Acts 13:48

[RickD]

RickD » Sun May 13, 2012 4:15 am

Secretfire6,

If you end up doing a scriptural study about this, please start a thread with what you come up with. It's a very interesting topic.

Lol, Rick, didn't you have enough of the predestination topic, that was so hot on the board a few months ago and some really long threads went on that too. You want more

Neo, one can never get enough good predestination talk.

[neo-x]

Neo, one can never get enough good predestination talk.

Lol, I think I should pass the word to Danny: "Rick' has turned Calvinist"


On a side note, I miss him

[1over137]

Im not against reading the letter, only saying that reading the letter is a moot point unless you know the guy who wrote the letter.

That guy is certainly great in inventing beautiful physical laws

[neo-x]

That guy is certainly great in inventing beautiful physical laws

yeah. Too bad our atheist friends don't have an answer for that.

[narnia4]

Secretfire6,

If you end up doing a scriptural study about this, please start a thread with what you come up with. It's a very interesting topic.

ill try and do one..i just dont know where i'd go to talk to anyone of the Calvinist side of things. I've never come across a Calvinist church...do they still exist in the US? there would be alot of firsts in this one for me haha

Churches filled with Calvinists aren't too common right now, but there are a lot of people coming out of seminary who are Calvinists. I don't have statistics on it, but I'd feel pretty confident in saying the number is pretty large. I do know a couple of Calvinists who are teaching mostly Arminian churches. There's quite a few Baptists who are reformed, including the president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (Mohler).

There's also quite a few really good Reformed theologians and pastors you could read- Piper, Sproul, Packer, Keller.

[jlay]

Oh, there is a rampant growth here in the US of neo-calvinism. I'm experiencing in my current congregation. Yes, Mohler is definately one of the proponents. He essentially cleaned house at Southern with only 5 professors remaining out of 100. And I believe he requires staff to sign a statement regarding election and predestination.

[RickD]

Neo, one can never get enough good predestination talk.

Lol, I think I should pass the word to Danny: "Rick' has turned Calvinist"


On a side note, I miss him

Yes, Neo. Hana and I were just saying how we miss Danny too.

And no, I haven't turned Calvinist. I don't believe I was "predestined" to be Calvinist.

[Canuckster1127]

Danny's never been asked to leave or told he isn't welcome. It's his choice and if he chooses to come back, he's welcome.

[secretfire6]

...do they still exist in the US?

There are Presbyterians (branch of Protestant Christianity that adheres to the Calvinist theological tradition) in the US. I have couple of friends from that denomination.

ok, there is a presbyterian church not too far from me. I wonder if they would be willing to talk. I will jot down the other names mentioned and see what they have to say as well.

if i could just ask one thing real quick though. If we, as human beings, were already chosen or predestined to be either lost or saved...wouldn't that make all of the new testament pointless? That statement "it is the father's will that none be lost" wouldn't make sense if we didnt have the option, because if it was his will that none be lost, then none would be predestined to be lost, right? Some old testament stories wouldnt make much sense either. For example why be so adamant that Jonah go and witness in Nineveh if the fate of that city was already written in stone somewhere? I know I should be asking someone who believes this, but it's just throwing me for a loop already.

[jlay]

SF,

It is important to understand 5 point Calvinism (5PC) to know where the issues lie. It is very systematic and each point does logically flow from the other. So, each point hangs or falls on the other. That is why 4PC is just a nasty compromise IMO. Ultimately, all the Lapsarian issues boil down to the core issue of God's sovereignty, eternality and the very issue of being itself. The 5PC in an attempt to revere the sovereignty of God, actually impugns it. This usually arises is out of the issue of contingency as it relates to God’s sovereignty. God is not a contingent being, so the 5PC concludes there can be no contingencies in the creation. But what if a sovereign God has decreed allowance for such contingencies? The 5PC is saying God isn't sovereign because he doesn’t comply with their idea of sovereignty.

For example why be so adamant that Jonah go and witness in Nineveh if the fate of that city was already written in stone somewhere?

Another important question. But one can reject 5PC and still say that Nineveh's fate was already written. (for lack of a better description.) It was settled, Nineveh would be spared or destroyed. Yet, there was room for a contingent response of Nineveh. Otherwise Nineveh didn't respond at all. They only acted according to their programming. And that would include their evil they were being rebuked for. People today are either saved or condemned. That is true. Of course how a 5PC defines that is where the issue lies. They wouldn’t say people are condemned or saved. They would say people are either condemned or people are either saved.

[narnia4]

Well there are Calvinists that don't believe in "double" predestination, that men are elected to die but rather only that some are elected.

Regardless, that doesn't make it pointless at all. God uses tools to carry out his will, including men. A Calvinist should be happy to evangelize and accomplish God's purpose. And whether or not Nineveh was predestined to be destroyed, if they were warned then they would be completely without excuse.

[jlay]

Regardless, that doesn't make it pointless at all. God uses tools to carry out his will, including men. A Calvinist should be happy to evangelize and accomplish God's purpose. And whether or not Nineveh was predestined to be destroyed, if they were warned then they would be completely without excuse.

But I can't help but think that this statement is built on the 'T', and the verse Rom. 1:20. Of course the reason they are without excuse is that, even though fallen, they can discern right from wrong. The conscience either accusing or excusing. If they know right from wrong, then they can also volitionally choose. Well, not if you are a 1 point Calvinist that holds to the 'T'. In that case, no one can hear and respond to the gospel, even if the conscience affirms it. However, the NT paints a clear picture that 'rejection' of Christ is the issue, and that men will be held accountable for it. All have sinned, and Christ has died to settle the sin issue once and for all. Yet, one is sent to Hell for rejecting what the 1 point (T) says they are incapable of doing, that of being convinced Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God who died for their sins. And so, God passes by the reprobate, yet we are to evangelize with a message that demands they believe??
"you need to believe what you are incapable of believing!!" How could you be happy about that? If God has passed by some, then telling them to believe the Gospel is telling them to believe a lie. "For God so loved the world (the elect) that he gave (to the elect only) His only begotten son, that whoever (excluding the reprobate) believes (which is an implanted commodity) in Him shall not perish but have eternal life." How can one present John 3:16 if it is literally impossible for them to believe it?

Well there are Calvinists that don't believe in "double" predestination, that men are elected to die but rather only that some are elected.

R.C. Sproul would say, "Has not God chosen from eternity not to elect some people? If so, then we have an eternal choice of non-election which we call reprobation. The inference is clear and necessary, yet some shrink from drawing it." Basically he is saying you aren't willing to man up and call a spade a spade. If T, then U, then L, etc. etc.....double predestination.
I'm not really intereted in the implications that God is the author of evil, as I understand the arguments that refute this. Essentially that man is free to sin by his own volition, but incapable to respond by his own volition.

[narnia4]

Apologies if it seems as if I'm going to ignore parts of your post, I had some more controversial (the below can't be controversial, can it? ) things written but I thought it better to wait and see if there's an appropriate thread to dig into this stuff in the near future. There has to be some other Calvinists lurking on this board still, right?

For Nineveh, I’ll give the example of a naughty kid. The kid gets a look in his eye and you know that he’s about to do something naughty. You present the kid with a choice, knowing full well that he’s not going to choose the right one. Is it somehow not a “real choice” just because you know that the kid is going to be naughty because he’s a naughty kid? How much more is sin ingrained into the core of our being than the idea that a naughty kid wants to steal a cookie that he’s not supposed to have? Its still good to warn the people, not only are the sinners without excuse but it can serve a thousand different purposes. Some of those purposes we can know about and some we can only imagine, there can be others that only God would know.

The problem with the whole double predestination thing is that its letting the critic of Calvinism dictate the terms and how they’re used (one of the things I'm not going to get into, at least not yet). And the idea that God is or could be author of evil is absurd, and I think most of us know why.

I didn’t want this to be a long post but as far as John 3:16 and being able to preach it in good conscience, I remember a big deal of this being made in the super-thread a few months ago but I still don’t feel the force of it. If you can’t in good conscience use a certain evangelical method, change your evangelical method. Doesn't effect the truth of the matter one iota. But we have to remember that we aren’t in God’s position. As far as we know, almost EVERYONE could be saved by the grace of God. The whole issue here is a Christian one, vitally important yes but no matter which side you fall on it doesn't change the fact that we are to go out and preach the good news (and hopefully have a good time doing it).

[RickD]

Narnia, I'm not sure if you were involved in that loooong Calvinism thread we had going a little while back. But, Puritan Lad, who is a 5 point Calvinist, was arguing for double predestination.

[narnia4]

Yes I remember that, he also mentioned that his pastor wasn't. The phrase itself lends itself to a lot of confusion imo. I'm still ironing out my own views and while I don't exactly object to double predestination on any sort of "moral grounds" or anything like that, I don't know that its "necessarily necessary".

What I was alluding to in my previous post was that God is good, by definition. His commandments, decrees, all of that is good by definition. So that's why the idea of God as the author of evil is absurd and incoherent, it cannot be the case if God is good... and evil is the absence of that good. So we can have confidence that through his actions God only accomplishes good, although he allows evil (permissive will and sovereign will, that stuff). The emotional appeal type argument that tries to paint this picture of this "evil Calvinistic" God making us poor innocent humans do these bad things that we wouldn't do otherwise, it really misses the mark imo.

But yeah, I was mostly a "non-combative" in that thread, but I did take part.