Fifty Million Rob Bell Fans Can’t Be Wrong

[Barkman] I did not call Calvinism audacious

I stand corrected. Thanks.

[Barkman] You can continue to state that the Trinity is not contradictory, but a mystery, but that will not convince a JW. To him, it appears to be a contradiction, just like to you, many assertions of Calvinism appear to be contradictory.

The contradiction and the fact that such qualifications changes the meaning of words or phrases is not merely apparent but real. For example, you say:

Did God, therefore, “choose” some for Hell? Only in the sense that He chose not to rescue them. The “choosing” of the elect is not an exact parallel to passing over the non-elect. God determined to leave some to their own sinful choices, and to rescue some out of their self chosen misery by providing them with a Savior, and giving them new desires.

1. The idea that God did not God did not really choose men for damnation except “only in the sense” is an attempt, as I see it, to make “choose” mean something other than what it means and deflect the attention from the “other side of the coin” regarding the act of God’s choosing.

First if all, the act of God not rescuing is only the means to an end for the non-elect, that is, God does not rescue in order to fulfill His predetermined plan to damn “some men”. Therefore, God’s intention is to damn “some men”. he accomplishes that intention by not rescuing those whom He has chosen from all eternity for damnation.

Second, as such, the reality is, if God chose not to rescue them, then it is because He chose to damn them; and, add to that the Calvinistic notion that God foreordains men to damnation from all eternity and, add to that the notion that God is in exhaustive control of all the actions - great and small - of men, it becomes an inescapable fact that Calvinism teaches God has chosen to damn “some men”. Men are not ultimately damned because that was their choice but because God chose to damn them (deserts have nothing to do with that choice). Cp WCF 3:3,7 - “God was pleased…to ordain them to dishonor and wrath” (The phrase “for their sin,” which comes rights after, results in a self-contradiction when placed next to the phrase, “to ordain them to dishonor and wrath…to everlasting death.”

2. The quoted proposition seems an attempt to imply that God is passive and has nothing to do with a man’s damnation (except to give him what he deserves). This in my opinion, does not hold and is wholly not Biblical (see verses in NT where God “casts” men into hell). If God foreordains, predestines, controls everything from the lesser to the greater, even the actions of men and angels, to say that God “allows” is (and I say this, again, respectfully as one stepping on eggs) doubletalk. It is a self-contradiction to say that God “allows” what he has predestined from all eternity to occur and is simultaneously actively engaged to cause the event.

3. Well, in any case, since you have opted out of a continued discussion, I also will end it here with you.

Unfortunately, I thought discussions on this forum were going to be objective leaving out any conversation implying negatively the character and motives of the opposition or implying insults and negative judgments upon them. Again, I am by no means a scholar so my explanations may be crude but I hope one is able to catch my meaning. Aany understanding I may obtain, on forums such as this one, helps to sharpen or redefine, enhance or correct my views of what God has sought to reveal in the Bible.

Unfortunately, Barkman’s manner of response only helps reaffirms (in my mind) that Calvinism is inadequate to properly reflect Biblical truth. If anyone can show me specifically how and why a proposition put forth on a previous post by Barkman is not a self-contradiction or how/why a qualification on a statement he made does not change the meaning or definition of a phrase or word, it would be appreciated.

Otherwise, I remain open to an objective discussion of the issues and appreciate the opportunity to somewhat sharpen iron with Barkman, even if it was to a disapponting end.

nbanuchi,

Let’s put the shoe on the other foot. Why don’t you explain your Arminian position, and let others critique it? You approach here has been a bit like Obama’s. He, and his political party, refused to put a budget on the table, preferring to wait for the Republicans to put out theirs, and then attacking it to death. The Republicans put several proposals on the table, only to have them torn apart by the Democrats. But where was the Democrat’s plan? It’s an easy game to play, and once I began to realize what you were doing, I decided to stop playing. It became apparent that whatever else I added would only provide more grist for your strongly prejudicial, anti-Calvinist mill.

But I am willing to continue if you want to put your beliefs out for examination. It’s one thing to say that you reject Calvinism, and are unconvinced because you believe Calvinism to be un-Biblical. It’s quite another to state your doctrine, and let others examine it through the lens of Scripture.

So, Mr. nbanuchi, what do you believe about election? That would be a good place to resume our discussion.

Cordially,

Greg Barkman

Nelson,

In an attempt to understand your position I am going to present what I believe you believe Calvinism affirms, based on your comments in this thread. If this is not what you understand Calvinism to affirm, then please show where I am incorrect.

Let me use an analogy to explain what I perceive your understanding of Calvinism is:

God, before the foundation of the world, lined mankind up. At this point mankind was neither for nor against God, they were in an effectively innocent neutral state. God then walked down the line and everyone He passed was eager to be chosen for heaven, but God only said to some of those “you come to heaven,” and said to the others “you go to hell.” His choice of both the come-to-heaven group and the go-to-hell group was identical. This choice directly caused the go-to-hell group to become reprobate as God’s choice deprived them of any opportunity to be other than reprobate.

Here is the same analogy from the Calvinist perspective:

God, before the foundation of the world, lined mankind up. At this point mankind was against God, they were in a state of rebellion, and God would have been perfectly just to have cast the entirety of mankind into hell. But because he is both a God of justice and mercy, He determined to save many from their rebellion. As God walked down the line, every single person He passed spit at Him, cursed Him, and declared that they would rather go to hell for eternity, than to spend a moment in His presence. And yet He said to some “you come to heaven,” and passed by the others. The come-to-heaven group received something they did not want (mercy) while the others received exactly what they wanted (justice).

From the http://www.reformed.org/documents/canons_of_dordt.html Canons of Dort

1st Main Point of Doctrine

[Article 1: God’s Right to Condemn All People]

Since all people have sinned in Adam and have come under the sentence of the curse and eternal death, God would have done no one an injustice if it had been his will to leave the entire human race in sin and under the curse, and to condemn them on account of their sin. As the apostle says: The whole world is liable to the condemnation of God (Rom. 3:19), All have sinned and are deprived of the glory of God (Rom. 3:23), and The wages of sin is death (Rom. 6:23).

[Article 5: The Sources of Unbelief and of Faith]

The cause or blame for this unbelief, as well as for all other sins, is not at all in God, but in man. Faith in Jesus Christ, however, and salvation through him is a free gift of God. As Scripture says, It is by grace you have been saved, through faith, and this not from yourselves; it is a gift of God (Eph. 2:8). Likewise: It has been freely given to you to believe in Christ (Phil. 1:29).

[Article 6: God’s Eternal Decision]

The fact that some receive from God the gift of faith within time, and that others do not, stems from his eternal decision. For all his works are known to God from eternity (Acts 15:18; Eph. 1:11). In accordance with this decision he graciously softens the hearts, however hard, of his chosen ones and inclines them to believe, but by his just judgment he leaves in their wickedness and hardness of heart those who have not been chosen. And in this especially is disclosed to us his act—unfathomable, and as merciful as it is just—of distinguishing between people equally lost. This is the well-known decision of election and reprobation revealed in God’s Word. This decision the wicked, impure, and unstable distort to their own ruin, but it provides holy and godly souls with comfort beyond words.

[Quote=Article 7: Election]

Election [or choosing] is God’s unchangeable purpose by which he did the following:

Before the foundation of the world, by sheer grace, according to the free good pleasure of his will, he chose in Christ to salvation a definite number of particular people out of the entire human race, which had fallen by its own fault from its original innocence into sin and ruin. Those chosen were neither better nor more deserving than the others, but lay with them in the common misery. He did this in Christ, whom he also appointed from eternity to be the mediator, the head of all those chosen, and the foundation of their salvation. And so he decided to give the chosen ones to Christ to be saved, and to call and draw them effectively into Christ’s fellowship through his Word and Spirit. In other words, he decided to grant them true faith in Christ, to justify them, to sanctify them, and finally, after powerfully preserving them in the fellowship of his Son, to glorify them.

God did all this in order to demonstrate his mercy, to the praise of the riches of his glorious grace.

As Scripture says, God chose us in Christ, before the foundation of the world, so that we should be holy and blameless before him with love; he predestined us whom he adopted as his children through Jesus Christ, in himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, by which he freely made us pleasing to himself in his beloved (Eph. 1:4-6). And elsewhere, Those whom he predestined, he also called; and those whom he called, he also justified; and those whom he justified, he also glorified (Rom. 8:30).

[Article 15: Reprobation]

Moreover, Holy Scripture most especially highlights this eternal and undeserved grace of our election and brings it out more clearly for us, in that it further bears witness that not all people have been chosen but that some have not been chosen or have been passed by in God’s eternal election— those, that is, concerning whom God, on the basis of his entirely free, most just, irreproachable, and unchangeable good pleasure, made the following decision: to leave them in the common misery into which, by their own fault, they have plunged themselves; not to grant them saving faith and the grace of conversion; but finally to condemn and eternally punish them (having been left in their own ways and under his just judgment), not only for their unbelief but also for all their other sins, in order to display his justice. And this is the decision of reprobation, which does not at all make God the author of sin (a blasphemous thought!) but rather its fearful, irreproachable, just judge and avenger.

[Article 18: The Proper Attitude Toward Election and Reprobation]

To those who complain about this grace of an undeserved election and about the severity of a just reprobation, we reply with the words of the apostle, Who are you, O man, to talk back to God? (Rom. 9:20), and with the words of our Savior, Have I no right to do what I want with my own? (Matt. 20:15). We, however, with reverent adoration of these secret things, cry out with the apostle: Oh, the depths of the riches both of the wisdom and the knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways beyond tracing out! For who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been his counselor? Or who has first given to God, that God should repay him? For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be the glory forever! Amen (Rom. 11:33-36).

Loraine Bottener’s http://www.ccel.org/ccel/boettner/predest.toc.html Reformed Doctrine of Predestination

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/boettner/predest.iv.iii.v.html Reprobation

As Mozley has said, the whole race after the fall was “one mass of perdition,” and “it pleased God of His sovereign mercy to rescue some and to leave others where they were; to raise some to glory, giving them such grace as necessarily qualified them for it, and abandon the rest, from whom He withheld such grace, to eternal punishments.”

Luther also as certainly as Calvin attributes the eternal perdition of the wicked, as well as the eternal salvation of the righteous, to the plan of God. “This mightily offends our rational nature,” he says, “that God should, of His own mere unbiased will, leave some men to themselves, harden them and condemn them; but He gives abundant demonstration, and does continually, that this is really the case; namely, that the sole cause why some are saved, and others perish, proceeds from His willing the salvation of the former, and the perdition of the latter, according to that of St. Paul, ‘He hath mercy on whom He will have mercy, and whom He will He hardeneth.”’

John,

Thank you for taking time to explain this position so clearly.

Cordially,

Greg Barkman

[JohnBrian] In an attempt to understand your position I am going to present what I believe you believe Calvinism affirms, based on your comments in this thread. If this is not what you understand Calvinism to affirm, then please show where I am incorrect. Let me use an analogy to explain what I perceive your understanding of Calvinism is…

As per your request…

1. For your first analogy, what you “perceive” as my understanding is, as you know, the Calvinistic understanding. It is misleading to attribute an analogy that clearly reflects Calvinism as your perception of my understanding of Calvinism.

2. Both your analogies represent two different Calvinistic views respecting salvation, in particular, the “divine decrees”. As you presented them, you give the impression that the first analogy is not Calvinism (but my “understanding” of Calvinism), while the second is Calvinism, as if the first is erroneous while the second is correct. However, since both analogies are Calvinistic views, what you implied was misleading.

3. In any case, since I quoted the WCF (of which, I assume, you are familiar) and made a clear, although very short, presentation of the Calvinist view (e.g. post #40), it seems to me that you had sufficient information to attempt to understand my position (although, clearly, not the doctrinal position I espouse). Therefore, your query was unnecessary and only deflects from the main issue.

4. Finally, since I am not arguing decrees per se, your comments #53 and #54 are irrelevant. My contention in the “Bell” thread, along with a few textual considerations, is centered around propositions made to explain Calvinism that I see as amounting to doubletalk; see my posts #40-#43. Therefore, “I was hoping to find at least one instance where a logical explanation can be made, which clearly shows that the assertions made do not cancel out each other and qualifications, if any, put forth do not change the meanings of words or phrases” (cf. post #47).

nbanuchi,

These statements are no more double talk than the statement, “God is one; God is three” is double talk. If that is double talk, the Bible teaches “double talk.” One man’s double talk is another man’s mystery.

Do the Calvinist statements seem like double talk to you? Apparently. Are they? No, because this is actually what the Bible teaches. Could we prove to you that it is not double talk? Probably not, any more than I can prove to a Jehovah’s Witness that the statements about the Trinity are not double talk. What is Bible truth to me is double talk to him.

Please forgive me if I have presumed to answer in place of John. He is fully able to answer for himself, and I look forward to his answer. However, since your reference to “double talk” figured prominently in our previous discussions, I thought perhaps it would be all right for me to try again.

Sincerely,

Greg Barkman

Barkman, respectfully,

1. It was already shown why the JW challenge to the trinity does not apply.

2. You neglected to show how certain propositions put forth are not doubletalk.

3. As such, I fail to understand what you mean when you say, “it would be all right for me to try again.” “Try” what “again”?

I was hoping by re-stating previous assertions in a slightly different way, they might connect.

The point is this: there are many truths in Scripture that appear, at first glance, to be double talk, the Trinity being an obvious example. The fact that a JW calls the doctrine of the Trinity “double talk”, does not prove that it is. It simply demonstrates the JW’s inability (or unwillingness) to accept the apparent contradictions of Scripture, which unwillingness renders it impossible that he will be able to grasp the teaching of Scripture on this subject. As long as he calls it “double talk”, he’s stuck in a dead-end of his own creation. Once he acknowledges that the Bible does, in fact, teach that God is both one and three, he comes to new understanding. What was previously double talk is now a mysterious truth reveled by God. It is impossible to prove, to a JW’s satisfaction, that the Trinity is not double talk. He must get beyond his “hang-up,” and wrestle with competing statements of Scripture until he arrives at an understanding of the Trinity.

The same is true of many Biblical statements regarding the sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man. As long as thoughtfully derived doctrinal statements are labeled “double talk,” no further progress in understanding these apparent contradictions will be made. Once it is acknowledged that such apparent contradictions are indeed taught in Scripture, a new level of understanding opens to be able to reconcile into harmonious truth that which previously seemed hopeless contradictory.

Until you can see the parallels between Calvinistic harmonizations of Scripture, and the doctrine of the Trinity, further progress will prove difficult.

Sincerely,

Greg Barkman

Barkman, I must respectfully point out that you keep ignoring my statements.

1. You’ll need to go back and point out why your insistence re: JW’s is irrelevant. As I stated, explaining the trinity does not amount to a self-contradiction (unless it has been explained in thw wrong way). I already touched on that so, while I can see you still insist a JW would view it as doubletalk, it may be because in your experience with JW’s, you may have explained the Biblical idea of the divine trinity incorrectly. As such, from my perspective, your comments here are irrelevant and we ought to just disagree and go forward.

2. The statements made do not “appear” as doubletalk; they really are doubletalk (unless you seek to define “doubletalk”) as I previously pointed out. And, just to make clear, this problem lies not with the Scriptures, but with the Calvinistic interpretation of the Scriptures.

3. I respectfully submit that you have yet to show how previous statements made are not self-contradictory, therefore, resulting in nonsense…doubletalk.

Since you are repeating yourself (and I have already provided answers, repeatedly) and not offering any specific rebuttal to the charges of doubletalk, any further responses you make that go no further than you have so far commented, I must respectfully decline to answer.

Mr. nbanuchi,

The problem is this: just because you declare the doctrine of the Trinity is NOT double talk, but declare that Calvinistic doctrine IS double talk, does not make it so. Having made your pronouncements, you now proceed as if the point is settled. My point is to show that what seems like double talk to one is anything but to another. My point is also to show that as long as you pronounce Calvinism double talk, you will never be able to understand the nuances of Bible truth it grapples with and enables believers to reconcile.

I have repeated myself because I find your double talk assertions untenable, and I have gone to some lengths to show you why. You want to move on because you believe you have settled the issue. I have remained because I do not believe you understand the issue and the implications sufficiently to allow us to move further. Your challenge for me to “prove” it is not double talk is like asking an innocent man to prove he doesn’t beat his wife. How can he prove something that does not exist? Just because you assert Calvinism to be double talk does not make it so, except in the sense that many divine mysteries seem contradictory at first examination, much like the doctrine of the Trinity. But here we go again. You may be satisfied with the answer, “The Trinity is not double talk because I said so. Calvinism is double talk because I said so.” But these answers will not persuade thoughtful people, and eventually, I would suspect, will no longer commend themselves to you either.

Sincerely,

Greg Barkman

[nbanuchi] 1. For your first analogy, what you “perceive” as my understanding is, as you know, the Calvinistic understanding. It is misleading to attribute an analogy that clearly reflects Calvinism as your perception of my understanding of Calvinism.

2. Both your analogies represent two different Calvinistic views respecting salvation, in particular, the “divine decrees”. As you presented them, you give the impression that the first analogy is not Calvinism (but my “understanding” of Calvinism), while the second is Calvinism, as if the first is erroneous while the second is correct. However, since both analogies are Calvinistic views, what you implied was misleading.

Is it your contention that both of the analogies I used represent Calvinism and thus constitute “double talk” because the views are contrary?

3. In any case, since I quoted the WCF (of which, I assume, you are familiar)

I am unfamiliar with the WCF (I am a Baptist not a Presbyterian). I am familiar with the http://www.reformedreader.org/ccc/1689lbc/english/1689econtents.htm 1689 London Baptist Confession though.

…and made a clear, although very short, presentation of the Calvinist view (e.g. post #40),

In responding to Barkman in post #40 you wrote:

[post 40] Barkman wrote: “All men were already on the way to Hell.”

This is what the Calvinist asserts but it is not an accurate reflection of what I see as taught by Calvinism, especially if the decree to save some and damn others is made before each man was created.

It appears that now you are insisting (and correct me if I’m wrong) that the http://www.theopedia.com/Supralapsarianism] Supralapsarian view is the SOLE view in Calvinism.

It is not!

I personally have not taken a position one way or the other as it is an internal conflict, although I would lean to the http://www.theopedia.com/Infralapsarianism] Infralapsarian view (the link redirects to sublapsarianism). If someone wants to start a thread to discuss the difference in the positions please do so.

4. Finally, since I am not arguing decrees per se, your comments #53 and #54 are irrelevant. My contention in the “Bell” thread, along with a few textual considerations, is centered around propositions made to explain Calvinism that I see as amounting to doubletalk; see my posts #40-#43. Therefore, “I was hoping to find at least one instance where a logical explanation can be made, which clearly shows that the assertions made do not cancel out each other and qualifications, if any, put forth do not change the meanings of words or phrases” (cf. post #47).

The assertions DO NOT cancel out each other (the bold is mine) because no Calvinist holds to both views at the same time. In other words, one cannot be a supra and an infra at the same time.

–

Further study on the infra and supra views:

Phil Johnson’s http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/sup_infr.htm article showing the differences between the 2 views.

http://youtu.be/-4bofnLBQD4] YouTube video that gives a good introduction to the differences between the views.

The following quotes from the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith, affirm the infra view.

http://www.reformedreader.org/ccc/1689lbc/english/Chapter03.htm Chapter 3: Of God’s Decree

3. By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestinated, or foreordained to eternal life through Jesus Christ, to the praise of his glorious grace; others being left to act in their sin to their just condemnation, to the praise of his glorious justice.

( 1 Timothy 5:21; Matthew 25:34; Ephesians 1:5, 6; Romans 9:22, 23; Jude 4 )

http://www.reformedreader.org/ccc/1689lbc/english/Chapter07.htm Chapter 7: Of God’s Covenant

2. Moreover, man having brought himself under the curse of the law by his fall, it pleased the Lord to make a covenant of grace, wherein he freely offereth unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith in him, that they may be saved; and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto eternal life, his Holy Spirit, to make them willing and able to believe.

( Genesis 2:17; Galatians 3:10; Romans 3:20, 21; Romans 8:3; Mark 16:15, 16; John 3:16; Ezekiel 36:26, 27; John 6:44, 45; Psalms 110:3 )

[JohnBrian] Is it your contention that both of the analogies I used represent Calvinism and thus constitute “double talk” because the views are contrary?

No. It seems you are not reading my comments carefully. The issue was your explaining a Calvinist position and attempting to posit it as mine.

[JohnBrian] I am unfamiliar with the WCF (I am a Baptist not a Presbyterian)…

Okay, I’ll have to read up a little the Baptist confession. Nevertheless, as one who holds a Calvinist position, I am surprised you are not acquaintred with the WCF especially since you seem familiar with the “supra” view. Don’t you guys discuss and refer to each other’s positions?

[JohnBrian] It appears that now you are insisting (and correct me if I’m wrong)…

You are wrong. I already stated there were at least two views.

[JohnBrian] The assertions DO NOT cancel out each other (the bold is mine) because no Calvinist holds to both views at the same time…

Nor did I in any place say that they did. Whose comments are you reading, anyway?

I would like to thank you for thank you for the links and apologize for any place where I was not clear. I can only hope this further clarifies things.

[nbanuchi] Nevertheless, as one who holds a Calvinist position, I am surprised you are not acquaintred with the WCF especially since you seem familiar with the “supra” view. Don’t you guys discuss and refer to each other’s positions?

At 54, I am closer to the end than the beginning (of my life, that is). There are not enough years left for me to read all I want to read of books that are on my bookshelf. That requires prioritizing reading material, and the WCF has not made it to the list.

[nbanuchi] I can only hope this further clarifies things.

I still am confused as to what exactly you think constitutes double-talk!

Hi JohnBrian,

Sorry if there is confusion. From my post #40, here are two examples I cited from the WCF that I can only read as doubletalk:

• However, even the WCF seems to engage in much double-talk when, on the one hand it states, “By the decree of God…others (He) foreordained to everlasting death,” yet, on the other hand it reads, “to ordain them to…wrath for their sin.”
• Another example of double-talk in the WCF is found in 3:1, where it states, on the one hand that God “ordain(s) whatsoever comes to pass,” yet, right afterwards, on the other hand, it reads, “so as God is not the author of sin.”

Since you are not familiar with the WCF, I quickly noticed what I deem to be doubletalk from the LBCF:

1. “By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestinated, or foreordained to eternal life through Jesus Christ, to the praise of his glorious grace; others being left to act in their sin to their just condemnation, to the praise of his glorious justice.”

It seems to me that if “some men” were “predestinated, or foreordained to eternal life”, then those who were “being left” were “predestinated, or foreordained” to that end. Therefore, how can such a judgment be a just condemnation, which I take to mean, on the basis of desert?

2. Article 5, “The cause or blame for this unbelief, as well as for all other sins, is not at all in God, but in man” contrasted with Article 6, “The fact that some receive from God the gift of faith within time, and that others do not, stems from his eternal decision.”

My question would be, which is it; are men to condemned because of own their sin or because of a divien eternal decision? To assert both as being true is (notwithstanding the disclaimer: “For all his works are known to God from eternity”) doubletalk.

Bottener, as your quotation suggests, apparently agreeing with Mozley, Luther, and Calvin, seems to go with the latter, therefore, any questions regarding the sinner deserving damnation is moot.

I have not yet had a chance to more thoroughly analyze the LBCF, but will do so as opportunity arises; in the meantime, please advise.

Thanks.

P.S. had to write quick so please accept my appologies for any grammatical or spelling errors.

I’ve been reading but can’t really quite figure out where the sticking point here is.

JohnBrian’s point is that some Calvinists (I would guess quite a few) do not hold to the idea that the damned are chosen for that destiny before creation, then become sinners because they have been predestined to that. I seem to recall this view being termed double predestination.

Since many Calvinists do not hold to this, it wouldn’t be accurate to call it “the Calvinist view.”

So the view he’s commending, if I read correctly, is that God predestines those He has chosen to redeem but the others are passively left to the results of their nature.

So I’m not sure where the deserving or not deserving question fits in. We all deserve damnation. Some are graciously delivered (Thankfully!) but certainly not because they deserve to be.

Aaron,

1. I would think that the accurate Calvinist view would not be what the majority of what those who identify themselves as Calvinist believe in but what John Calvin himself taught and believed. Calvin should speak for Calvinism. No?

2. It seems Calvin did teach what we call double-predestination: “The predestination by which God adopts some to the hope of life, and adjudges others to eternal death…” (Institutes 21:5). No?

3. This assertion that the “non-elect” are “passively left to the results of their nature” is clearly, at least to me, at odds with the Calvinistic claim that God decrees every historical event and action of man, at least according to the WCF (don’t yet know the official position of the LBCF), which leads, again, to doubletalk.

4. The Bible, as I stated earlier (if not this thread, it may be in the 2 Peter 3:9 thread), does not portray God as passive in condemning sinners to damnation, therefore, there is not only the problem of doubletalk but also an inconsistency with Scripture.

[nbanuchi] Aaron,

1. I would think that the accurate Calvinist view would not be what the majority of what those who identify themselves as Calvinist believe in but what John Calvin himself taught and believed. Calvin should speak for Calvinism. No?

No, Calvin didn’t found a movement and name it after himself (am surprised you didn’t know this)!

2. It seems Calvin did teach what we call double-predestination: “The predestination by which God adopts some to the hope of life, and adjudges others to eternal death…” (Institutes 21:5). No?

He might have, not sure, but since being a Calvinist is not determined by full agreement with Calvin, this statement is irrelevant.

3. This assertion that the “non-elect” are “passively left to the results of their nature” is clearly, at least to me, at odds with the Calvinistic claim that God decrees every historical event and action of man, at least according to the WCF (don’t yet know the official position of the LBCF), which leads, again, to doubletalk.

http://www.reformedreader.org/ccc/1689lbc/english/1689econtents.htm 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith .

[Chapter 3: Of God’s Decree] 1. God hath decreed in himself, from all eternity, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably, all things, whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby is God neither the author of sin nor hath fellowship with any therein; nor is violence offered to the will of the creature, nor yet is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established; in which appears his wisdom in disposing all things, and power and faithfulness in accomplishing his decree.

( Isaiah 46:10; Ephesians 1:11; Hebrews 6:17; Romans 9:15, 18; James 1:13; 1 John 1:5; Acts 4:27, 28; John 19:11; Numbers 23:19; Ephesians 1:3-5 )

3. By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestinated, or foreordained to eternal life through Jesus Christ, to the praise of his glorious grace; others being left to act in their sin to their just condemnation, to the praise of his glorious justice.

( 1 Timothy 5:21; Matthew 25:34; Ephesians 1:5, 6; Romans 9:22, 23; Jude 4 )

God decrees all things, but is not the author of sin, nor are secondary causes removed. The non-elect are justly condemned because of their sin.

A great illustration is Joseph in Genesis 50:20

But as for you, you meant evil against me; but God meant it for good, in order to bring it about as it is this day, to save many people alive.

His brothers intended evil and were responsible for their sin, but even that served the purpose of God.

In the http://sharperiron.org/article/suffering-light-of-gospel] suffering thread you wrote:

[post 8] Many believers attempt to attribute sin, evil, and suffering to God as necessarily decreed or predestined events in order to “display” His glory. I find this answer unsatisfactory and damning to the divine character as if the rape of children in New York City all the way to the starving children in Somalia can ever demonstrate the holiness and justice of God’s person. There is no denying that God, in His wisdom can overcome sin and suffering, but they are not necessary for demonstrating His glory; God does not need evil to display the fulness of His holy love and perfections.

If the rape of children could be stopped by God but is not, it must be because evil serves a purpose, like it did for Joseph and also like it did for the crucifixion of Jesus (Acts 2:23).

JohnBrian,

I respectfully submit that:

As far as your response #1, I’m under the impression you know what I meant (as shown by your comment under #2). Shucks, I could call myself a Calvinist!

That “God decrees all things, but is not the author of sin” or that “”God decrees all things” but the “non-elect are justly condemned because of their sin” are propositions that, as far as I read them, display doubletalk; they contradict each other resulting in nonsense. Parroting statements from creeds does not help explain how they are not doubletalk.

How can it be sensibly affirmed that God can “decree all things” and yet, at the same time, omit sinful acts as inclusive of “all things”?

As a I before stated, the Bible does not portray God as passive in the condemnation of sinners.

As far as Joseph, from what you assert, “God hath decreed in himself, from all eternity” to do evil against Joseph in order to obtain a good. Doesn’t somewhere the apostle Paul deny the charges that he teaches one is allowed to do evil in order to obtain a good? If that is true of us, as an argument from the lesser to the greater, would it not be more true for God to deny such charges against Him as you are making?

In any case, respectfully, I’ll let you (if you are going to be honest regarding what you believe is truth) counsel that distraught mother whose child was raped that God decreed and predestined it; that it serves God’s good purposes and occured for His good pleasure; or, to say it in a simple fashion, “It was a good thing your child was raped. You ought to thank God!”

And while you deny my assertions as mere emotional outbursts, let me know how that mother responds to your counsel.

[nbanuchi] In any case, respectfully, I’ll let you (if you are going to be honest regarding what you believe is truth) counsel that distraught mother whose child was raped that God decreed and predestined it; that it serves God’s good purposes and occured for His good pleasure; or, to say it in a simple fashion, “It was a good thing your child was raped. You ought to thank God!

No, the rape is NOT a good thing!

But if God COULD stop the rape and He does not, then there must be some purpose for the rape, otherwise the rape is purposeless. The evil that wicked men do, and which they are guilty and should face justice for, still serves God’s purpose. The evil that Joseph’s brothers did served a purpose, the evil that the men of Israel did in crucifying Jesus served a purpose.

[Acts 2:23] Him, being delivered by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God, you have taken by lawless hands, have crucified, and put to death;

The brothers were guilty of sin against Joseph, the men of Israel were guilty of crucifying Christ BUT their sin served a purpose. It was not just random evil that God couldn’t do anything about.

If you think that affirming the fact that evil serves the purpose of God, then your argument is not against Calvinism so much as it is against the text of Scripture.

JohnBrian,

Again, I wish to emphasize that my response below is with the utmost respect.

Please, I’m apologize that we cannot agree; respectfully, you are merely continuing the doubletalk. Either the rape is evil, which has no purpose except to destroy, or it is a good determined by your assertion that it has a divinely decreed good (and, perhaps loving?) purpose. However, it cannot be both good and, at the same time, evil.

Also, to say that God “could have stopped” it or “allowed it” are statements that end in doubletalk if, in fact, God decreed it; decree as it is taught in Calvinism (cf WCF or LBCF).

I don’t get it when you say, “If you think that affirming the fact that evil serves the purpose of God, then your argument is not against Calvinism so much as it is against the text of Scripture” (is something missing in the sentence?). I do think “affirming…that evil serves the purpose of God” is contrary to the texts of Scripture (but the assertion, being consistent with Calvinism renders that doctrinall system to contravene the Bible).

God’s has no purpose for evil; but his ultimate plan for evil is to remove it, destroy it, and cast it out. And he began this removal decisively through the Cross. In spite of the attempts of evil to destroy, God has overcome the evil through the Cross. The final actualization of the demise of sin and suffering will occur at the Parousia.

Jesus was God’s elect sacrifice for mankind’s sin. It was not the evil per se done to him that obtained our redemption but the fact of who he is and his willingness to undergo and endure the evil and suffering cast upon him in order to be an atonement for that very evil and the sins of the world (=all men).

I do not believe sin and evil serves any purpose except to “kill, steal, and destroy”; at least, the Bible shows me nothing that can be of profit from evil, sin, or suffering per se. Of course, as with Joseph, I do believe that God works with us in order to obtain a good for us; or, to put it another way, God works in spite of evil - not because of evil - for the good of those whose hearts are towards him (Rom 8:28).

If you can explain how the assertions made, which I have given as examples (at least, one) are not doubletalk that may clear up things. Otherwise, I see your further assertions as continuing in the doubletalk and that you merely make an assertion and then cite Scripture proof-texts in no way validates your claims.

Please, again (and I say this seriously), if this is your belief, you should, as I previously suggested, tell a distraught parent whose child was raped that it was a good thing that her son/daughter was raped; that God had a loving purpose for decreeing the rape of her child. If not, why not? Is it not truth? Is trutrh no longer comforting? Is it not an expression of God’s love to the mother and child to decree the rape? Tell the mother the rape has a purpose, a good purpose; that God decreed it for their good. Give that kind of counsel. (While you’re at it, if she is not a professed Christian, you might also want to inform her of the Gospel message that she and her child may or may not have been elected by God for salvation; that her child, on top of being raped, may just wind up in hell…forever). And you can tell her, as you maintain, that the rape is evil but God decreed it - made certain of its occurrence, even worked everything to obtain the event - for a good, loving purpose. That’s fine. Tell her this evil is for the purpose of obtaining a good for her and her daughter, therefore, it is a good thing that her daughter was raped. Tell her…

Note, I did not say you should tell her that the rape itself was good but that the purpose for it was good, and therefore, it was a “good thing” to occur.

Let me know what she says.

Until then, I must respectfully maintain that your assertions are doubletalk and I have exhausted any further responses (as God decreed?) to your repetitive comments.

[nbanuchi] God’s has no purpose for evil

I disagree! God does have a purpose for evil or else he would not have allowed it. It serves His purpose and only He knows what that purpose is.

The story of Job shows just that. God allowed Satan to inflict Job, but He restricted what Satan could do. Job in Job 31:35 says,

Oh, that the Almighty would answer me,

and then beginning in Job 38:1 God does answer, but notice that God never tells Job the reason for the evil that Satan inflicted on him. I would summarize the answer God gave as Him saying to Job, “I am God, and you are not.”

If evil does not serve the purpose of God as it did in Joseph’s life, Job’s life, and the crucifixion of Christ, then it is just random. I reject the idea that there is anything random that happens, either good or evil.

Please, again (and I say this seriously), if this is your belief, you should, as I previously suggested, tell a distraught parent whose child was raped that it was a good thing that her son/daughter was raped; that God had a loving purpose for decreeing the rape of her child. If not, why not? Is it not truth? Is trutrh no longer comforting? Is it not an expression of God’s love to the mother and child to decree the rape?

No, it may not be good to the child or the mother, but it nonetheless has some purpose, and only God knows what that purpose is. He is not obligated to inform us of the purpose anymore than he informed Job of the purpose for his suffering.

Tell the mother the rape has a purpose, a good purpose; that God decreed it for their good. Give that kind of counsel. (While you’re at it, if she is not a professed Christian, you might also want to inform her of the Gospel message that she and her child may or may not have been elected by God for salvation; that her child, on top of being raped, may just wind up in hell…forever).

That is not the message of the Gospel. The message is “God commands all men everywhere to repent” (Acts 17:30) God is the only one whpo knows who the elect are, and we are commanded to proclaim the Gospel to all creatures (Mark 16:15). The proclamation of the Gospel is the means by which God saves the elect.

And you can tell her, as you maintain, that the rape is evil but God decreed it - made certain of its occurrence, even worked everything to obtain the event - for a good, loving purpose. That’s fine. Tell her this evil is for the purpose of obtaining a good for her and her daughter,

I repeat, it may or may not be good for her and her daughter, I don’t know, only God knows, but the evil is not random purposeless evil, it serves the purpose of God, just as it did in the case of Joseph, Job, and Jesus Christ (3 J’s - there’s an outline for a sermon right there!)

Until then, I must respectfully maintain that your assertions are doubletalk and I have exhausted any further responses (as God decreed?) to your repetitive comments.

We will have to disagree (as God decreed!)

JohnBrian.

The book of Job can be summarized as “I am God; you are not”?

I’m compelled to defend the book of Job from a misrepresentation of God’s character.

As far as your concerned, it can also be summarized as, “Might Makes Right!” or “You do what I tell you to do because I’m big and you’re little, and there’s nothing you can do about it (ever see the movie, Matilda?).” Or, “God Whips Job to Show Who is Boss!”

Just to show who’s boss?

Rather pathetic God you paint; a God with low self-esteem. To beat up a loyal servant and rape children just to show that He is God and His victims are not…

God did not need to show Job that He was God and Job was not; Job already revered God as God (cf. Job 1:1).

…and they say Calvinism does not portray God as a monster.

Well, then, how about a bully?

Nelson,

It appears that your anti-Calvinism is making it difficult to have a reasonable discussion with you.

God is not a monster, He is not a bully, He is the Sovereign Creator of the Universe, and is totally OTHER than man.

He IS God, and we ARE NOT.

Read the text of Job, beginning with verse 38:4

Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Tell Me, if you have understanding.

God questions Job and shows him that He (God) is altogether different. Then read Job’s response in Job 42:2-6

2 “I know that You can do everything,

And that no purpose of Yours can be withheld from You.

3 You asked, ‘Who is this who hides counsel without knowledge?’

Therefore I have uttered what I did not understand,

Things too wonderful for me, which I did not know.

4 Listen, please, and let me speak;

You said, ‘I will question you, and you shall answer Me.’

5 “I have heard of You by the hearing of the ear,

But now my eye sees You.

6 Therefore I abhor myself,

And repent in dust and ashes.”

Notice that once Job sees God as He is, he (Job) sees himself as he is, and repents.

The God who reveals Himself to Job, is a God worthy of adoration and praise, no matter the evil that He allows to cross the path of His beloved.

I will leave the last word to you and will bow out of the discussion.

JohnBrian,

It is not, what you perceive as an anti-Calvinist stance on my part , but the clearly illogical and self-contradictory assertions made by the teachings of Calvinism and your attempts at pushing ignoring my objections by positing to God such actions as belongs to a bully that make for an unreasonable discussion.

Your remarks on Job totally ignore my objection and every response you supplied offered nothing new to this discussion, anyway (that’s why it has been so repetitive).

I expected so much more from this forum but have found that, so far, responses follow the “party line” without any direct refutation of the objections made. And, of course, the discussion, without fail, always end with that famous line, “God is God” (which is an answer that actually answers nothing).

Although disappointed, I do appreciate your graciously offering me the “last word”. Thank you.

Rom 9:14-23 What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! (15) For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” (16) So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. (17) For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” (18) So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills. (19) You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” (20) 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?” (21) 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? (22) What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, (23) in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory—

Ricky,

Thanks for the reminder of this significant passage, probably one of the most neglected chapters in all the Bible. It’s pretty hard to missunderstand what it says, so many choose to ignore it. I know a former pastor of a large church who announced he would preach through Romans, and he did. Until he got to chapter nine. He then announced that there were some difficult issues here, and he dropped Romans, and went to another book. Hmmm.

In the bonds of Christ,

Greg Barkman

I was preaching through Romans on Wed. nights a few years ago (took 2 years), and it was this very passage that convinced me that I was a monergist.

Here’s an interesting article. Take note about what is said regarding Bell.

http://ochuk.wordpress.com/2011/10/07/hell-calvinism-and-steve-jobs/

The argument has some problems…

[ochuk]

I offered my two cents on this sort of thought in the following argument:

[1] If we conform our attitudes to God’s attitudes, then we make progress in sanctification. (premise)

[2] God’s attitude towards the death of the wicked is pleasure and joy. (premise for reductio)

[3] If our attitude towards the death of the wicked is pleasure and joy, then we make progress in sanctification. [1 and 2]

[4] Yet God does not take pleasure or joy at the death of the wicked (Ez. 18:23) (factual premise)

Therefore, if our attitude towards the death of the wicked is pleasure and joy, then we do not make progress in sanctification.

I suppose [4] is where things are going to be disputed, but even most Calvinists I’ve read seem to agree that such is the case. If not, then hyper-Calvinism is not far off. And I am not sure the two-wills of God strategy is strong enough to explain how it is not the case that [2] and [4] stand in contradiction.

There is a problem with the first premise. Not all of God’s attitudes are supposed to be shared by us. This is because of the creator-creature distinction. We do not own the souls of our fellow men, nor are we their judges. It’s not our prerogative to pronounce sentence on them because we are not the Source of all righteousness and truth, nor are we omniscient.

Therefore, I counter premise one with another:

[1] Some of God’s attitudes belong properly to Him alone.

Secondly, there are Scriptures that support the idea of God’s pleasure in destroying what is wicked. He would have to be morally defective to not take some pleasure in that. If someone does not hate evil, he does not love righteousness. See Is. 61.8, Amos 5.15, Psalm 97.10 and Psalm 11.5.

On the other hand, it is also true—at the same time—that God is grieved at the destruction that sinners bring on themselves. Human beings experience joy and sorrow mixed all the time. Why should we think God is not capable of this?

So my second premise takes care of [2] - [4]: If we take pleasure in righteous judgment and also grieve at the suffering of the lost, our attitude is like God’s.

Well said, Aaron. I believe you are exactly right.