....work with and work in is the same,

 

[FHII]

The way I understand it, they probably attack him on what they figure are unfavorable logical conclusions of some of his words, and then use his other words to reveal his apparent contradictions. That is sneaky.

Suppose Calvin says God creates and controls all things. Since evil is a thing, critics will conclude that Calvin teaches God creates and controls evil. In the critic's mind, creating evil would necessarily make God a 'monster'. So the critics will conclude that Calvin taught God is a monster. Then they can say Calvin contradicted himself when he said God is Good, Holy, Righteous and Just in creating and controlling all things. They just want to attack what they think is his poor doctrine.

So they may attack Calvin by attacking his idea of God. But if you truly believe God Righteously creates all things, then you will conclude God is Righteous in creating evil. There is no logical problem. He creates all things for Himself, and He is Righteous in all His ways.

Proverbs 16:4
The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.

Psalm 145:17
The LORD is righteous in all his ways, and holy in all his works.

Not to mention:

Isaiah 45:7 KJV
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.

The thing is, Calvin wrote dozens of books which details many books of the Bible and subjects pertaining to Christian religion. He is an equal opportunity offender and defender! If anyone reads all his work, they will find stuff they like and dislike. Yet 99% of the discussion of Calvin focuses on 3 chapters he wrote in one book. Furthermore, 99% of THAT discussion is on only a few quotes of those 3 chapters without regard to context.

I can't deal with people like that...

 

[Grailhunter]

Not to mention:

Isaiah 45:7 KJV
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.

The thing is, Calvin wrote dozens of books which details many books of the Bible and subjects pertaining to Christian religion. He is an equal opportunity offender and defender! If anyone reads all his work, they will find stuff they like and dislike. Yet 99% of the discussion of Calvin focuses on 3 chapters he wrote in one book. Furthermore, 99% of THAT discussion is on only a few quotes of those 3 chapters without regard to context.

I can't deal with people like that...

No one that knows anything about John Calvin thinks he was stupid or uneducated.....He just produced a horrible religion. And his idea of theocracy was messed up too.
The Oh, people just understand him does not fly.
Of course he was not responsible for the morphing of his religion....but it did not get any better.

 

[FHII]

No one that knows anything about John Calvin thinks he was stupid or uneducated.....He just produced a horrible religion. And his idea of theocracy was messed up too.
The Oh, people just understand him does not fly.
Of course he was not responsible for the morphing of his religion....but it did not get any better.

Grailhunter, if you can honestly say you have spent time reading his work I could respect your opinion. I don't believe you have because anyone who has would see that this whole predestination vs. Free will debate was just a drop in the ocean compared to everything he discussed.

But if thats all you want to talk about then the required reading JUST TO GET STARTED is the 3 chapters in Institutes. Thats entry level! That makes you a white belt.

So yes, if you have not read him you have not understood him and it does fly! If you want to talk about what todays "calvinism" is, fine! But you have been told its not what he came up with. I am defending what John Calvin actually said and wrote (and I am not even a big fan!).

In the Bible, we learn the importance of truth. Calvin was a Christian philosopher; its not important to believe him! But the seeking of truth is an important Bible concept that Jesus himself laid out. Why would you not extend that to Calvin since he taught Christianity?

 

[farouk]

Trying to prove someone is bad by using a process of logic won't necessarily work, because of presuppositions.

As in: "Calvin - died 1564 - must be bad because the Five Points of Calvinism - dating from 1618/19 - say things I disagree with" is certainly not logical. (However appealing to those who have already decided otherwise.)

 

[farouk]

In the Bible, we learn the importance of truth. Calvin was a Christian philosopher; its not important to believe him! But the seeking of truth is an important Bible concept that Jesus himself laid out. Why would you not extend that to Calvin since he taught Christianity?

@FHII Why spoil a good Fundamentalist argument with truth and truthfulness? (ad hominem supposedly works far better......)

Trying to debunk Calvinism "surely" belongs with the discourse methods in vogue someplace between the Iowa Caucus and Super Tuesday....