Roger Olsens "Arminian Theology"

[auggybendoggy]

Guys,
I've been reading Olsens and here in chapter 6 I've come to a point where I must say I don't believe he is being totally fair and possibly even mistaken.

Firstly he continually states that (most arminains) hold that calvinism inherits a logical conclusion which cannot be avoidedl; God authors sin.

he also continues to show how calvinists are wrong for believing that arminians believe that they (man) is responsible for his salvation.

Within these dynamics lie a unsatisfying realization for me, namely that he is unfair to the determinist as much as he claims they are unfair.

It seems to me that if a man at ANY point has salvation lying in his lap and what he does with it determines his eternal destiny that it is somewhat "flaky" to say our salvation lies 100% on God.
This is backed by the premise that man is totally depraved and for anyone to be saved he needs God to free him (prev grace).
However the determinst sees a wider picture and holds that the salvation process has to be from end to finish God's doing and not mans. If man should have a "say" in it then it is not wholly 100% God's doing. Perhaps it should be argued that our freedom TO BE SAVED lies 100% on God but our being saved is left to our decision and not God's (is this not the point arminians are trying to make).

This vauge viewpoint that our dependence is 100% upon God seems to ambigous and if it can be reasoned that 100% is to God then the following should be understood by Olsen and others.

If God causes adam to fall God is not the "author" of sin but did cause the author to author the sin. In other words Adam had NO CHOICE in authoring his own sin but God is not the author. God simply made it so Adam authored the sin.

It seems that if Olsen can parade the idea that man is 100% depenent on God for salvation and still yet hold that mans fate lies in his decision then it can be said that mans fall is 100% on Gods soverignty and yet hold that mans fate lies in his decision (making man the author).

My point being that these arguments can appear to be valid depending on your point of view.
For the LFW, man is 100% dependent on God and man manages to make decisions which will either allow God to save him or not.

Being more reformed in my thinking I feel he's not doing justice to the LFW or he's doing the best he can and it's just not persuasive.

Aug

[The Remonstrant]

It seems to me that if a man at ANY point has salvation lying in his lap and what he does with it determines his eternal destiny that it is somewhat "flaky" to say our salvation lies 100% on God.

God has sovereignly chosen by what means he will save man. Faith is foremost among the conditions for man receiving salvation (contrary to some 'faith only' beliefs, there are other conditions). Why? Is this something man imposes on God? No, God establishes the prerequisites for man obtaining salvation. Faith is not something man does to earn or to add to salvation, but is simply the sovereignly appointed instrument for receiving it. Is faith, then, the meritorious cause of redemption? No; rather, it is Christ's death on the cross, the 'one obedience' the apostle Paul refers to in Romans v. 18.

This is not an issue of God's sovereignty, almightiness, or freedom----it is about how God has freely chosen to exercise his sovereignty in establishing the conditions of salvation.

[auggybendoggy]

Rem,
I do appreciate the view that God chooses to allow things to happen such as mans choice or the angels in heaven.

My point is not so much the logic is invalid, but moreso that to use such language that the calvinist system tantamounts to God authors evil is hardly any different than a calvinist who claims God did not author it but CAUSED the agent to author it.

If God can, with his sov, allow man to choose salvation and still be 100% responsible for mans salvation than it seems that God can MAKE man author the sin and be 100% free from authoring the sin himself.

I find both of these lines of reason to be a bit speculative and suspect.

Aug

[Michael T.]

Aug,


If God can, with his sovereignty, allow man to choose salvation and still be 100% responsible for man’s salvation, then it seems that God can MAKE man author the sin and be 100% free from authoring the sin himself.


The Bible is emphatic that: (a) because of the effects of the Fall [Genesis 3], Man is incapable of saving himself, and (b) that it is God and God alone Who has chosen [note the past tense] to save out of the human race whoever He will.

The Bible also teaches that it’s Man who always was and always is responsible for his sin [Genesis 3; Romans 5:12].

So when Olsen claims that Calvinist [i.e. Biblical] theology makes God the author of sin, he’s telling lies. You should take everything that Olsen says with a very big pinch of salt.


[Olsen] also continues to show how Calvinists are wrong for believing that Arminians believe that they (Man) is responsible for his salvation.


Olsen has conveniently “forgotten” that Arminianism teaches that salvation isn’t initiated by GOD’s elective choice [as in Ephesians 1:3-11] but by the supposedly “free-will” of spiritually-dead, spiritually-blind, unregenerate people.

Thus Arminianism denies the consistent Bible testimony of the Scriptures; Arminianism denies the sovereignty of GOD in salvation; and Arminianism exalts sin-enslaved created Man over Man’s God and Creator.

The real contest is between the truths of God’s Scriptures and Arminianism.

However, your best option is to throw Olsen’s book in the furnace and entirely devote yourself instead to studying the Scriptures.

[The Remonstrant]

However, your best option is to throw Olsen’s book in the furnace and entirely devote yourself instead to studying the Scriptures.

I would add to that Calvin's Institutes and Owen's Death of Death for an extra boost in heating the furnace on a particularly chilly winter evening.

[Jaltus]

Aug,



The Bible is emphatic that: (a) because of the effects of the Fall [Genesis 3], Man is incapable of saving himself, and (b) that it is God and God alone Who has chosen [note the past tense] to save out of the human race whoever He will.

The Bible also teaches that it’s Man who always was and always is responsible for his sin [Genesis 3; Romans 5:12].

This is totally correct. It is the interpretation of these facts that we disagree on.

So when Olsen claims that Calvinist [i.e. Biblical] theology makes God the author of sin, he’s telling lies. You should take everything that Olsen says with a very big pinch of salt.

Please do not equate your theological system with Biblical theology. It is wrong on so many grounds:

1) Calvinism only deals with a limited amount of texts (as does Arminianism) and is therefore a systematic theology.

2) Biblical Theology is a technical term.

3) Biblical Theology can be used to trace one theme at a time, but neither Calvinism nor Arminianism can ever be said to be a single theme.

Thus Calvinism BY DEFINITION cannot be Biblical Theology. You may think it is a biblical systematic theology, which is fine, but it cannot be Biblical theology. Besides which, calling it biblical theology just smacks of arrogance, not correctness.

Next, Olson does not say Calvinism makes God the author of sin, he says (and I have the book) that to most Arminians the logical outcome of Calvinism is that God is the author of sin. He does not say Calvinists believe God is the author of sin nor does he state that Calvinism teaches God is the author of sin, he simply says that many Arminians think that Calvinism logically entails God as the author of sin.

Olsen has conveniently “forgotten” that Arminianism teaches that salvation isn’t initiated by GOD’s elective choice [as in Ephesians 1:3-11] but by the supposedly “free-will” of spiritually-dead, spiritually-blind, unregenerate people.

Completely false. Arminians teach (since Arminianism is a system, it cannot teach anything) that God choses based upon His foreknowledge, which is exactly and explicitly what Paul says in Romans 8:29.

Thus Arminianism denies the consistent Bible testimony of the Scriptures; Arminianism denies the sovereignty of GOD in salvation; and Arminianism exalts sin-enslaved created Man over Man’s God and Creator.

Absolute crap. I am sorry, but this is an incredibly false and conceited post you made. Have you actually read any published Arminian theologian in your life? It is obvious to me you have not.

The real contest is between the truths of God’s Scriptures and Arminianism.

No, it is a contest between the conviction of the Holy Spirit and man's sinfulness, a battle you have lost. No, not by being a Calvinist, but by blindly asserting your own prominence and perfection of doctrine without even a shred of humility.

Personally, I object more to Calvinists than I do Calvinism, and you are EXACTLY the kind of person that makes your theological position look distasteful. I hope and pray God does something in your heart to make you realize what kind of a witness you are.

However, your best option is to throw Olsen’s book in the furnace and entirely devote yourself instead to studying the Scriptures.

The best option would be to ignore whatever this person says because he obviously has no Christian love nor humility anywhere in his heart.

I am sorry for the harsh tone of my post, but this kind of arrogance and misrepresentation make me quite angry, and if you know anything about me, you know it takes a LOT to get me mad.

[Michael T.]

Jaitus,


However, your best option is to throw Olsen’s book in the furnace and entirely devote yourself instead to studying the Scriptures.



The best option would be to ignore whatever this person says because he obviously has no Christian love nor humility anywhere in his heart.

I am sorry for the harsh tone of my post,


Could it be you, Jaitus, who has no Christian love nor humility anywhere in your heart??

If instead of knee-jerking, you had instead taken the time to read and to calmly reflected on my post, it would have become very apparent that I was taking issue, not with Olsen as a person, but with his skewed ideas and with his misrepresentations.

Furthermore, * nowhere * in the Bible are we ever commanded required to tolerate that which is untruthful, or falsehoods, or lies.

If and when you study the Bible, you will see that the LORD God, and Christ, and GOD’s prophets and Christ’s Apostles all placed a very high value on the Truth.

And it’s not for nothing that the Lord Jesus Christ declared Himself to be the TRUTH personified [Gospel of John 14:6].

That in itself is a warning to people claiming to be “christians” that like Christ whom they claim to follow; they too must rigorously uphold and contend for all the truths of the Scriptures, just as all of Christ’s Apostles also did.

And if you were to place a high value on Truth; in particular, on Biblical Truth, you wouldn’t have belched forth your spleen, but instead you would have calmly reflected on the implications of my statements about Olsen’s catalog of misrepresentations and falsehoods, and also the tendency of his grossly misguided book to lead many gullible people away from the Truth.

The corollary of the LORD God’s very high regard for the Truth is that He has prepared a place for the eternal punishment of all liars [Revelation 21:8].

That fact should help you to realise that Theology isn’t just a hobby or an excuse for nice cozy chats with your like-minded buddies. No, it should instead be a matter of earnestly contending for the Truth according to revelatory Truth as entrusted to us in GOD’s inspired, infallible, and Divinely-authoritative Scriptures.

Michael T.

[auggybendoggy]

wow,
Mike T has offered nothing on the OP.
Mike, I'm not saying your wrong but I'm stating that your response is irrelevant.

My point is for Arms to answer not clavees. So if you want to spew your one sided, read 3 verses and declare a truth theology then start your own thread bro.

If not then support my OP and ask (not demand) the arms give an answer.

So,
Jaltus, with all respect, to say Olsen says "it makes God the author of sin" and saying arminians believe it entails that God is the author of sin is all the same thing being he is arminian.
Is this not a point of the arminians, a theme he keeps rehashing is that arms are keeping Gods nature in tact by not making him the cause/creator/author of the evil man does (sin).
So stating "he does not say that" means nothing. The point still stands and so if you could adress the question that might be more helpful for me to understand arm'ism better.

I'll re-ask

If God can, with his sov, allow man to choose salvation and still be 100% responsible for mans salvation than it seems that God can MAKE man author the sin and be 100% free from authoring the sin himself (since adam is the one who did it and not God).

I find both of these lines of reason to be a bit speculative and suspect.

[Michael T.]

The Remonstrant,


However, your best option is to throw Olsen’s book in the furnace and entirely devote yourself instead to studying the Scriptures.



I would add to that Calvin's Institutes and Owen's Death of Death for an extra boost in heating the furnace on a particularly chilly winter evening.


Since, unlike Roger Olsen, Owen and Calvin both firmly upheld all the truths of t6he Scriptures, then by implication, you would also cast the Bible into the flames.

It’s obvious that Owen’s and Calvin’ writings are all far beyond your comprehension, for otherwise you would never make such statements.

Thus, your comment is a revelation of yourself, and it tells a sad and sorry story.
You have my sympathy and also my pity.

Michael T.

[Michael T.]

auggybendoggy,


If God can, with his sovereignty, allow man to choose salvation and still be 100% responsible for man’s salvation then it seems that God can MAKE man author the sin and be 100% free from authoring the sin himself (since Adam is the one who did it and not God).


Since the Bible teaches that God has never any operative Choice in salvation to Man, but instead, He has always reserved that Choice for Himself alone, the first phrase of your question; i.e. - “If God can, with his sovereignty, allow man to choose salvation . . . “ - doesn’t apply.

The Bible also teaches that it is always Man, never God, who is responsible for his sin.

Since these are the facts, all speculation and conjecture is futile and superfluous.

If you’re interested, I can point you to the relevant Scripture portions which specifically teach concerning these matters.

[Nang]

And if you were to place a high value on Truth; in particular, on Biblical Truth, you wouldn’t have belched forth your spleen, but instead you would have calmly reflected on the implications of my statements about Olsen’s catalog of misrepresentations and falsehoods, and also the tendency of his grossly misguided book to lead many gullible people away from the Truth.

I agree.

Where does Jaltus (or any other human being) have the right to spew judgements against another Christian, of the sort Jaltus has let loose, when the spirit they manifest in doing so, is supposedly what they oppose?

This is example of self-righteous pride and hypocrisy, and nothing less.



Nang

[lee_merrill]

If God causes adam to fall God is not the "author" of sin but did cause the author to author the sin. In other words Adam had NO CHOICE in authoring his own sin but God is not the author. God simply made it so Adam authored the sin.
I agree with this.

Job 1:8 Then the LORD said to Satan, "Have you considered my servant Job?"

God knew here that the result of his question would be sins, by the devil. Also, consider this statement:

Romans 5:20 The law was added so that the trespass might increase.

I would think the Arminians who have objections should object to Paul here.

Arminians teach (since Arminianism is a system, it cannot teach anything) that God choses based upon His foreknowledge, which is exactly and explicitly what Paul says in Romans 8:29.
Not exactly and explicitly the way Arminians mean this, though. This is an interpretation put on the text, and though foreknowledge is stated before predestination, this need not prove the Arminian reading.

29. For—as touching this "calling according to his purpose" (Ro 8:28).

whom he did foreknow he also did predestinate—foreordain. In what sense are we to take the word "foreknow" here? "Those who He foreknew would repent and believe," say Pelagians of every age and every hue. But this is to thrust into the text what is contrary to the whole spirit, and even letter, of the apostle's teaching (see Ro 9:11; 2Ti 1:9). In Ro 11:2, and Ps 1:6, God's "knowledge" of His people cannot be restricted to a mere foresight of future events, or acquaintance with what is passing here below. Does "whom He did foreknow," then, mean "whom He foreordained?" Scarcely, because both "foreknowledge" and "foreordination" are here mentioned, and the one as the cause of the other. It is difficult indeed for our limited minds to distinguish them as states of the Divine Mind towards men; especially since in Ac 2:23 "the counsel" is put before "the foreknowledge of God," while in 1Pe 1:2 "election" is said to be "according to the foreknowledge of God." But probably God's foreknowledge of His own people means His "peculiar, gracious, complacency in them," while His "predestinating" or "foreordaining" them signifies His fixed purpose, flowing from this, to "save them and call them with an holy calling" (2Ti 1:9). (commentary (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/jamieson/jfb.xi.vi.ix.html), Romans 8)

And though there does seem to be a link here, I would be cautious about saying God chooses based on foreknowledge. "God chose those he foreknew" is the text, and let's leave the matter there, and not be adding arrows of causes, as above with JFB speaking of the difficulty of knowing the mind of God.

Blessings,
Lee

[Sasha Fierce]

Do the authors mention why "probably God's foreknowledge of His own people means His "peculiar, gracious, complacency in them," while His "predestinating" or "foreordaining" them signifies His fixed purpose" or do they get a pass on that?

[Jaltus]

Jaitus,

Could it be you, Jaitus, who has no Christian love nor humility anywhere in your heart??

That is always a possibility. I know I am fallible.

If instead of knee-jerking, you had instead taken the time to read and to calmly reflected on my post, it would have become very apparent that I was taking issue, not with Olsen as a person, but with his skewed ideas and with his misrepresentations.

The problem is that you misrepresented Olson! You made false claim after false claim about what he says and believes. Did you even read my post?

Have you ever read him?

Furthermore, * nowhere * in the Bible are we ever commanded required to tolerate that which is untruthful, or falsehoods, or lies.

Correct. But we are told to act in faithfulness and love towards our brothers, to gentle correct, and to worry more about actions and attitudes than doctrine. Doctrine is certainly important, but nowhere does, for example, Paul say unless you are a Calvinist, you will not enter the kingdom. No, Paul says unless you believe in your heart that Jesus was raised from the dead and unless you confess him as Lord (meaning God and one's own personal Lord), then there is no salvation.

If and when you study the Bible, you will see that the LORD God, and Christ, and GOD’s prophets and Christ’s Apostles all placed a very high value on the Truth.

And it’s not for nothing that the Lord Jesus Christ declared Himself to be the TRUTH personified [Gospel of John 14:6].

Actually, Jesus as truth is one of my favorite Biblical Theology themes. I presented a paper on it this year at a conference.

That in itself is a warning to people claiming to be “christians” that like Christ whom they claim to follow; they too must rigorously uphold and contend for all the truths of the Scriptures, just as all of Christ’s Apostles also did.

I think the apostles had a smaller list than you do.

And if you were to place a high value on Truth; in particular, on Biblical Truth, you wouldn’t have belched forth your spleen, but instead you would have calmly reflected on the implications of my statements about Olsen’s catalog of misrepresentations and falsehoods, and also the tendency of his grossly misguided book to lead many gullible people away from the Truth.

Again, have you read the book? You keep avoiding the question.

The corollary of the LORD God’s very high regard for the Truth is that He has prepared a place for the eternal punishment of all liars [Revelation 21:8].

Yes, and liars are defined in 1 John. It is those who deny Christ, not Calvin.

That fact should help you to realise that Theology isn’t just a hobby or an excuse for nice cozy chats with your like-minded buddies. No, it should instead be a matter of earnestly contending for the Truth according to revelatory Truth as entrusted to us in GOD’s inspired, infallible, and Divinely-authoritative Scriptures.

I am a professional theologian.


Michael,

Do you plan on answering my entire post this time or cherry-picking again so you can avoid the issues I raise?

[Jaltus]

Do the authors mention why "probably God's foreknowledge of His own people means His "peculiar, gracious, complacency in them," while His "predestinating" or "foreordaining" them signifies His fixed purpose" or do they get a pass on that?

Don't you know that foreknowledge doesn't mean foreknowledge?

[Pereynol of Sheer Dread]

Jaitus,

Could it be you, Jaitus, who has no Christian love nor humility anywhere in your heart??

While Jaltus can well take care of himself, I have to chime in here. Michael T, this is the ultimate in the pot calling the kettle black.


If instead of knee-jerking, you had instead taken the time to read and to calmly reflected on my post, it would have become very apparent that I was taking issue, not with Olsen as a person, but with his skewed ideas and with his misrepresentations.

Is it a sin to lie? Prior to making this post, had you read Olson at all? Given that you don't seem to know how to spell his name, I'd wager not. Have you read the book?

If not, is it not the epitome of "knee-jerking" to denounce even that which you haven't read? Aren't you just projecting your bias against what you mistakingly believe Arminianism treaches onto another Arminian whom you've not even read closely?

As to his "skewed ideas and misrepresentations," how about listing them, detailing where he makes them in his book---by chapters, page numbers, and so forth? I don't think you know enough about Olson as a person or his writings to "take issue" against. I think you're the one who is "knee-jerking."


Furthermore, * nowhere * in the Bible are we ever commanded required to tolerate that which is untruthful, or falsehoods, or lies.

Good---then you'll repent of telling implicit lies in your posts from now on, won't you?


If and when you study the Bible, you will see that the LORD God, and Christ, and GOD’s prophets and Christ’s Apostles all placed a very high value on the Truth.

Agreed---so when you openly denounce other Christians from now on, you'll at least display the decency to have read those you denounce so you'll know what you're denouncing, right? This way, you'll also display that "very high value on the truth" that the apostles and prophets held....


And it’s not for nothing that the Lord Jesus Christ declared Himself to be the TRUTH personified [Gospel of John 14:6].

That in itself is a warning to people claiming to be “christians” that like Christ whom they claim to follow; they too must rigorously uphold and contend for all the truths of the Scriptures, just as all of Christ’s Apostles also did.

Have you told the truth? Did you know anything whatever about "Olsen" prior to posting? Did you "knee-jerk" by condemning him without a proper reading? Then you decide to use Olson as a rhetorical device for condemning others, though you had not read him. How much integrity is involved here? Where is that "very high regard for truth?"


And if you were to place a high value on Truth; in particular, on Biblical Truth, you wouldn’t have belched forth your spleen, but instead you would have calmly reflected on the implications of my statements about Olsen’s catalog of misrepresentations and falsehoods, and also the tendency of his grossly misguided book to lead many gullible people away from the Truth.

Chapters, paragraphs, any examples at all? Are you telling the truth? How do you spell the man's name again? Auggy's reading the book, but he misspelled Olson's name. Didn't you just pick up Auggy's mistake and act as if you'd read the book?


The corollary of the LORD God’s very high regard for the Truth is that He has prepared a place for the eternal punishment of all liars [Revelation 21:8].


Will you be there, too? Or is there possibly grace for you, Michael T? If there's grace for you, won't there possibly be grace for others as well? I think you've managed to tell a few inadvertent lies here, Michael T. I don't think you meant to lie, but our hearts are such that all of us can play the hypocite without even meaning to do so.


That fact should help you to realise that Theology isn’t just a hobby or an excuse for nice cozy chats with your like-minded buddies. No, it should instead be a matter of earnestly contending for the Truth according to revelatory Truth as entrusted to us in GOD’s inspired, infallible, and Divinely-authoritative Scriptures.

Michael T.

Theology, too, is a matter of trying to tell the truth. It is a matter for humility. Contend away, Michael T, rock on....

[Pereynol of Sheer Dread]

I agree.

Where does Jaltus (or any other human being) have the right to spew judgements against another Christian, of the sort Jaltus has let loose, when the spirit they manifest in doing so, is supposedly what they oppose?

This is example of self-righteous pride and hypocrisy, and nothing less.



Nang

Yes, Nang, fill us all in on what "self-righteous pride' looks like. It's always found in our enemies, isn't it? Never in ourselves. Self-righteous pride is always the other guy's problem and never our own.
:wink:

[Jaltus]

Oh, I readily acknowledge that I often have pride, typically more like arrogance.

However, when someone who is ignorant attacks someone I know without actually reading their work, it drives me nuts.

[auggybendoggy]

Perhaps Micheal T and Nang have not understood my sub-reversive implication.

Let me spell it out for them...

a) In Arm. God can be 100% responsible for the salvation of man. It's all dependent on God 100%. Though man at some point hs 100% say so on which road he takes, it's ALL God.???
In other words, If God can via sovereignty can allow man to choose (thwarting Gods will the man be saved) but it's still under God's sovereignty (because he has determined to allow this) then it seems b can be agure likewise.

b) In Calv God makes all things to be, good and bad. God via his sovereignty causes/makes/authors Adam to make/author sin. God then through his sov is not the actual author of the sin but rather is the author of the author of sin.

so heres the twist for Calvees,

If God can make adam sin and not be the author of sin
then
God can allow man to choose and be 100% responsible (through the whole process) for mans salvation.

Heres my thoughts:

It is contradictory for calvinists to argue that God causes adam to sin and then blame Adam for sinning.
just as it is
contradictory for God to be 100% responsible for saving men and allow them a choice at any point for their own salvation.

If man has any choice along the way then the 100% falls apart...
BUT
it is no different a contradiction that God makes a man rape a woman and is not responsible for the man raping the woman.

If God can make the man rape the woman and not be responsible
then it can be reversed...
man can choose to be saved and God is TOTALLY responsible saving the man...
ALL OF THIS BEING A CALVINIST FRAMEWORK.

Now my OP is a assualt on both schools of thought.

But LIL sheer is correct about Mike T that he has not read Olson. While I am not satisfied with Olsons resolutions presented for the arminian myths, I find that calvees do NOT UNDERSTAND their position.

However vice versa,

Olson is not doing justice by stating that Arm asserts or concludes that the only resolution is to say God is the author of sin, WHILE MAINTAINING THAT SALVATION IS 100% GOD AND BE SYNERGISTIC.

Granted, Olsens book is not a defense of Arm but a dispelling of the myths that calvees declare.

Mike T has demonstrated such myths.
It's much more profitable for Mike T to start another of the 200,000,000,000,000,000 threads of his view that arm's are subject to the ONLY conclusion he draws. Then let them defend themselves.

[Michael T.]

auggybendoggy,


Perhaps Micheal T and Nang have not understood my sub-reversive implication.


Your arcane “sub-reversive implication” [sp.] and the remainder of your very garbled post would be much more legible and understandable if you were to use conventional and correctly-spelled English language with the help of a dictionary and a spell-checker, followed by a careful reading of your draft messages for sense and expression and correction * before * you post them.

Ensuring that peoples’ names are always spelled correctly is an equally-desirable product of that essential editing process.


Let me spell it out for them...


[sigh]
But this is precisely what you do NOT do.
Instead, you emit yet more of your peculiar pidgin code which is semi-legible and semi-coherent, and thus defeats the purpose of your posting to this Forum in the first instance.


a) In Arm. God can be 100% responsible for the salvation of man. It's all dependent on God 100%. Though man at some point hs 100% say so on which road he takes, it's ALL God.???

In other words, If God can via sovereignty can allow man to choose (thwarting Gods will the man be saved) but it's still under God's sovereignty (because he has determined to allow this) then it seems b can be agure likewise.

b) In Calv God makes all things to be, good and bad. God via his sovereignty causes/makes/authors Adam to make/author sin. God then through his sov is not the actual author of the sin but rather is the author of the author of sin.

so heres the twist for Calvees, If God can make adam sin and not be the author of sin then God can allow man to choose and be 100% responsible (through the whole process) for mans salvation.

Heres my thoughts:
It is contradictory for calvinists to argue that God causes adam to sin and then blame Adam for sinning.

just as it is contradictory for God to be 100% responsible for saving men and allow them a choice at any point for their own salvation.

If man has any choice along the way then the 100% falls apart...
BUT it is no different a contradiction that God makes a man rape a woman and is not responsible for the man raping the woman.

If God can make the man rape the woman and not be responsible then it can be reversed...

man can choose to be saved and God is TOTALLY responsible saving the man...

ALL OF THIS BEING A CALVINIST FRAMEWORK.

Now my OP is a assualt on both schools of thought.


No, your OP and your subsequent messages are a garbled * assault * upon the English language.


But LIL sheer is correct about Mike T that he has not read Olson. While I am not satisfied with Olsons resolutions presented for the arminian myths, I find that calvees do NOT UNDERSTAND their position.

However vice versa, Olson is not doing justice by stating that Arm asserts or concludes that the only resolution is to say God is the author of sin, WHILE MAINTAINING THAT SALVATION IS 100% GOD AND BE SYNERGISTIC.

Granted, Olsens book is not a defense of Arm but a dispelling of the myths that calvees declare.

Mike T has demonstrated such myths.


No, I've stated established Biblical facts, and if you were a student of the Bible, which you very obviously are not, you too would know this at first hand.


It's much more profitable for Mike T to start another of the 200,000,000,000,000,000 threads of his view that arm's are subject to the ONLY conclusion he draws. Then let them defend themselves.


It will be much more profitable for us if you were to convert your posts to correctly-spelled orthodox English language so that we won’t have to waste time in trying to figure out exactly what it is that you’re trying to say.

Michael T.

[auggybendoggy]

Mike T,
too true that my spelling and grammer lack.
and I probably am very confusing.

So I'll try again to esplain.

If it is true that God can make a man rape a woman and not be responsible for the rape,
then it can be equally true that God can let a man make a choice unto salvation and the man NOT BE responsible for the salvation.

If the latter cannot be true than neither can the former.

If the former can be true but the latter cannot than perhaps an explanation would prove. But what explanation will the calv. argue?

Can you explain why your propositions are true and why arm's props are not?

Please explain so I might believe your propositions.

Aug

[auggybendoggy]

By the way the same argument is true for the arm.

If God can via his sov allow man a choice in this world
than cant it be true that God can throug his sov make adam author sin without God being the author of the sin?

Aug

[Sasha Fierce]

auggybendoggy,



Your arcane “sub-reversive implication” [sp.] and the remainder of your very garbled post would be much more legible and understandable if you were to use conventional and correctly-spelled English language with the help of a dictionary and a spell-checker, followed by a careful reading of your draft messages for sense and expression and correction * before * you post them.

Ensuring that peoples’ names are always spelled correctly is an equally-desirable product of that essential editing process.



[sigh]
But this is precisely what you do NOT do.
Instead, you emit yet more of your peculiar pidgin code which is semi-legible and semi-coherent, and thus defeats the purpose of your posting to this Forum in the first instance.



No, your OP and your subsequent messages are a garbled * assault * upon the English language.



No, I've stated established Biblical facts, and if you were a student of the Bible, which you very obviously are not, you too would know this at first hand.



It will be much more profitable for us if you were to convert your posts to correctly-spelled orthodox English language so that we won’t have to waste time in trying to figure out exactly what it is that you’re trying to say.

Michael T.

What an utterly useless ad-hom attack on Doggy. I guess when you have pissed your way past some intelligent responses you would much rather focus on linguistics. Very revealing insight into the strength of your position.

[auggybendoggy]

Phil,
I kind of figure that the response to such logistics is VERY problematic for calvinists. As an example it seems that the calvinist can only appeal to mystery or incapability of man to understand God's word.

Of course this is problematic to say that the scriptures actually make sense.
On one hand we could argue that man cannot understand God's word because its only availabe to those of faith.
On the other hand those of faith cannot explain it because either
1) they do explain but it makes no sense to those of no faith
2) they cannot explain it and claim that those of no faith understand it.

So that puts them into one corner.

When a contradiction occurs call it a paradox.
For it must be true and we can't see it clearly.

ANYONE CAN DO THAT.

truly the OP is a call of logic for both Arm and Calv. If one can logically deduce that man is 100% dependant on God for salvation and yet have 100% of his salvation depend on man (synergism) than it can be true that God can 100% cause man to do evil and man be 100% responsible for the sin.

Like I said, seems like a way of ditching the real issues at hand.

Aug

[lee_merrill]

Do the authors mention why "probably God's foreknowledge of His own people means His "peculiar, gracious, complacency in them," while His "predestinating" or "foreordaining" them signifies His fixed purpose" or do they get a pass on that?
But I'm not sure what your question is, are you wondering if they are qualifying "foreknew" to get around a difficulty? But I don't believe there is a difficulty here to get around.

But it might be good to note that knowledge in Hebrew is generally (usually?) more than informational. Thus the idea in JFB's comment may be that "foreknew" means more than just knowing a name and address and date of birth-to-be. Instead, I would picture this kind of like a mom planning her daughter-in-the-womb's wedding day. Though God really knows what it will be like...

Blessings,
Lee

[Jaltus]

But I'm not sure what your question is, are you wondering if they are qualifying "foreknew" to get around a difficulty? But I don't believe there is a difficulty here to get around.

But it might be good to note that knowledge in Hebrew is generally (usually?) more than informational. Thus the idea in JFB's comment may be that "foreknew" means more than just knowing a name and address and date of birth-to-be. Instead, I would picture this kind of like a mom planning her daughter-in-the-womb's wedding day. Though God really knows what it will be like...

Blessings,
Lee

And I find it problematic to define the Greek of Paul, a diaspora Jew, with Hebrew. Greek is not Hebrew and should only be understood in light of Hebrew when it is the LXX or a translation of the OT. There is no OT background to this passage, and therefore a reference to the Hebrew is unwarranted.

[Michael T.]

alias “philosophickus rex”,


What an utterly useless ad-hominem attack on Doggy. I guess when you have pissed your way past some intelligent responses you would much rather focus on linguistics. Very revealing insight into the strength of your position.


If you had read my post intelligently, you would have seen that I was critiquing – not “auggybendoggy” as a person – but instead his lack of attention to pronunciation, correct spelling, sense, and expression.

And after having read a quantity of your posts, it’s evident that you’re in no position to be attacking anyone for having "a weak theological position."

Michael T.

[Jaltus]

alias “philosophickus rex”,



If you had read my post intelligently, you would have seen that I was critiquing – not “auggybendoggy” as a person – but instead his lack of attention to pronunciation, correct spelling, sense, and expression.

And after having read a quantity of your posts, it’s evident that you’re in no position to be attacking anyone for having "a weak theological position."

Michael T.

Have you read Olson's book?

[Michael T.]

auggybendoggy,


Too true that my spelling and lack of grammar, and I probably am very confusing. So I'll try again to explain.

If it is true that God can make a man rape a woman and not be responsible for the rape, then it can be equally true that God can let a man make a choice unto salvation and the man NOT BE responsible for the salvation.


If God were to force a man to rape a woman, that would make the holy righteous GOD to re responsible for that sin, and that would make the righteous GOD to be a Sinner, and thus GOD would not and could not be GOD, which makes this hypothesis absurd, and blasphemous, and also utterly inadmissible.

Although GOD, if he were to will to do so, could permit people to choose whether or not they would or would not be saved, nevertheless the Scriptures repeatedly teach that GOD the Father has always reserved to Himself and to Himself alone the operative [i.e. causal] Choice as to who will be saved or not. [Ephesians 1:3-11; Gospel of John 6:44; Gospel of John 6:65; 2 Timothy 1:9; 2 Thessalonians 2:13, etc.]

Therefore neither of your above two hypotheses are valid in respect of Reality.

The first hypothesis is inadmissible because it impugns GOD’s righteous and holy Character, and your second hypothesis is invalid because GOD has in His Scriptures conclusively declared that it never human beings but only GOD the Father Who alone has, from the very beginning, always held sovereign prerogative as to who will be saved, or alternatively, not saved.


. . . and the man NOT BE responsible for the salvation.


Since, as the Scriptures very emphatically teach, salvation in Christ is always and only by unmeritable Divine Grace, thus salvation is always and entirely the responsibility of the LORD God; never human beings.

The Apostle Paul expressed this great Truth very ably in Ephesians 2:8-9 [see below].

Ephesians 2:8-9 –
“For it is by grace that you are saved through faith; it is NOT of yourselves: it is the gift of God: it is NOT of works, lest any man should boast.”


If the latter cannot be true than neither can the former.


As I've explained, neither of your two hypotheses is true or valid.


If the former can be true but the latter cannot than perhaps an explanation would prove. But what explanation will the Calvinists argue?


For the reasons that I've explained above, the former hypothesis is not true nor can it ever be true.

As for your latter hypothesis, what ultimately matters is not what Calvinists or Calvinist Theology asserts; what does ultimately matter is what the Scriptures state. And this is because the Scriptures are the very Word of GOD written, which means that the Scriptures always have sovereign pre-emptive authority over all other writings, ECFs, systematic theologies, etc.

Having said that, Calvinist theology affirms Biblical Truths and principles and the Biblical world-view, and authentic Calvinists will affirm my Biblically-based verdicts on your two hypotheses above.


Can you explain why your propositions are true and why Arminianism’s propositions are not? Please explain so I might believe your propositions.


To assist me to answer your question, first please state what these particular Arminian propositions are, then I'll consider them in t6he light of the Scriptures, and reply. Thanks.

You’ve raised some very important issues in your OP and in later posts which deserve to be addressed, and my comments on your spelling etc. were intended to spur you to make more effort to express yourself more clearly so that I and others can respond without the frustration of having to decipher your messages. So don't let up on your thought-provoking questions, but do also make an effort to move to correct spelling and conventional English expression.

Michael T.

[auggybendoggy]

Mike T,
Thanks for the insight on the gammer/spelling. It is soooo true that my writing "sucks" : )
Even I re-read myself and wonder how I could communicate it better. So bare with me please, for my lackings.

As for the first premise.

I find no reason to believe that a calvinist does not believe that God causes the man to rape the woman (hypotheitcally) due to the position that I've heard from calvinists that God is the cause of all things (both evil and good). They usually quote scriptures that God CAUSED PHAROA to become hard that he does rape the woman (hypothetically speaking). He hardened Judas that he betray the Son of God.

So the first premise is built upon what I understand calvinists to embrace.

Now I realize all too well that the attempt of the calvinsit is to rely on mystery. That being, God does cause all things good and bad BUT GOD IS NOT REPONSIBLE FOR THE BAD THINGS CAUSED.
thus follows:
God can author Adam to author sin and God is not the author of sin?

So this presents the next question: Is God responsible for authoring Adams sin? Or better stated is Adams sin DEPENDANT upon God's AUTHORSHIP of his (adams) actions?

So based on my assumptions of the calvinist belief there is not other conclusion except they are in contradiction.

The teaching as I understand from both forum endorsments and lectures (mp3) is that it is not a contradiction but a paradox.

if premise 1 is not true than what exactly is it that calvinists believe?
Again, my understanding is that they believe God CAUSES all things good and bad? Is this or is this not true?

Aug

[BenK]

It's clear, at least, that Calvin believed that God caused Adam's sin, although he did not think that this meant God was morally culpable:

Nor, indeed, is there any probability in the thing itself, viz., that man brought death upon himself merely by the permission, and not by the ordination of God; as if God had not determined what he wished the condition of the chief of his creatures to be. I will not hesitate, therefore, simply to confess with Augustine that the will of God is necessity, and that everything is necessary which he has willed; just as those things will certainly happen which he has foreseen, (August. de Gen. ad Lit., Lib. 6, cap. 15.).... The first man fell because the Lord deemed it meet that he should: why he deemed it meet, we know not.... Man therefore falls, divine providence so ordaining, but he falls by his own fault. ("Calvin, Inst. III. 23. 8, emphasis mine)

[Arminius_Wesley]

auggybendoggy,



If God were to force a man to rape a woman, that would make the holy righteous GOD to re responsible for that sin, and that would make the righteous GOD to be a Sinner, and thus GOD would not and could not be GOD, which makes this hypothesis absurd, and blasphemous, and also utterly inadmissible.

Although GOD, if he were to will to do so, could permit people to choose whether or not they would or would not be saved, nevertheless the Scriptures repeatedly teach that GOD the Father has always reserved to Himself and to Himself alone the operative [i.e. causal] Choice as to who will be saved or not. [Ephesians 1:3-11; Gospel of John 6:44; Gospel of John 6:65; 2 Timothy 1:9; 2 Thessalonians 2:13, etc.]

Hello all, Mike T. I just wanted to interject on a particular verse & hear your opinion.

44No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

45It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me. (John 6:44-45)

It seems to me every time I see John 6:44 presented to support the Reformed view the verse that follows is always absent?

In verse 45 it states "they shall ALL be taught by God" and "every man ... that hath heard, and ... learned ... cometh unto me"

This coincides with what we learn in this verse:

And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me. (John 12:32)

There can be no doubt that God has chosen people unto salvation and sanctification; however, the idea that Arminian theology either denies this or takes credit away from God (for our personal justification) in an unscriptural way is categorically untrue.

In fact I would opine that the Reformed framework somewhat alters the nature of depravity. If it is our depravity, which renders us unable to seek God, then God must alter the nature of the elects depravity in order for them to receive Him. Thus, under this theoretical framework we are no longer all equally and totally depraved. The elect must be rendered something less than totally depraved, while the reprobate are left in their depravity. Doesn't this seem to abrogate Romans 11:32?

I think that Reformed theology improperly conflates grace and salvation. We are saved by grace and through faith; however, grace does not equal salvation (and the words are not interchangeable). Grace is what brings man to seek faith, which is what ultimately saves. This, it seems to me, is the proper formulation revealed by Scripture.

Grace can be more properly related to God's mercy and love toward mankind, expressed by giving His only Son so we may all have access to justification through faith. The opportunity for salvation, unmerited atonement, responding to those who seek, ask, and knock are all "expressions" of grace. It is unmerited atonement, which is the free unmerited gift, which gives men the ability to seek God notwithstanding our depravity, which is what's in view in Ephesians 2:8.

The opportunity for salvation was given without merit; however, this doesn't mean it was given arbitrarily or at random. To the contrary, there are clear conditions set forth by Scripture. How could one boast any less if they thought they were randomly chosen by God to the exclusion of most others?

Willingness has always been a precondition to justification and man has always been able to resist the Holy Ghost (See Matthew 23:37, Mark 7:9, Acts 7:51, 2 Timothy 3:8, and Hebrews 4:7).

In fact willingness and obedience is a timeless precondition for finding favor with God (See Isaiah 1:19); and God has always rewarded those who diligently seek Him (See Hebrews 11:6).

The strong weight of these numerous verses would be rendered illogical if we were to imagine that foreknowledge was the fruit of a prior elective decree.

A verse I like better than Romans 8:29 is:

Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied. (1 Peter 1:2)

We are elected ACCORDING TO THE FOREKNOWLEDGE OF GOD. The language of this verse is unavoidable and clear. Foreknowledge is the precursor; not the result. We might debate over what does God have foreknowledge of; but the idea that His elective decrees precede foreknowledge is clearly abrogated by this verse.


AW

[auggybendoggy]

I'll takt this time to post an applause of Rogers book.
Very well written, easy to read and quite frankly a bit persuasive on most of the myths.

Although I am not convinced of all, I certainly appreciate his ability to stand up for what he believes in as not being heretical.

For those who have not read, Mr. Olson does not defend arm. (though at times he does a bit) but primarily disolves the myths about arm's.

I think he is right. Arm's do believe in salvation by grace (not by works). Arm's do believe in justification by faith (not by works).
Arm's do believe in sov. pred, and so on.

Prevenient grace is still problematic for me though. I simply dont' see any scripture stating the whole world is set free (yet still in bondage?) so man can choose his destiny??? Seems paul states that men are still on bondage. So I'm not convinced of PG but his book was not set out to prove PG so I don't fault him on it.

His dissolving of the myths truly does show that calvinists (of which I am closer to) have not listened or heard arm theology. I believe it because before I read the book I had all the same assults on the theology and I no longer have them.

Aug

[Arminian]

Actually, what Paul said is that all believers prior to Christ were in bondage to sin. Really.

[Arminius_Wesley]

Actually, what Paul said is that all believers prior to Christ were in bondage to sin. Really.

Indeed. Universal atonement lifts the dividing wall of sin, which stood between God and man and obstructed man from seeking out God. IMO universal atonement is one expression of God's grace, by which we have access to faith.

[Arminius_Wesley]

Prevenient grace is still problematic for me though. I simply dont' see any scripture stating the whole world is set free (yet still in bondage?) so man can choose his destiny??? Seems paul states that men are still on bondage. So I'm not convinced of PG but his book was not set out to prove PG so I don't fault him on it.

His dissolving of the myths truly does show that calvinists (of which I am closer to) have not listened or heard arm theology. I believe it because before I read the book I had all the same assults on the theology and I no longer have them.

Aug

It was our personal sense of unworthiness, which stood between God and man, and rendered us unable to seek Him with any expectation accept that of wrath. Our sin nature, our utter inability to abstain from sin, was the source of this sense of unworthiness.

God, in His infinite wisdom, knew this would be our plight. He knew from the beginning that the human history He initiated would result in the human condition of unworthiness. God knew this because this was His design.

Sin was an unapproachable barrier, one we could not overcome except with divine intervention.

The word prevenient simply means to "come before." It is the grace that came before our ability to seek God through Christ.

My own thoughts regarding grace is that grace is simply the merciful acts of God toward His creation. There have been many manifestations of God's grace unto mankind; but for the purposes of salvation the grace that enables man to seek God is atonement.

Giving His only Son for the forgiveness of our sins is a manifestation of grace or mercy towards mankind; and it is what tells us we may now approach God to spite our depravity. No longer need we feel unworthy; for we know God has forgiven us whatever our sins. Universal atonement frees man to seek God. By that grace we now have access to justifying faith. If we diligently seek God we will be rewarded, if we ask we shall receive, etc.

[Vivian]

Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied. (1 Peter 1:2)

We are elected ACCORDING TO THE FOREKNOWLEDGE OF GOD. The language of this verse is unavoidable and clear. Foreknowledge is the precursor; not the result. We might debate over what does God have foreknowledge of; but the idea that His elective decrees precede foreknowledge is clearly abrogated by this verse.


AW

I understand how a soul that is cut off from Unity would grasp onto this ideology or that.

But indeed it is very simple.

Elect according to the foreknowledge of God.

What is foreknowledge? Prognosis - God ahead of time knowing what the outcome or end result of his creation will be, just as a doctor looks at the symptoms and test results of his patient and knows his or her prognosis or what the likely outcome for the patient will be.

And what is God's prognosis of His Creation - in examining the 'how and what' he created?

That it is Good - that all things will be made One in Christ.

The prognosis is that all things in heaven and earth will be made One.

And what is election but being chosen, ripe, harvestable, and useful? God knew ahead of time who and what and when everything will be harvestable, or useful for his purposes and ready for Unity in Christ.

All that has been created will be elect or chosen for harvesting into unity, according to God's own prognosis of what he has created.

Where is your faith? Do you believe that God can do as he intended, according to his prognosis -make all things in heaven and on earth One in Christ, no matter what you think you know with your limited human reasoning, or see or hear with your mundane senses?

A good tree produces good fruit, a bad tree, bad fruit. But a good tree cannot produce both bad and good fruit. If one follows this philosophy then the tree or creation of their ideology has to be bad. And even though I understand how a lost soul can grasp at such understanding, doing so, holding to such a loveless theology, will harden their hearts, preventing them not only of loving as God intended, but also of being able to advance in their understanding and knowledge of God.

But even these will eventually be chosen and used according to God's purposes.



Viv

[Arminius_Wesley]

I understand how a soul that is cut off from Unity would grasp onto this ideology or that.

what's that supposed to mean? Unity with whom, you're backwoods cult?

But indeed it is very simple.

Elect according to the foreknowledge of God.

What is foreknowledge? Prognosis - God ahead of time knowing what the outcome or end result of his creation will be, just as a doctor looks at the symptoms and test results of his patient and knows his or her prognosis or what the likely outcome for the patient will be..

that's your simply explanation? So simple it sounds like someone autistic or otherwise retarded came up with it?

Where is your faith? Do you believe that God can do as he intended, according to his prognosis -make all things in heaven and on earth One in Christ, no matter what you think you know with your limited human reasoning, or see or hear with your mundane senses?

yeah, yeah I know ... unless people's belief system matches up with your hill billy ideas wrought from a brain who can barely read ... then we're heathen city slickers ......

[Vivian]

what's that supposed to mean? Unity with whom, you're backwoods cult?

.

that's your simply explanation? So simple it sounds like someone autistic or otherwise retarded came up with it?



yeah, yeah I know ... unless people's belief system matches up with your hill billy ideas wrought from a brain who can barely read ... then we're heathen city slickers ......

???Excuse me, AW, but do you have me confused with someone else?

Backwood's cult? Hillbilly ideas wrought from a brain who can barely read???

:rofl:

Actually this is pretty funny stuff. But unfortunately anyone reading this who does not know me would think you right, and so I guess you are guilty of slander.

To set things straight (although these surface appearances have little to do with one's spiritual wisdom), my backwoods is Los Angeles, my cult is a large fundamental Christian church, and my hill billy ideas are born of my life experiences (as a wife, mother, businesswoman, Bible teacher and perpetual student), my education (including but not limited to an MBA and Biblical studies at Biola), and my intimate relationship with Christ.

Perhaps your comment about a 'brain that can barely read' is related to my failure to jump in, or address the elementary spiritual issues that you are presently discussing here? As a teacher and a student of scripture, I have read the Bible cover to cover over a dozen times, and often under the tutelage of fine Biblical minds such as Greg Koukl (which as a matter of fact how I found Tweb). But these readings and studies are nothing compared to having the Spirit behind the words opened up for you by the one true Teacher.

And so I have already spent years studying, debating, discussing (and arguing) about the points that you are discussing here, long before you were out of diapers, and know first hand the futility, the lack of fruitfulness, in such thinking and discussing.

My hopes in speaking as I do is to connect with any who have moved beyond the typical entry-level-seeing of scripture, into the meat, so that we can commune and grow, praise and worship together.

If this is not you, fine.

As far is my offering of prognosis, it was an attempt to move a spiritless intellectual discussion into the heart, where we might just possibly connect with the Spirit that could open up the words of scripture for us.

If we want to progress in knowing our Creator, have to move beyond these sort of kindergarten spirituality discussions, into the Spirit and Truth, into the Love, behind the words God has blessed us with. But He never forces anyone, it is our choice to be bound in fear and ignorance and stay with the masses, or to allow his Spirit to move us, where only the courageous few tread.





Viv

[Arminius_Wesley]

???Excuse me, AW, but do you have me confused with someone else?

Backwood's cult? Hillbilly ideas wrought from a brain who can barely read???

:rofl:

Actually this is pretty funny stuff. But unfortunately anyone reading this who does not know me would think you right, and so I guess you are guilty of slander.

To set things straight (although these surface appearances have little to do with one's spiritual wisdom), my backwoods is Los Angeles, my cult is a large fundamental Christian church, and my hill billy ideas are born of my life experiences (as a wife, mother, businesswoman, Bible teacher and perpetual student), my education (including but not limited to an MBA and Biblical studies at Biola), and my intimate relationship with Christ.

Perhaps your comment about a 'brain that can barely read' is related to my failure to jump in, or address the elementary spiritual issues that you are presently discussing here? As a teacher and a student of scripture, I have read the Bible cover to cover over a dozen times, and often under the tutelage of fine Biblical minds such as Greg Koukl (which as a matter of fact how I found Tweb). But these readings and studies are nothing compared to having the Spirit behind the words opened up for you by the one true Teacher.

And so I have already spent years studying, debating, discussing (and arguing) about the points that you are discussing here, long before you were out of diapers, and know first hand the futility, the lack of fruitfulness, in such thinking and discussing.

My hopes in speaking as I do is to connect with any who have moved beyond the typical entry-level-seeing of scripture, into the meat, so that we can commune and grow, praise and worship together.

If this is not you, fine.

As far is my offering of prognosis, it was an attempt to move a spiritless intellectual discussion into the heart, where we might just possibly connect with the Spirit that could open up the words of scripture for us.

If we want to progress in knowing our Creator, have to move beyond these sort of kindergarten spirituality discussions, into the Spirit and Truth, into the Love, behind the words God has blessed us with. But He never forces anyone, it is our choice to be bound in fear and ignorance and stay with the masses, or to allow his Spirit to move us, where only the courageous few tread.





Viv

You hopes of communicating productively with people might be better realized if you weren't so condocending. You made a ridiculous unfounded charge against me & I returned it .... get over it or learn not to make unfounded charges in the first place.

If you hope to now capture the high ground, after whipping about your condesention, then perhaps I might advise that you take the initiative in moving beyond these kindergarten spiritual discussions -- since you initiated it in the first place?

[Vivian]

You hopes of communicating productively with people might be better realized if you weren't so condocending. You made a ridiculous unfounded charge against me & I returned it .... get over it or learn not to make unfounded charges in the first place.

If you hope to now capture the high ground, after whipping about your condesention, then perhaps I might advise that you take the initiative in moving beyond these kindergarten spiritual discussions -- since you initiated it in the first place?

Perhaps if we start again...


I was agreeing with you in this thread. There was no charge being being directed at you, until you called me an uneducated hill billy.

I apologize for being unclear.

My heart is saddened with the philosophy some are holding to, that the Love of God which they experience is not for everyone. That God is a respecter of persons, and only loves certain ones.

This sort of thinking comes when a mind controlled by the flesh receives a taste of God's Love and does not let that Love into their being fully so that it may do its work in their hearts.

It is only the flesh that can conceive of a God who plants seed, intending for some to be harvested and some to go in the incinerator (whether it be annihilation or eternal torment).

Again it is understandable that the flesh does this, that it comes to these conclusions - because the flesh is unable to comprehend the Mysteries and Love of God.

And so I agree with what you stated:


Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied. (1 Peter 1:2 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=KJV&passage=1+Peter+1%3A2))

We are elected ACCORDING TO THE FOREKNOWLEDGE OF GOD. The language of this verse is unavoidable and clear. Foreknowledge is the precursor; not the result. We might debate over what does God have foreknowledge of; but the idea that His elective decrees precede foreknowledge is clearly abrogated by this verse.
And I added to this with my initial post.


Now if you have a problem with my comment about the debate between you and Nang made on another thread, that comment is universal. We all debate and argue issues that we have not yet fully resolved within ourselves. When we resolve and reconcile these things within, of course with the aid and guidance of Christ, the peace that surpasses all understanding will rise up in us, negating the need for us to further prove ourselves or our thoughts.

Then, we will only feel inspired to share with those who are listening, and if they are not, we will not feel the need to debate, but instead feel free to depart and go on our way.

And I offer a blanket apology for my condescension. I realize that when one has begun to taste of the freedom to be found in Christ, they get a little over zealous, so wanting everyone else to find it too, and so may sound like a know it all!


May all come to know the peace and freedom that can be found in Christ.




Viv

[auggybendoggy]

LOL, A-W come on bro!!! Whats good for the goose is good for the gander. EASE UP OL BOY!

LOL ViV are you more in line with talbotts views? Perhaps Mcdoanalds? Universal reconciliation LOL!!!
AW just keeps getting an earful from us UR's

AW you gotta love it bro : )

Seriously, back to the book.

Olson does a good job dispelling the myths.
I'd like for Nang or GoB to read it and answer myth by myth after they read the chapter on that myth.

Aug

[Assistant Junior Deputy Janitor Analogman]

Seriously, back to the book.

Olson does a good job dispelling the myths.
I'd like for Nang or GoB to read it and answer myth by myth after they read the chapter on that myth.

Aug

Never gonna happen, Auggy. If they read it, their strawman attacks would have to diminish. We can't have that. :lol:

[auggybendoggy]

A-Man,
I agree, they simply will refuse to read em for fear of actually being silences on their arguments.

That does not mean I'm arm. but at least I can give credit where it's due and Olson states quite eloquently if not by unnatural default, that he believes in salvation BY God, BY Grace, By Faith ALONE.

I was skeptical of his dispelling these myths but I concede he achieved most of them. I am not convinced of all myths being dispelled BUT they are no different than a calvinists appeal to God decreen men to sin and God is only the author of the decree and not the sin? Was the sin determined by God's Decree or Adam?

Olson only needs to conceed as well that calvinists do not believe God is the author of sin THOUGH he is the creator of all things (good and bad).

Aug

[Arminius_Wesley]

Perhaps if we start again...


I was agreeing with you in this thread. There was no charge being being directed at you, until you called me an uneducated hill billy.

I apologize for being unclear.

My heart is saddened with the philosophy some are holding to, that the Love of God which they experience is not for everyone. That God is a respecter of persons, and only loves certain ones.

This sort of thinking comes when a mind controlled by the flesh receives a taste of God's Love and does not let that Love into their being fully so that it may do its work in their hearts.

It is only the flesh that can conceive of a God who plants seed, intending for some to be harvested and some to go in the incinerator (whether it be annihilation or eternal torment).

Again it is understandable that the flesh does this, that it comes to these conclusions - because the flesh is unable to comprehend the Mysteries and Love of God.

And so I agree with what you stated:



And I added to this with my initial post.


Now if you have a problem with my comment about the debate between you and Nang made on another thread, that comment is universal. We all debate and argue issues that we have not yet fully resolved within ourselves. When we resolve and reconcile these things within, of course with the aid and guidance of Christ, the peace that surpasses all understanding will rise up in us, negating the need for us to further prove ourselves or our thoughts.

Then, we will only feel inspired to share with those who are listening, and if they are not, we will not feel the need to debate, but instead feel free to depart and go on our way.

And I offer a blanket apology for my condescension. I realize that when one has begun to taste of the freedom to be found in Christ, they get a little over zealous, so wanting everyone else to find it too, and so may sound like a know it all!


May all come to know the peace and freedom that can be found in Christ.




Viv

I graciously accept you apology ... and apologize for my snappy rebuttal.

[Arminius_Wesley]

LOL, A-W come on bro!!! Whats good for the goose is good for the gander. EASE UP OL BOY!

LOL ViV are you more in line with talbotts views? Perhaps Mcdoanalds? Universal reconciliation LOL!!!
AW just keeps getting an earful from us UR's

AW you gotta love it bro : )

Seriously, back to the book.

Olson does a good job dispelling the myths.
I'd like for Nang or GoB to read it and answer myth by myth after they read the chapter on that myth.

Aug

Heck, I thought Viv was coming from an entirely different POV? Now that she cleared it up I'm forced to eat a couple of my words ... LOL!

Oh well, we apologized to each other??? My point is that God does give all the opportunity to seek Him. I think the Bible is clear regarding those who don't; however, especially those who have the opportunity (and have been exposed to the word). I think it can at least be said that they have a plight in the afterlife that is different than ours (whether or not God will give them some sort of opportunity to repent in the hereafter is a question even Martin Luther couldn't answer)?


AW

[Vivian]

LOL, A-W come on bro!!! Whats good for the goose is good for the gander. EASE UP OL BOY!

LOL ViV are you more in line with talbotts views? Perhaps Mcdoanalds? Universal reconciliation LOL!!!
AW just keeps getting an earful from us UR's

AW you gotta love it bro : )

Seriously, back to the book.

Olson does a good job dispelling the myths.
I'd like for Nang or GoB to read it and answer myth by myth after they read the chapter on that myth.

Aug

Hey aug -

AW and I have reconciled :smile: and I see little else to offer here, except to answer your question.

My conclusions do not come from the intellectual analysis of other's ideas - so honestly I am unfamiliar with Talbott or McDonald.

My conclusions come from personal experiencing of God's Love and Mysteries, so I am more of a mystic. Without these experiences, I am not sure where I would stand intellectually on this issue! And interesting, or even funny, while I had heard of Calvin, I wasn't before Tweb familiar with 'Calvinism/Reformed' or 'Arminian' .

As shared, when I saw the issue debated, my heart broke. So I did a little research at my home church, reading their statement of beliefs ( which I had read before, but never with intellectual scrutiny), and to my amazement, doctrinally, they leaned towards a Calvinistic/ Reformed perspective. Ha! Such that I witness on this forum, though, was never, ever preached at church. And I was a bible teacher (teaching on completely different topics, obviously).

We had a lot of intellectuals who like to read and discuss the differing opinions/thoughts within Christianity, and so this sort of issue would have been presented from all angles, with all thoughts offered so that the congregates could decide what they thought for themselves. Obviously, holding to this doctrine or that was only considered 'intellectual entertainment' and not necessary for salvation. Unity of heart was considered more important than everyone thinking the same.

[I speak of this church in the past tense, because it got so big that it divided up a few years back, and I have not been as involved since the split.]




Viv

[Vivian]

Olson only needs to conceed as well that calvinists do not believe God is the author of sin THOUGH he is the creator of all things (good and bad).

Aug

Whoops. I lied. I found something else to offer...

I see the existence of sin as proof of free will. God is indeed the author of free will, which allows for the existence of sin. By definition, sin simply means missing the mark, doing things contrary to God's Will, not being inline with his intentions, his purposes and his plans. And there are consequences for that! Suffering!

But God made us in his image, which means we have choice just has he does. But his creation was created so that even though we have free will, even though temporarily we do things our way, all will eventually learn through suffering that his way is the best and we will get in line, so that as he foreknew - all things in heaven and earth will eventually be made one in Christ.

So God wishes, planned, wills, and foreknew that we would all eventually choose to apply our will to fulfill his purposes, to join in the Father's work of making all one in Christ. When we are ready to concede our own will, we will then be the elect, the true disciples, joining in the work of the Father.

But a hardened heart has a limited vision, seeing only with its mundane senses what is right before it and often concluding that all being made one is impossible, so God couldn't possible have intended for that to happen.

Now, in knowing God and his mysteries, I see Calvinism/Reformed thought as a sign of lesser, beginning faith. It is not uncommon for those just beginning in their journey of faith to perceive and conclude intellectually from a Calvinistic perspective.

These would be wise then, to hold these beliefs lightly, and pray for God to strengthen their faith.

May all come to know your Glory and Power and truly see that all things are possible in you. Amen



Viv

[Jaltus]

Michael T is never coming back, is he?

I am still waiting for him to admit that he slandered Olson by commenting on him without reading his book.

[Michael T.]

auggybendoggy,


As for the first premise:
I find no reason to believe that a Calvinist does not believe that God causes the man to rape the woman (hypotheitcally) due to the position that I've heard from Calvinists that God is the cause of all things (both evil and good).


In other words, you claim that Calvinists believe that the Righteous GOD is the author of sin.
If this is what you mean, then you’re very mistaken.
No genuine Calvinist will ever say or believe or promote the heretical idea that GOD is the author of sin.

And if it’s true that the people who you refer to did in fact say or believe or promote the idea that “GOD is the author of sin,” then those people were certainly NOT authentic Calvinists, nor were they genuine Christians, but they were heretics, hypocrites, liars, reprobates, and blasphemers. Steer clear from such people.

Those people may have been Arminians who are notorious for slandering Calvinists and Calvinist Theology. But neither Calvin nor Calvinist Theology has ever stated or implied that God is the author of sin. That very idea is abhorrent.

In Book 1 of his classic work, “The Institutes of the Christian Religion,” John Calvin attacks and denounces this detestable idea that “God is the author of sin.” Therefore if Calvin denounced and condemned this ridiculous idea, how can people who believe it and declare it be genuine Calvinists? ! They are not and cannot be true Calvinists.

It’s better for you focus on the Scriptures; make the Scriptures your basis for doctrine. The Scriptures always take pre-emptive authority over all other writings.


They usually quote scriptures that God CAUSED PHAROAH to become hard that he does rape the woman (hypothetically speaking). He hardened Judas [so] that he [would] betray the Son of God.


To cause * hardening * is distinctly different from causing to sin.

The Pharaoh you refer to was reprobate from the beginning. This is confirmed by the Book of Exodus wherein this same Pharaoh and his armies were all drowned in the Reed Sea whilst pursuing the Israelites as they left Egypt.

Furthermore, even though the LORD God can and does harden certain people, it is always they and they alone, as Adam’s seed, who alone are responsible for the sin which they commit.


So the first premise is built upon what I understand Calvinists to embrace.


No. You’re mistaken.
Neither Calvin nor genuine Calvinists ever hold to or believe or promote the blasphemous and GOD-insulting idea that God is the author of sin.


Now I realize all too well that the attempt of the Calvinist is to rely on mystery.


Again, you’re very much mistaken.
I don’t know where you’re dredging these weird ideas from, but it can’t be from Calvinism or from Calvinist Theology.

It’s also increasingly obvious that your ideas about Calvinism and Calvinists are based on hearsay, and from ignorant and bigoted sources.

Its also evident to me that you’ve never made a thorough and detailed study of all of Calvin’s writings, nor have you ever thoroughly compared those writings with the Scriptures, for if you had done so, you wouldn’t be making the atrocious claims that you’re doing.

And this is the trade-mark of almost all people who criticise and condemn Calvinism and Calvinist theology – they speak from ignorance and bigotry; hardly any of them have ever actually undertaken thorough research of the writings of Calvin and of classic Calvinism. Such people advertise their ignorance af their spiritually-blind bigotry every time they open their mouth or belch forth their opinions.


That being, God does cause all things good and bad BUT GOD IS NOT REPONSIBLE FOR THE BAD THINGS CAUSED.


Tripe.
Please supply specific Biblical proof that “God does cause all things bad. Quote the Bible book, chapter, and verse which states this. I await your reply with interest.


Thus [it] follows:
God can author Adam to author sin . . .


No.
The Book of Genesis, chapters 2 and 3 tell us that GOD’s Creation before the Fall was not just * Good * but “very Good” [Genesis 1:31]. Furthermore, GOD intended it in principle for His created order to remain that way.

But bear in mind that GOD the Creator made Adam and Eve able to ( not * commit sin, and also able “ to “ commit sin. In the beginning these choices were theirs to make. However, as we know only too well, Eve, then Adam, by their choosing to disobey GOD’s commandment [Genesis 2:15-17] Eve, then Adam, both sinned, and from that particular point, although they both retained the ability to commit sin, they – and also al of their natural descendants, including also us, - lost their ability to * Not * commit sin.

And from that moment onwards including also now, the Scriptures teach that all of Adam and Eve’s descendants are not only habitual sinners because of their corrupt natures, but are also sin-enslaved under the power and rule of sin.

Which is why the Apostle Paul tells is in Romans 3:9-18 that of the entire unregenerate human race, not even one does that which is Good in the sight of GOD, nor understands GOD’s spiritual truths, nor is righteous, nor seeks after GOD, etc.


. . . and God is not the author of sin?


God is very certainly NOT the author of sin.


So this presents the next question: Is God responsible for authoring Adams sin? Or better stated is Adam's sin DEPENDANT upon God's AUTHORSHIP of his (Adam's) actions?


No. as I’ve already explained to you, certainly not.


So based on my assumptions of the Calvinist belief there is not other conclusion except they are in contradiction.


No. You’re mistaken.
Calvinists are certainly * NOT * in any contradiction because no authentic Calvinists ever teach or declare or believe the heretical and GOD-dishonoring, and blasphemous idea that “God is the author of sin.”


The teaching as I understand from both forum endorsements and lectures (mp3) is that it is not a contradiction but a paradox.


Please clarify your statement by explaining what you mean by “IT” when you say: “ IT is not a contradiction but a paradox.”


If premise 1 is not true then what exactly is it that Calvinists believe?

Authentic Calvinists believe what the Scriptures state and teach.

And as far as this thread is concerned, Calvin and genuine Calvinists all emphatically reject the heretical and GOD-dishonoring idea that “God is the author of sin” and Calvinists also rigorously affirm and uphold the Biblical Truth that it is * NOT GOD * but * Man * who is responsible for his sin.

[Quote=auggybendoggy]
Again, my understanding is that they believe God CAUSES all things good and bad? Is this or is this not true?


To sum up, the LORD God is never the Author of sin.

Michael T.

[Arminius_Wesley]

I think MT is right here. For example Calvin never doubted the canonicity of the epistle of James (as Luther did), which states God can neither be tempted nor does He tempt.

The real disagreement for me anyway (as someone who does maintain a level of respect of Calvin and much of his theology) is on the concept of Grace.

Does grace take the form of tangible acts on God's part (and do those acts, like universal atonement, translate into a spiritual enablement to overcome depravity and seek God for all people), or is it an intangible, particular, and always efficacious spiritual connection between God and the elect?

I personally equate Grace to mercy. I think God has expressed grace in many different ways throughout Scripture; but relevant to this discussion, I think atonement is the expression of grace in view in passages like Ephesians 2:8-10.

Sin was the barrier between God and man. This barrier has been torn down by universal atonement. Now, to spite our depravity, we may seek God with an expectation of salvation. Previously we had a law, which was designed so that no man could follow its rigorous requirements entirely. It required an annual atonement ritual and was only applicable to the blood descendants of Abraham.

Thus it ensured that few in the Jewish community (whom it was designed for) could follow it & it stood as a barrier between the rest of the world (Gentiles) and God. Christ reconciled mankind to God by His atoning work on the cross. Now all may seek God in spite of our sin nature with the knowledge that we're forgiven.

I'm not sure if I explained myself well here ... but as much as Calvinists get frustrated with false claims regarding Calvin's theology (and there are many) I get frustrated when I hear charges like .... so you don't believe we're saved by grace?

Of course we're saved by grace ..... the larger question (I've yet to hear anyone seriously think about) is what does grace mean?

The classical view almost leaves it undefined. Here's the definition:

xa/riv

1. grace
1. that which affords joy, pleasure, delight, sweetness, charm, loveliness: grace of speech
2. good will, loving-kindness, favour
1. of the merciful kindness by which God, exerting his holy influence upon souls, turns them to Christ, keeps, strengthens, increases them in Christian faith, knowledge, affection, and kindles them to the exercise of the Christian virtues
3. what is due to grace
1. the spiritual condition of one governed by the power of divine grace
2. the token or proof of grace, benefit
1. a gift of grace
2. benefit, bounty
4. thanks, (for benefits, services, favours), recompense, reward

It's mercy, a benefit bestowed, a gift, reward, kindness, love, etc. What was the free gift God bestowed on us? Was His gift the opportunity for salvation, or is it salvation itself?

The idea that man must cooperate with grace (or seek God at all) in order to be saved is blasted by Calvinists as man initiated salvation, which we have logical cause to boast about.

However, a hypo I like to employ is the homeless bum on the side of the road. A man approaches the bum and states I'm going to offer you a job you are vastly underqualified for and given your poor behavior in life you certainly don't deserve; but all you need to do is accept the job and perform well.

Can the bum really boast the he was responsible for saving himself simply because he took the job? Now, if the man said there was something about you that made me choose you to the exclusion of the other bums, certainly the man could boast. However, if the man extended the offer to all bums and some accepted while others refused, would those who accepted have cause to boast at their comparative good fortune (compared to the foolish bums who refused the offer)? No, in fact if they did interact with those foolish bums in the future they would serve as an example of why the foolish bums should reconsider their poor decision. Dressed in nice clothes, a new apartment, three good meals a day, and happiness. Now, if the boss expected his new employees to go and try to convince those foolish bums to reconsider their choice, I think we would have a hypothetical scenario much like we see in scripture.


I've yet to hear arguments that seriously deride my views, which I would summarize as:

Universal atonement (see 1 John 2:2)

Man can resist the divine energy of the Holy Spirit (which is the spiritual expression of prevenient grace) (see Acts 7:51, Matthew 23:37, and 2 Timothy 3:8)

Man must seek, ask, knock .... in order to receive (see Luke 11:9-10, Hebrews 11:6)

Christ draws all of mankind to Himself (see John 12:32).

God seeks to teach all mankind, those who choose to hear and listen will be saved (see John 6:45, Isaiah 54:13)

God knows who will and who won't cooperate with grace and makes His elective choices accordingly (see 1 Peter 1:2)

From the moment our soul is created (which logically precedes its union with our flesh) God understands its nature and character (and what its choices would be under any circumstances). Thus God places those He knows will cooperate with grace in a situation, which guarantees they will hear the Gospel message (see 1 Peter 1:2 and Jeremiah 1:5).

The elect can turn away from God and be blotted from the book of life (see Revelation 3:5).

However, God does intervene on behalf of those who seek Him. Even the hardening of the Jews was not particular in nature. In other words God designed a law that would produce certain results; however, whether one fell into the category of believer or unbeliever was their choice. The Pharaoh was (as MT pointed out) already reprobate prior to his hardening by God. He tried killing the Jewish male infants in the opening of Exodus (prior to being hardened) but the Jewish bondservants (house maids) didn't comply with the Pharaoh's order. The vessel of wrath was the Old Testament legal and racial requirements for salvation. (see Ephesians 2:14-18). This is what was destroyed by Christ's work on the cross (and what God intended for destruction).

However, the children of the flesh still exist and remain as an antagonist to those born again of God. While their perceived mode of salvation has been dealt with by God (by making it clear that only through faith in the one He sent can we be saved); the residual effect of the hardening caused by the law will only slowly diminish (which serves God's plan).


AW

[BenK]

The Book of Genesis, chapters 2 and 3 tell us that GOD’s Creation before the Fall was not just * Good * but “very Good” [Genesis 1:31]. Furthermore, GOD intended it in principle for His created order to remain that way.

But bear in mind that GOD the Creator made Adam and Eve able to ( not * commit sin, and also able “ to “ commit sin. In the beginning these choices were theirs to make. However, as we know only too well, Eve, then Adam, by their choosing to disobey GOD’s commandment [Genesis 2:15-17] Eve, then Adam, both sinned, and from that particular point, although they both retained the ability to commit sin, they – and also al of their natural descendants, including also us, - lost their ability to * Not * commit sin.


Calvin himself specifically repudiates this view:

The Institutes[/I], III, xxiii"] 7. They deny that it is ever said in distinct terms, God decreed that Adam should perish by his revolt.50[5] As if the same God, who is declared in Scripture to do whatsoever he pleases, could have made the noblest of his creatures without any special purpose. They say that, in accordance with free-will, he was to be the architect of his own fortune, that God had decreed nothing but to treat him according to his desert. If this frigid fiction is received, where will be the omnipotence of God, by which, according to his secret counsel on which every thing depends, he rules over all? But whether they will allow it or not, predestination is manifest in Adam's posterity. It was not owing to nature that they all lost salvation by the fault of one parent. Why should they refuse to admit with regard to one man that which against their will they admit with regard to the whole human race? Why should they in caviling lose their labour? Scripture proclaims that all were, in the person of one, made liable to eternal death. As this cannot be ascribed to nature, it is plain that it is owing to the wonderful counsel of God. It is very absurd in these worthy defenders of the justice of God to strain at a gnat and swallow a camel. I again ask how it is that the fall of Adam involves so many nations with their infant children in eternal death without remedy unless that it so seemed meet to God? Here the most loquacious tongues must be dumb. The decree, I admit, is, dreadful; and yet it is impossible to deny that God foreknow what the end of man was to be before he made him, and foreknew, because he had so ordained by his decree. Should any one here inveigh against the prescience of God, he does it rashly and unadvisedly. For why, pray, should it be made a charge against the heavenly Judge, that he was not ignorant of what was to happen? Thus, if there is any just or plausible complaint, it must be directed against predestination. Nor ought it to seem absurd when I say, that God not only foresaw the fall of the first man, and in him the ruin of his posterity; but also at his own pleasure arranged it.

When you get down to brass tacks, Calvin believed that God was the cause of all the sin and damnation in the world. God created men to fall, maintained them in the fallen position, and then damned them for being fallen. This is not a logical conclusion of reformed theology, but the heart of reformed theology itself.

[auggybendoggy]

Benk,
i can't say that Calvin did endorse God causing sin but it is part of the contemporary reformed position as taught in books and lectures.

I don't know why calvinists can talk so double side without just coming to the obvious conclusion....Calvinism makes no sense in terms of logic. Black becomes white and white becomes black and it's simply because we cannot see how God making men do evil (vessles of wrath doing the devils bidding) is just.

At least hyper calvinists say it.

Aug

[Michael T.]

BenK,


It's clear, at least, that Calvin believed that God caused Adam's sin, although he did not think that this meant God was morally culpable:

Calvin wrote:
“Nor, indeed, is there any probability in the thing itself, viz., that man brought death upon himself merely by the permission, and not by the ordination of God; as if God had not determined what he wished the condition of the chief of his creatures to be. I will not hesitate, therefore, simply to confess with Augustine that the will of God is necessity, and that everything is necessary which he has willed; just as those things will certainly happen which he has foreseen, (August. de Gen. ad Lit., Lib. 6, cap. 15.).... The first man fell because the Lord deemed it meet that he should: why he deemed it meet, we know not.... Man therefore falls, divine providence so ordaining, *** but he falls by his own fault ***. ("Calvin, Inst. III. 23. 8, emphasis mine)


As we see above, Calvin emphasises that Man’s sins are his own fault.

Immediately below is the remainder of “Institutes” Book 3, Ch 23, para. 8 which you omitted to include in your post.

I’ve placed asterisks to mark the particular phrase wherein Calvin places responsibility for Sin onto no one else but the sinner, which, as is to be expected, is also what the Scriptures teach.

Calvin, “Institutes,” Book 3, ch 23, latter portion of ch 8:
“A little before, the Lord has declared that ‘everything that He had made . . . was exceedingly good’ [Genesis 1:31]. Whence then, comes that wickedness to man, that he should fall away from his God? Lest we should think it comes from creation, God had put His stamp of approval on what had come forth from Himself.

*** By his own evil intention, then, Man corrupted the pure nature which he had received from the Lord ***; and by his fall, he drew all his posterity with him into destruction.

Accordingly, we should contemplate the evident cause of condemnation in the corrupt nature of humanity – which is closer to us – rather than seek a hidden and utterly incomprehensible cause on God’s predestination. And let us not be ashamed to submit our understanding to God’s boundless wisdom so far as to yield before its many secrets. For, of those things which it is neither given nor lawful to know, ignorance is learned, [Cf. Inst. III, 2, note 8] the craving to know, (is) a kind of madness.”
[End of citation]

If the people who’ve been busily pretending and/or hoping that Calvin taught that “God is the author of sin” had first referred to Calvin’s “Institutes” and his other writings, they would have discovered from the outset that their claims were utterly false.

Michael T.

[Michael T.]

AW,

I’ve haven’t overlooked replying to your post dated 18-Jan-08 and your comments on Gospel of John 12;32; Divine foreknowledge, etc. in that and later posts. I do want to address these topics with you and will do so in a few days after I’ve dealt with work-related matters. So please forgive me but I’ll respond shortly.

Michael T.

[Arminius_Wesley]

Calvin himself specifically repudiates this view:



When you get down to brass tacks, Calvin believed that God was the cause of all the sin and damnation in the world. God created men to fall, maintained them in the fallen position, and then damned them for being fallen. This is not a logical conclusion of reformed theology, but the heart of reformed theology itself.

I think Calvin later commented that he does not charge God is the author of sin ... concededly this is a tenuous statement given the mechanics of his theology.

I find it interesting that Calvin felt it was impossible that God could foreknow without having decreed. So then this is what it really boils down too, Calvin couldn't wrap his mind around divine omniscience (I guess the same could be said of Augustine).

I must thank you Benk for putting this Institute out there .... it provides a nice launch pad to challenge the idea of double predestination from.


AW

[auggybendoggy]

Mike T,
I admitted that I have not worked through Calvins theology but am responding to "calvinism" as I've heard and read from theolgeans like John Mcarthur (I went to the masters college and listened to him speak on limited atonement), John Piper, Wa yne Grudem, and I cant remember eveyron (da carson, countless mp3's from monergism.com).

I tend to think that Calvin had no choice but to speak two sides out of his mouth. That being, God loved Esau in a general sense and hated esau in a salvific sense. In order to obtain these two ideas which I believe are inherent to calvinism one must be able to prove that God is skitzophrenic to at least a slight degree.

My feelings is that the position expresses contradictions and makes claims that it does not.

For example...
A young king writes a decree for his subject to go and steal from the local bank. The subject does just as he is decreed. Then the police capture the man and bring him before the king. The king, being a good king asks the subject "why did you rob the bank"? The subject responds "perhaps it is because you decreed me to as I am a calvinist" Good king, I know you are good and would not have me do such dirty deeds but when you handed me the decree I read it and obeyed your decree. The King screams "Off with his head" The subject is taken to the dungeoun where he is beheaded.
Then the king celebrates that the thief is dead thanks to the Kings good actions of punishment (justice).

If you say the king does not decree the subject to steal (God does not author the sin) then the king MUST decree that the man does not steal (rightouessness) which is EXACTLY what a clavinist claims the man CANNOT DO.

So do you believe that God decrees all men unto righteoussness?

Aug

[BenK]

"As we see above, Calvin emphasises that Man’s sins are his own fault. "

Yes, but he separates the fault from the cause. This section of the institutes is a specific, explicit repudiation of the idea that Adam's fall was a result of 'free-will':

They deny that it is ever said in distinct terms, God decreed that Adam should perish by his revolt... They say that, in accordance with free-will, he was to be the architect of his own fortune, that God had decreed nothing but to treat him according to his desert.

Calvin dismisses this as a 'frigid fiction', firstly on the grounds that it violates the omnipotence of God:

If this frigid fiction is received, where will be the omnipotence of God, by which, according to his secret counsel on which every thing depends, he rules over all? But whether they will allow it or not, predestination is manifest in Adam's posterity.

Calvin secondly rejects this on the following grounds: that it seems absurd to accept that God would respond to Adam's sin by damning a great number of his descendants, while bawking at the idea that God had determined to damn them in the first place:

It was not owing to nature that they all lost salvation by the fault of one parent. Why should they refuse to admit with regard to one man that which against their will they admit with regard to the whole human race? Why should they in caviling lose their labour? Scripture proclaims that all were, in the person of one, made liable to eternal death. As this cannot be ascribed to nature, it is plain that it is owing to the wonderful counsel of God. It is very absurd in these worthy defenders of the justice of God to strain at a gnat and swallow a camel. I again ask how it is that the fall of Adam involves so many nations with their infant children in eternal death without remedy unless that it so seemed meet to God?

And his conclusion:

The decree, I admit, is, dreadful; and yet it is impossible to deny that God foreknow what the end of man was to be before he made him, and foreknew, because he had so ordained by his decree... God not only foresaw the fall of the first man, and in him the ruin of his posterity; but also at his own pleasure arranged it.

It is true that Calvin emphatically places the moral culpability for man's sin on man and not God. Nevertheless he clearly (this passage is surely as unambiguous as a piece of writing can get) sees that God's decree as the ultimate cause of Adam's sin. I don't know what else you can understand 'God not only foresaw the fall of the first man, and in him the ruin of his posterity, but at his own pleasure arranged it' to mean.

So according to Calvin:

1. God, by his decree, caused the first man to sin.

2. The first man, and his descendants, are held culpable for that sin and worthy of eternal punishment.

3. God kills Jesus and chooses to make that 'count for' the punishment of certain individuals who are thereby pardoned.

4. God eternally punishes the rest.

I think the public defense of this particular philosophy of life is what drives people to rant and bluster things like: "If the people who’ve been busily pretending and/or hoping that Calvin taught that “God is the author of sin” had first referred to Calvin’s “Institutes” and his other writings, they would have discovered from the outset that their claims were utterly false."

[Arminius_Wesley]

Calvin indeed relied heavily on his idea of secret providence. However, I think that idea runs counter to the idea that those secrets were made known to man finally through Paul.

I think Scripture more properly reveals the grace of God as opening the door to salvation to all by smashing the barrier of sin, which divided God from man.

It is plainly written that we are to seek God. The reward of salvation has always been through seeking God. However, before Christ man only had an expectation of wrath, which prevented our seeking God. Objectively speaking the atoning work of Christ was universal; however, subjectively speaking one must believe they are forgiven in order to seek God.

I think the Bible was written more plainly than most realize. I think it was inspired by God and meant to be understand by man in terms or our pragmatic reality. Thus if one had the sole expectation of wrath why would they seek God? I think in that way our depravity kept us from seeking out God, and continues to do so for those who do not believe they are forgiven.

AW

[Arminius_Wesley]

AW,

I’ve haven’t overlooked replying to your post dated 18-Jan-08 and your comments on Gospel of John 12;32; Divine foreknowledge, etc. in that and later posts. I do want to address these topics with you and will do so in a few days after I’ve dealt with work-related matters. So please forgive me but I’ll respond shortly.

Michael T.

I look forward to hearing your views on those issues.


AW

[Michael T.]

BenK,


As we see above, Calvin emphasises that Man’s sins are his own fault.



Yes, but he separates the fault from the cause. This section of the institutes is a specific, explicit repudiation of the idea that Adam's fall was a result of 'free-will':


If by this you’re reiterating your theory that Calvin taught that GOD was/is the author of sin, then I recommend that you consider Book 2, Chapter 1, Section 10 of Calvin’s “Institutes” [see below] wherein Calvin condemns those who blasphemously claim that GOD is the instigator of humans’ sins. He

In this same section of the “Institutes,” Calvin declares the Biblical truth that human sin is entirely Man’s fault and that the cause of human sin is the unregenerate and depraved nature of Man the creature, or, to cite Calvin himself: “. . . the blame of our ruin rests with our own carnality, not with God, its only cause being our degeneracy from our original condition . . .”

“Institutes” – Book 2, Chapter 1, Section 10 -
“10. *** Let us have done, then, with those who dare to inscribe the name of God on their vices, because we say that men are born vicious. ***

The divine workmanship, which they ought to look for in the nature of Adam, when still entire and uncorrupted, they absurdly expect to find in their depravity.

*** The blame of our ruin rests with our own carnality, not with God, ITS ONLY CAUSE BEING our degeneracy from our original condition. ***

And let no one here grumble that God could have provided better for our safety by preventing Adam's fall. This objection, which, from the daring presumption implied in it, is odious to every pious mind, relates to the mystery of predestination, which will afterwards be considered in its own place, (Tertull. de Prescript., Calvin, Lib. de Predest.)

*** Meanwhile let us remember that our ruin is attributable to our own depravity, that we may not insinuate a charge against God himself, the Author of nature.***

It is true that nature has received a mortal wound, but there is a great difference between a wound inflicted from without, and one inherent in our first condition. It is plain that this wound was inflicted by sin; *** and, therefore, we have no ground of complaint except against ourselves. ***

This is carefully taught in Scripture. For the Preacher says, "Lo, this only have I found, that God made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions," (Ecclesiastes 7: 29.) Since man, by the kindness of God, was made upright, but by his oven infatuation fell away unto vanity, his destruction is obviously attributable only to himself, (Athanas. in Orat. Cont. Idola.) “

In “Institutes,” Book 1, Chapter 15, Section 1, Calvin again rejects the blasphemous claim that the LORD God is the author of sin:

“Institutes” – Book 1, Chapter 15, Section 1 -
“1. We have now to speak of the creation of man, not only because of all the works of God it is the noblest, and most admirable specimen of his justice, wisdom, and goodness, but, as we observed at the outset, we cannot clearly and properly know God unless the knowledge of ourselves be added. This knowledge is twofold, - relating, first, to the condition in which we were at first created; and, secondly to our condition such as it began to be immediately after Adam's fall. For it would little avail us to know how we were created if we remained ignorant of the corruption and degradation of our nature in consequence of the fall. At present, however, we confine ourselves to a consideration of our nature in its original integrity. And, certainly, before we descend to the miserable condition into which man has fallen, it is of importance to consider what he was at first.

*** For there is need of caution, lest we attend only to the natural ills of man, and thereby seem to ascribe them to the Author of nature; impiety deeming it a sufficient defense if it can pretend that everything vicious in it proceeded in some sense from God, and not hesitating, when accused, to plead against God, and throw the blame of its guilt upon Him. ***

Those who would be thought to speak more reverently of the Deity catch at an excuse for their depravity from nature, not considering that they also, though more obscurely, bring a charge against God, on whom the dishonor would fall if anything vicious were proved to exist in nature.”

[NOTE: In the latter portion of this section [below] Calvin very aptly observes that the tendency of humans to place the blame for their wickedness upon others (or on the LORD God] is a tendency which must be attributed to their own human depravity. In other words, the blasphemous idea that “God is the author of sin” is itself the product of unregenerate and therefore depraved and spiritually-blind natures:

“Institutes” – Book 1, Chapter 15, Section 1, resumed -
“Seeing, therefore, that the flesh is continually on the alert for subterfuges, by which it imagines it can remove the blame of its own wickedness from itself to some other quarter, we must diligently guard against this depraved procedure, and accordingly treat of the calamity of the human race in such a way as may cut off every evasion, and vindicate the justice of God against all who would impugn it. We shall afterwards see, in its own place, (Book 2 chap. 1: sec. 3,) how far mankind now are from the purity originally conferred on Adam.

And, first, it is to be observed, that when he was formed out of the dust of the ground a curb was laid on his pride - nothing being more absurd than that those should glory in their excellence who not only dwell in tabernacles of clay, but are themselves in part dust and ashes. But God having not only deigned to animate a vessel of clay, but to make it the habitation of an immortal spirit, Adam might well glory in the great liberality of his Maker.”


So according to Calvin:
1. God, by his decree, caused the first man to sin.


You’re mistaken.
As by now you will have seen, Calvin himself denies and condemns this slanderous accusation.


2. The first man, and his descendants, are held culpable for that sin and worthy of eternal punishment.


Yes, and very rightly so, because, as Calvin himself declared: “the blame of our ruin rests with our own carnality, not with God, its only cause being our degeneracy from our original condition.”


3. God kills Jesus and chooses to make that 'count for' the punishment of certain individuals who are thereby pardoned.


No, you’re mistaken. The Scriptures state:
Acts of the Apostles 2:22-24 -
[22] “You men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as you yourselves also know:
[23] Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ** you ** have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:
[24] Whom God h