To Calvinists, how can your view be true?

[Homie]

If I understand your view correctly:
You believe that God saves, we do not choose him under free will but God chooses to save some of us for some reason.

If this was true, some of my basic ideas would crumble, i.e. my understanding of "the meaning of life" and why there is evil in the world when God is good.

1. I believe God chose to create us with free will, so that we would choose him and worship him. Because what can can you give a guy that has everything (God is omnipotent, therefore he can get anything he wants all the time, thus no material goods will satisfy him), the answear is total submittance and worship by free will is the only thing that will satisfy him, therefore he created us.

2. Why is there evil in the world when God is good? Because God gave us free will to submit to our evil nature or submit to him.

If you take free will out of the equation, I have to ask: What is the meaning of life? and Why is there evil in the world?

Not an attack on Calvinists, just a curious question.

[Solly]

Homie

We have free moral volition; the usually unhindered ability to choose and make decisions on the basis of our rational ability and desires. In a normal everyday situation you are free to make a choice; noone is holding a gun to your head.

However, the Biblical witness is that our "free moral volition" is enslavedby, and limited because of, sin; we can't choose anything with respect to God except to rebel against him; everything follows from that: if we have turned from the only source of good, then evil, moral, psychological, spiritual, and eventually natural, will follow. That is what Paul means when he says we were "slaves of sin". Slaves are obedient to their masters.

The mistake most "free willers" make is first, trying to bring a modern ethico-political philosophy to the Bible and seeking to find it there; secondly, assuming it's all or nothing; thirdly, tying it in with ideas of human autonomy - that we exist in a perfect moral and spiritual equilibrium, where each choice is ex nihilo, and we are the masters of our fate, the captains of our souls.

Most free will philosophies I have encountered usually play down the noetic and systemic effects of sin, exalting human autonomy in the process, and making God the slave of our decisions.

God's grace releases us from that slavery to sin, removing not only the blindness of our hearts, but the resistance of our desires which hinders our volitional choices with regard to him. We are not in a position to worship and serve God until we have been regenerated, not even to chose to be regenerated.

[Jacob]

Yesterday @ 06:40 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=125878#post125878)
Homie:

If I understand your view correctly:
You believe that God saves, we do not choose him under free will but God chooses to save some of us for some reason.

If this was true, some of my basic ideas would crumble, i.e. my understanding of "the meaning of life" and why there is evil in the world when God is good.

1. I believe God chose to create us with free will, so that we would choose him and worship him. Because what can can you give a guy that has everything (God is omnipotent, therefore he can get anything he wants all the time, thus no material goods will satisfy him), the answear is total submittance and worship by free will is the only thing that will satisfy him, therefore he created us.

2. Why is there evil in the world when God is good? Because God gave us free will to submit to our evil nature or submit to him.

If you take free will out of the equation, I have to ask: What is the meaning of life? and Why is there evil in the world?

Not an attack on Calvinists, just a curious question.


As a Calvinist, I recognize "free will". Now I ask you to show me your "free will" by willing yourself to fly (without mechanical assistance)...

Here's my point (which Solly also made):

Calvinists believe that man, without God's help, has become unable to choose God, in the same way that we're unable to choose to fly. Whatever we "will", it is beyond our ability to truly seek after God (though we think we can).

To this point, I think that the issue has to do primarily with salvation (i.e. our ability to choose God on His terms), and not with every aspect of our lives. While I don't consider God to be less sovereign anywhere else, it is only in regards to salvation that we humans require a particular working of grace to enable us a real choice.

Following up on this, as a Calvinist, I agree with you that we must freely choose him (which we will do once He provides the grace to enable us to make the choice). I also agree that evil is in the world because of mankind's free choices.

Jacob

[Defenestrator]

I'll reiterate what has already been said.

There is evil in the world because man freely continues to do exactly what he desires. Calvinists just say that man has absolutely no desire to do what pleases God without God's lead.

As far as the meaning of life - of creation - I think Christians of all shape and size believe that the meaning and purpose of Creation is to bring glory to the Creator.

[Homie]

Jacob
I agree with you that we must freely choose him (which we will do once He provides the grace to enable us to make the choice

So you are saying that we do have free will to choose God, but not without God's intervention. Ok, that is fair enough. It is obvious that God plays a part in salvation, I agree with you. But only if you mean that we could be able to not choose him as well, even if he intervened. Because if we couldn't, we would not have free will regarding salvation, which is the very reason we are here, and our creation would be meaningless.

Is it in thread with Calvinist views that without Gods intervention we will not be saved, but still with his intervention we could choose him away. Note, this does not take power away from God (He could make us into robots who worshipped him regardless, if he willed), but brings meaning to our creation.

I have heard something about "the elect". Whereas the elect are the people God chose to save? What makes him elect a few, if he desires that all shall be saved and he loves all. If I am not mistaken, "the elect" is a Calvinist view. So how would you explain the theory of the elect logically, regarding the points mentioned above. (The questions are addressed to all Calvinists)

[Defenestrator]

Homie:

So you are saying that we do have free will to choose God, but not without God's intervention. Ok, that is fair enough. It is obvious that God plays a part in salvation, I agree with you. But only if you mean that we could be able to not choose him as well, even if he intervened. Because if we couldn't, we would not have free will regarding salvation, which is the very reason we are here, and our creation would be meaningless.

Calvinists say that humans don't have free will with regards to salvation. What Calvinists say are that humans freely choose to sin. Humans are not coerced.

Is it in thread with Calvinist views that without Gods intervention we will not be saved, but still with his intervention we could choose him away. Note, this does not take power away from God (He could make us into robots who worshipped him regardless, if he willed), but brings meaning to our creation.

Calvinists would say that your first sentence above is false. Calvinists say that fallen men desire to do evil and have no power in themselves to refrain from doing evil. And Calvinists say that we freely do what we desire.

I have heard something about "the elect". Whereas the elect are the people God chose to save? What makes him elect a few, if he desires that all shall be saved and he loves all. If I am not mistaken, "the elect" is a Calvinist view. So how would you explain the theory of the elect logically, regarding the points mentioned above. (The questions are addressed to all Calvinists)

The "elect" is a biblical term. Calvinists and non-Calvinists just differ in what, exactly, the term means. What Calvinists mean by it is this. Before the Creation of the universe God decreed that sin would exist in His creation. Also before the Creation of the universe, God decreed that some humans would be saved from their sinful nature. These are the elect. Not only that, but God decreed the means by which we would be saved: Jesus Christ's work on the cross. And God did this all for a reason. God's creation points to one purpose: displaying His glory. God's creation - including the fall and redemption - promote the glory of God.

[Jacob]

Today @ 12:16 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=126585#post126585)
Defenestrator:

And God did this all for a reason. God's creation points to one purpose: displaying His glory. God's creation - including the fall and redemption - promote the glory of God.

Well stated.


Jacob

[Secretary of Education - Colin the Cat]

Sorry, but I must disagree. God can not be just if he is choosy. If we are never given an opportunity to choose Christ, there is no need for salvation. It's favortism. If Grace is not available to all, how does one escape hell if grace is not made available to them? We doom ourselves to sin because we succumb to our flesh. We must come to the point of realizing that we are dead in sin and need life. THEN God gives it to us. His grace is a free gift for the world, and it's up to us to realize we need it. God is not a puppett master. He is a gentleman. His desire is to be loved by those who WANT to love Him.

[Defenestrator]

Hey, this used to be in the liberal arts section.

Edit: Nevermind. I see the sections are being renamed or something. But still, this forum is Q&A.

[Solly]

Yesterday @ 05:10 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=126454#post126454)
Homie:

So you are saying that we do have free will to choose God, but not without God's intervention. Ok, that is fair enough. It is obvious that God plays a part in salvation, I agree with you. But only if you mean that we could be able to not choose him as well, even if he intervened. Because if we couldn't, we would not have free will regarding salvation, which is the very reason we are here, and our creation would be meaningless.

--I would not use the term "Free Will" anyway; Arminians would be happier with your definition IMHO, looking at a more synergistic understanding of the modus operandi of salvation. Calvinists are monergistic; we do not want to be saved, then through God's intervention by regenerating us, we do want to be saved. Cut and dried. God doesn't play dice.

I have heard something about "the elect". Whereas the elect are the people God chose to save? What makes him elect a few, if he desires that all shall be saved and he loves all. If I am not mistaken, "the elect" is a Calvinist view. So how would you explain the theory of the elect logically, regarding the points mentioned above. (The questions are addressed to all Calvinists)

--There is nothing to say he elects a few; for a start we are told there will be a multitude without number in heaven; most Reformed believe that infants that die are also elected.

[Homie]

I have read the verses containing the word "elect" in the NT and understand why Calvinists come to the conclusion that some are predestined by God to be saved and some are not. Especially this verse seem to imply this:
2Ti 2:10 Therefore I endure all things for the elect's sakes, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.

When I read what Jesus said about the ending days I understood it to mean elect = the Christians. But 2Ti 2:10 certainly gives the impression that the elect are the elect even before salvation. It seems that they are elected to be saved.

But my conclusion is that this is simply a misunderstanding of language and context. God knows who will be saved (because he is omniscient), therefore those who will be saved are spoken about as the elect. As is evident in this verse:
1Pe 1:2 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.

God knows who will be saved, yet desires all to be saved. There are no 2 kinds of people, why would God elect some to be saved? No, salvation comes through faith, and the saved are the elected, elected to enter Gods kingdom; heaven.

[richilou]

Dear friend,

I would not take the space it would require to answer your fair question. I will just suggest to you a good book who answers very well many of your probable questions as I can guess.

The title of the book is "The Potter's Freedom" written by James R. White (Calvary Press).

Richard

[Hermeneutic]

Homie,

First lat me say, nothing I say here is to argue or be dissagreeable, i only aim to shed some light on your question and possibly help you find a solution.
I can see why you would have the questions you do about Calvinism. Though i feel that the problems you encounter with it may be due to your hermeneutics. Hermeneutics is the art and science of interpretation. Any principles or methods that are used in interpreting something (in this case, the Bible) are all hermeneutics. Everybody has a hermeneutical system of some kind, even if they do not know it. When we read a newspaper we employ certain hermeneutics we have learned, and by using them, we understand the newspaper. How we read something, and the hermeneutics we use will play the most decisive role in how we interpret any given text. So when it comes to the Bible it is essential that we examine the hermeneutics we use to interpret it, and research what others have written on the subject, so when we come to the Bible we have a solid understand of Biblical Hermeneutics.

A common hermeneutical error that we all commit from time to time is the error of assumption. We all have assumptions (or presuppositions) when it comes to God and the Bible. What i mean by assumption is, something that we already believe to be true. Some we are aware of and some we may not be. We may have assumptions because it is what we were taught, its what makes sense to us, or it might be more agreeable with us emotionally. Not all assumptions are bad, but we can begin to see the danger of having assumptions especially when they contradict Scripture. Often times we may find outselves disagreeing with the Bible, or missing the clear teaching of Scripture because it contradicts what we already believe to be true. This happens when our assumptions about God and the BIble are not conclusions come to by studying the Scriptures, but are things we believe to be true apart from the Scriptures. So we find ourselves saying things like "well this verse can't mean that..." when in actuality it might but our failure to let go of our assumption in light of Scripture causes us to miss the true teachings of the Bible. So we can see how important it is to study the Scriptures faithfully so that our worldview and our assumptions will more clearly line up with Scripture. By staying open to God's Word, our assumptions may change into conclusions-beliefs clearly drawn from the faithful study of the Scriptures.

Now i said all that because I noticed a couple things in your post that I do not see very clearly stated in Scripture (I may very well be wrong and if I am please feel free to bring that to my attention, I by no means consider myself infallible). You stated that you believe that God created us so that we would choose in our free will to worship Him, because the only thing that would satisfy God is a free will choice to worship. Is this a conclusion drawn from Scripture?

Just something to think about.

--Hermeneutic (Frank)

[George Blaisdell]

Hermie's :hrm: Homiletic:

"You stated that you believe that ... the only thing that would satisfy God is a free will choice to worship. :huh: Is this a conclusion drawn from Scripture?"

:shocked: I am looking foreward to Homie's Hermaneutic.


geo :hi:

[Thomas2003]

Dear Homie,

One of the hardest things to understand is calvinism coming into the middle of the discussion without the presuppositions.

Calvinism or what some might call the "doctrine of grace" is presuppositional upon the doctrine of the Trinity. It is impossible to understand or really discuss without starting there.

I do not mean this statement in any condemning way, but the reason you come to the table and ask a question based upon your conclusion of "free will" is because you've formulated your soteriology without a complete reference of biblical knowledge.

Coming to grips with what Scripture is teaching, as a totality, took hundreds of years. God hasn't just delivered us all our own bibles and left it up to each of us to hammer out a doctrine for ourselves. Many heresies entered and caused countless misery and death as the Gospel worked out salvation in a temporal sense over time.

The best way to understand it is to go back and read the creeds of the early church, such as the Athanasian Creed, the Chalcedon Creed, the Nicene Creed &c. If you go to http://www.reformed.org/ they have some good copies you might want to peruse.

Hope it helps.

Cordially,

Thomas

[mandolin]

Thomas...why would one go to the creeds to study theology??

I say you go to nothing but the bible...you read it for hours...then you base your conclusion. I think that when predestination accounts are taken into consideration with context, they are blatantly non-calvinistic.

Calvinism is greatly based on determinism. The bible says Christ died for all...but calvinism doesn't work that way...so they unbiblically determined that L was true. For no reason besides it helps their theory. The bible constantly speaks of men rejecting the holy spirit..but that doesn't allow tulp to work...so they just randomly added in I..because they neede to.

The bible repeatedly teaches of "Free will". One of my favorite verses would have to be Rev. 22:17. It is quite impossible for a calvinist to fit verses like this within his realm of foreordination. The reason I say this...is I've had 2 posts on t-web begging calvinists to explain away the verse calvinistically...and no one will respond...for weeks on end.

Free will is not composed without biblical knowledge...it is composed by the basic fact that Pharoah hardened his own heart...God had to convince Moses to save the israelites...and not to mention many verses blatantly preach it. I think it is the concept of salvational foreordination that is without any biblical basis.

Rather than studying official church creeds...I beg you to research tulip with the ever-famous sola scriptura.

Then tell me if you believe that TULIP thing.

Darn bible...continually bashing calvinism.
How dare the bible teach the heresy of free will.
:smile:

[Thomas2003]

Today @ 07:00 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=136827#post136827)
mandolin:

Thomas...why would one go to the creeds to study theology??

I say you go to nothing but the bible...you read it for hours...then you base your conclusion. I think that when predestination accounts are taken into consideration with context, they are blatantly non-calvinistic.

<snip>

Rather than studying official church creeds...I beg you to research tulip with the ever-famous sola scriptura.

Then tell me if you believe that TULIP thing.


Dear Sir,

Thank you for your response, but please consider that it is a bit internally inconsistent. Please allow me to explain.

You say to go to "nothing but the bible." But I think it is important to consider that the Scriptures do not exist in a vacuum - the men who collated the documents, choosing some and rejecting others, did so based upon what Scripture taught. I believe knowing what they believed Scripture taught is essential to affirming "Sola Scriptura."

You see, based upon the concept you are espousing if you reject the creeds, you - at least open yourself up to a rejection of the Scriptures and theology.

If we hold to "Sola Scriptura" and hold that they did not correctly interpret it, then we must necessarily conclude they did not correctly collate it. The Reformation did this very thing with later interpretations and textual additions that supported heresy in contradiction to the creeds. They labeled them 'false prophet' - Apocrapha, and rejected those books as canonical and removed them to historical status.

It makes no sense to disagree with the creeds and claim the authority of the Bible.

You suggest I research the TULIP based upon 'sola scriptura'. However, please consider that is exactly what I was suggesting.

Sola Scriptura does not mean "only Scripture" as if it exists in a vacuum or isolated in private interpretations for every man to hammer out its doctrines for himself.

Scripture exists in history with the work of the Holy Spirit manifesting its truths in history where 'by their fruits ye shall know them." The root in fixed, thus "Scripture Alone", for authority. But the Scripture teaches doctrines.

I was not born in history with the task of repeating the prior 2000 years - I was laid upon the work of others and must reap what they sowed, and sow upon that foundation, so that others may reap from me.

If you till up their soil and reject the growing faith in it's creative context, then you cannot reap anything. The theological landscape is then barren and rests solely upon your own private interpretation and the limits of your experience to properly exegete it. Scripture is opposed to this presupposition in 2 Peter 1:20.

The correct foundation is exegesis, not eigesis. The creeds correctly exegeting the foundational doctrines of the Christian Faith.

God raised up his chosen men to deal with the heresies of the day, back in the early Church. They did an good job of defending the faith against heresy - including the Reformation and eventual separation from the Roman Catholic Church.

I would suggest that the reason you do not understand Calvinism is because you have not been called to hammer out all Christian doctrines on your own anvil. Thus, because your presupposition is otherwise, you reject the completed work of others and Scriptural answers to theological questions that have already been completed.

I don't have the ability to properly exegete the Doctrine of the Trinity, for example. God called other men for that - but I can read it, examine it's exegesis and ponder it's concepts and then agree or disagree with it.

Hence, based upon about a 20 year study of this subject I fully subscribe to Calvinism and all of the Reformed Faith as the proper and correct interpretation of Scripture.

Cordially,

Thomas

[George Blaisdell]

Thomas writes:


Scriptures do not exist in a vacuum - the men who collated the documents, choosing some and rejecting others, did so based upon what Scripture taught. I believe knowing what they believed Scripture taught is essential to affirming Sola Scriptura.


Are you seriously arguing that the men who gave us the Bible were "collating documents"?? And that they did this "collation" based on what was collated?

The men you are referring to are the Church Fathers. Knowing what they taught is essential, indeed, and they did NOT teach sola scriptura. [A Latin and western term and concept...]

If we hold to Sola Scriptura and hold that they [the early Church Fathers?] did not correctly interpret it [sola scriptura??], then we must necessarily conclude they did not correctly collate it [the Bible?].

I think you will find that they taught what the Bible teaches, that Christians are to keep to the traditions they are taught, both written and oral, and that the Church is the ground and pillar of truth. I have not seen much in sola scriptura theory that is inclusive of this part of "scriptura"...


.
It makes no sense to disagree with the creeds and claim the authority of the Bible.


I would suggest to you that you do not know much about sola scriptura - For it is indeed a doctrine that makes of each believer his very own self a Pope in his own mind... And the greater his erudition, the greater his Papal mien - Such that some get so enamored of their veracity that they enter into huge exegetical debates on T-Web...

Sola Scriptura does not mean only Scripture as if it exists in a vacuum or isolated in private interpretations for every man to hammer out its doctrines for himself.


That is a very refreshing idea - Let's see if you can keep hold of it...


I was laid upon the work of others and must reap what they sowed, and sow upon that foundation, so that others may reap from me.


More very Orthodox refreshment!

If you till up their soil and reject the growing faith in it's creative context, then you cannot reap anything.

Are you saying that the faith given once for all to the Apostles is somehow undeveloped? That it needs to grow in a creative' context'??

The theological landscape is then barren and rests solely upon your own private interpretation and the limits of your experience to properly exegete it. Scripture is opposed to this presupposition in 2 Peter 1:20.

Well, given the idea of evolution vs revolution, evolution is to be preferred, yet the faith given once for us all to receive [from generation to generation] is neither defective in origin, nor in need of development by either evolution or revolution...

And 2 Peter 1:20 means NO SOLA SCRIPTURA... See below:

The correct foundation is exegesis, not eisegesis. The creeds correctly exegeting the foundational doctrines of the Christian Faith.[QUOTE]

"Exegesis" is subject to argument and debate, and the creeds are dogmatic, defining the limits of what is acceptable doctrine and practice...

[QUOTE]God raised up his chosen men to deal with the heresies of the day, back in the early Church. They did an good job of defending the faith against heresy - including the Reformation and eventual separation [of the reformers?] from the Roman Catholic Church.

Strange sentence - Are you saying that the separation of the Reformers from the apostatic Roman Church was heretical? And the early Church Fathers already dealt with that 'heresy'??

I would suggest that the reason you do not understand Calvinism is because you have not been called to hammer out all Christian doctrines on your own anvil.

And how will you then avoid the conclusion that the having hammered out ALL the Christian doctrines on YOUR [very] OWN anvil does not then make you your own Pope?


I don't have the ability to properly exegete the Doctrine of the Trinity, for example. God called other men for that - but I can read it, examine it's exegesis and ponder it's concepts and then agree or disagree with it.

Hence your agreement and disagreement constitute your own authority, which makes YOU [and your anvil and your hammer] the pillar and ground of truth, which is anti-scriptural....

Hence, based upon about a 20 year study of this subject I fully subscribe to Calvinism and all of the Reformed Faith as the proper and correct interpretation of Scripture.


Well, that makes you a stand-alone determiner of your very own faith, and you subscribe to Calvinism... You are well within the range of acceptabillity of Luther, who proclaimed that his individual conscience forced him to oppose the Roman Church... All the Protestant confessions stand on this very basis of individual conscience in the face of [apostatic] authority, and in the process lose the possibility of communion within the apostolic Church of the fathers, where it is the Church, not individual conscience, that is the ground and pillar of truth... [The Church is NOT the ***private*** interpretation of any prophesy of (OT) scripture, yes?]

By accepting the teaching of the Church, I acquire 2000 years of instruction in the faith by untold millions of Christ's believers - And not a mere 20 or so years of my own self-determined study... Any wrinkles of the words have been pretty well worked out over that time... The Orthodox faith is understood by the Orthodox faithful by acquisition, by the practice of the faith, not by individual exegetical determination of the
meaning of scripture...

geo

[Thomas2003]

Dear George,

My post was in reference to the creeds, not the Church Father's epistles and other works. Nor was it expansive and intended to be a lesson on church history, but as a consideration on the question of why creeds were important to theology.

The creeds I was referencing are about Scriptural doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation that specifically addressed the question at hand.

You may be more qualified to address the various issues you raise, if that is true then more power to you.

Cordially,

Thomas