Calvin did not invent the doctrines of grace

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

Snacks

Well-known member
Feb 10, 2022
1,410
771
113
I've not read anyone say those things here.
“Whenever you hear that Christ only died for a select few, that's Calvinism.” @oyster67 is 100% correct. The above sentiments can easily be found throughout Christian Chat.

The author of this thread literally wrote “he (God) thoroughly does not want them in any way to be eternally saved.”
 
Feb 5, 2023
698
230
43
“Whenever you hear that Christ only died for a select few, that's Calvinism.” @oyster67 is 100% correct. The above sentiments can easily be found throughout Christian Chat.

The author of this thread literally wrote “he (God) thoroughly does not want them in any way to be eternally saved.”
But that is not what Oyster said.

This is, and is what I was referring to i.n my post.

"Whenever you hear that some were born predestined to go to Heaven and don't have to come to Jesus, that's Calvinism."

As to free will that is why I thought this article would clear up what seems to be a confusion about that matter.
https://www.ligonier.org/learn/series/chosen-by-god/what-is-free-will

I've not read anyone say we don't have to believe in Christ to go to Heaven.
 

Everlasting-Grace

Well-known member
Dec 18, 2021
5,803
1,843
113
But that is not what Oyster said.

This is, and is what I was referring to i.n my post.

"Whenever you hear that some were born predestined to go to Heaven and don't have to come to Jesus, that's Calvinism."

As to free will that is why I thought this article would clear up what seems to be a confusion about that matter.
https://www.ligonier.org/learn/series/chosen-by-god/what-is-free-will

I've not read anyone say we don't have to believe in Christ to go to Heaven.
The argument is why and how one believes.

thats the whole discussion
 
Feb 5, 2023
698
230
43
Clipped from the prior article I mentioned and linked.
https://www.ligonier.org/learn/series/chosen-by-god/what-is-free-will

Chosen by God

A teaching series by R.C. Sproul
What Is Free Will?
If God predestines people to salvation, then what about free will? Doesn't the Calvinistic doctrine of predestination override human free will?
Transcript
I want to direct our attention to an examination of what we mean by the words free will. What does it mean to have a free will? What does it mean to be a free moral agent, a volitional creature under the sovereignty of God?
First of all, let me say that there are different views of what free will comprises that are bandied about in our culture. I think it’s important that we recognize these various views.

Spontaneous Choice
The first view is what I’m going to call the “humanist” view of free will, which I would say is the most widely prevalent view of human freedom that we find in our culture. I’m sad to say that, in my opinion, it’s the most widely held view within the church as well as outside the church.
In this scheme, free will is defined as our ability to make choices spontaneously. That is, the choices we make are in no wise conditioned or determined by any prior prejudice, inclination, or disposition. Let me say that again: this view says that we make our choices spontaneously. Nothing previous to the choice determines the choice—no prejudice, prior disposition, or prior inclination—the choice comes literally on its own as a spontaneous action by the person.
I see at the outset two serious problems that we face as Christians with this definition of free will. The first is a theological, moral problem and the second is a rational problem. I should really say that there are three problems because the whole lecture will focus on the third one, but, at the outset, we immediately see two problems.

No Moral Significance
The first is, as I said, a theological, moral problem. If our choices are made purely spontaneously, without any prior inclination or disposition, then in a sense we’re saying that there is no reason for the choice. There is no motive for the choice; it just happens spontaneously.
If that is the way our choices operate, then we immediately face this problem: how could such an action have any moral significance at all? This is because one of the things the Bible is concerned about in the choices we make is not only what we choose, but also what our intention is in the making of that choice.
We recall, for example, the story of Joseph being sold into slavery by his brothers. When he has this reunion with his brothers many years later, and they repent of that former sin, what does Joseph say to his brothers? When he accepts them and forgives them, he says, “You meant it for evil, but God meant it for good” (Gen. 50:20). God made a choice in the matter. God had chosen, at least, to allow this to happen and to befall Joseph. His brothers made a choice about what to do with Joseph. Their inclination in the making of that choice was wicked. God also made a choice in allowing it to take place, but God’s intention in this activity was altogether righteous and holy.
So God, in considering a good deed, not only examines the outward deed itself (the action), but He also considers the inner motivation (the intent behind the deed). But if there are no inner motivations, if there is no real intentionality (to use the philosophical term), then how could the action be of any moral significance? It just happens.

A Rational Impossibility
Even deeper than that problem, the humanist view immediately faces the question of whether or not such a choice could actually be made. That is, the question is not simply whether it would be moral if it were made, but whether a creature without any prior disposition, inclination, bent, or reason could even make a choice.
Let’s look at this by way of a couple of examples. What is attractive about the idea that I have no prior inclination or disposition is that my will would be neutral. It is inclined neither to the left nor to the right. It is neither inclined toward righteousness nor toward evil but is simply neutral. There is no previous bent or inclination to it.
I think of the story of Alice in Wonderland when Alice, in her travels, comes to the fork in the road, and she can’t decide whether to take the left fork or the right fork. She looks up, and there is the Cheshire Cat in the tree, grinning at her. She asks of the Cheshire Cat, “Which road should I take?” And the Cheshire Cat replies by saying: “That depends. Where are you going?” Alice says, “I don’t know.” Then what does he say? “Then I guess it doesn’t matter.”
If you have no intent, no plan, no desire to get anywhere, what difference does it make whether you take the left or the right? In that situation, we look at it and think, “Alice now has two choices: she can go to the left, or she can go to the right.” But really she has four choices: she can go to the left, she can go to the right, she can turn and go back where she came from, or she can stand there and do nothing until she perishes from her inactivity, which is also a choice.

So, she has four choices, and the question we’re going to ask is: Why would she make any of those four choices? If she has no reason or inclination behind the choice, if her will is utterly neutral, what would happen to her? If there is no reason to prefer the left to the right, nor to prefer standing there to going back, what choice would she make? She wouldn’t make a choice. She would be paralyzed.
The problem we have with the humanist notion of freedom is the old problem of the rabbit out of the hat, but without a hat and without a magician. It is something coming out of nothing, an effect without a cause. A spontaneous choice, in other words, is a rational impossibility. It would have to be an effect without a cause.
I would add that, from a biblical perspective, man in his fallenness is not seen as being in a state of neutrality with respect to the things of God. He does have a prejudice. He does have a bias. He does have an inclination, and his inclination is toward wickedness and away from the things of God. I just say that in passing as we look at various Christian views of the freedom of the will.

The Mind Choosing
I personally think that the greatest book ever written on this subject is simply titled The Freedom of the Will by America’s greatest scholar, Jonathan Edwards.
Incidentally, that designation of “America’s greatest scholar” is not my own. That comes from the Encyclopedia Britannica, which voted Jonathon Edwards the greatest scholarly mind the United States ever produced. His work, The Freedom of the Will, is the closest examination and analysis of this thorny question that I’ve ever read. Martin Luther’s famous work, On the Bondage of the Will, is also one that’s very important and that Christians need to read. But let’s look for a moment at Edwards’ definition of the freedom of the will.
Edwards says that free will is “the mind choosing.” What he is saying is that, though he distinguishes between the mind and the will, the two are inseparably related. We do not make moral choices without the mind approving the direction of our choice.
It is closely related to the biblical concept of conscience that the mind is involved in moral choices. When I become aware of certain options, if I prefer one over the other, I have to have some awareness of what those options are for it to be a moral decision.
So, the will is not something that acts independently from the mind, but rather it acts in conjunction with the mind. Whatever the mind deems as being desirable is what the will is inclined to choose.
 

Everlasting-Grace

Well-known member
Dec 18, 2021
5,803
1,843
113
Clipped from the prior article I mentioned and linked.
https://www.ligonier.org/learn/series/chosen-by-god/what-is-free-will

Chosen by God

A teaching series by R.C. Sproul
What Is Free Will?
If God predestines people to salvation, then what about free will? Doesn't the Calvinistic doctrine of predestination override human free will?
Transcript
I want to direct our attention to an examination of what we mean by the words free will. What does it mean to have a free will? What does it mean to be a free moral agent, a volitional creature under the sovereignty of God?
First of all, let me say that there are different views of what free will comprises that are bandied about in our culture. I think it’s important that we recognize these various views.

Spontaneous Choice
The first view is what I’m going to call the “humanist” view of free will, which I would say is the most widely prevalent view of human freedom that we find in our culture. I’m sad to say that, in my opinion, it’s the most widely held view within the church as well as outside the church.
In this scheme, free will is defined as our ability to make choices spontaneously. That is, the choices we make are in no wise conditioned or determined by any prior prejudice, inclination, or disposition. Let me say that again: this view says that we make our choices spontaneously. Nothing previous to the choice determines the choice—no prejudice, prior disposition, or prior inclination—the choice comes literally on its own as a spontaneous action by the person.
I see at the outset two serious problems that we face as Christians with this definition of free will. The first is a theological, moral problem and the second is a rational problem. I should really say that there are three problems because the whole lecture will focus on the third one, but, at the outset, we immediately see two problems.

No Moral Significance
The first is, as I said, a theological, moral problem. If our choices are made purely spontaneously, without any prior inclination or disposition, then in a sense we’re saying that there is no reason for the choice. There is no motive for the choice; it just happens spontaneously.
If that is the way our choices operate, then we immediately face this problem: how could such an action have any moral significance at all? This is because one of the things the Bible is concerned about in the choices we make is not only what we choose, but also what our intention is in the making of that choice.
We recall, for example, the story of Joseph being sold into slavery by his brothers. When he has this reunion with his brothers many years later, and they repent of that former sin, what does Joseph say to his brothers? When he accepts them and forgives them, he says, “You meant it for evil, but God meant it for good” (Gen. 50:20). God made a choice in the matter. God had chosen, at least, to allow this to happen and to befall Joseph. His brothers made a choice about what to do with Joseph. Their inclination in the making of that choice was wicked. God also made a choice in allowing it to take place, but God’s intention in this activity was altogether righteous and holy.
So God, in considering a good deed, not only examines the outward deed itself (the action), but He also considers the inner motivation (the intent behind the deed). But if there are no inner motivations, if there is no real intentionality (to use the philosophical term), then how could the action be of any moral significance? It just happens.

A Rational Impossibility
Even deeper than that problem, the humanist view immediately faces the question of whether or not such a choice could actually be made. That is, the question is not simply whether it would be moral if it were made, but whether a creature without any prior disposition, inclination, bent, or reason could even make a choice.
Let’s look at this by way of a couple of examples. What is attractive about the idea that I have no prior inclination or disposition is that my will would be neutral. It is inclined neither to the left nor to the right. It is neither inclined toward righteousness nor toward evil but is simply neutral. There is no previous bent or inclination to it.
I think of the story of Alice in Wonderland when Alice, in her travels, comes to the fork in the road, and she can’t decide whether to take the left fork or the right fork. She looks up, and there is the Cheshire Cat in the tree, grinning at her. She asks of the Cheshire Cat, “Which road should I take?” And the Cheshire Cat replies by saying: “That depends. Where are you going?” Alice says, “I don’t know.” Then what does he say? “Then I guess it doesn’t matter.”
If you have no intent, no plan, no desire to get anywhere, what difference does it make whether you take the left or the right? In that situation, we look at it and think, “Alice now has two choices: she can go to the left, or she can go to the right.” But really she has four choices: she can go to the left, she can go to the right, she can turn and go back where she came from, or she can stand there and do nothing until she perishes from her inactivity, which is also a choice.

So, she has four choices, and the question we’re going to ask is: Why would she make any of those four choices? If she has no reason or inclination behind the choice, if her will is utterly neutral, what would happen to her? If there is no reason to prefer the left to the right, nor to prefer standing there to going back, what choice would she make? She wouldn’t make a choice. She would be paralyzed.
The problem we have with the humanist notion of freedom is the old problem of the rabbit out of the hat, but without a hat and without a magician. It is something coming out of nothing, an effect without a cause. A spontaneous choice, in other words, is a rational impossibility. It would have to be an effect without a cause.
I would add that, from a biblical perspective, man in his fallenness is not seen as being in a state of neutrality with respect to the things of God. He does have a prejudice. He does have a bias. He does have an inclination, and his inclination is toward wickedness and away from the things of God. I just say that in passing as we look at various Christian views of the freedom of the will.

The Mind Choosing
I personally think that the greatest book ever written on this subject is simply titled The Freedom of the Will by America’s greatest scholar, Jonathan Edwards.
Incidentally, that designation of “America’s greatest scholar” is not my own. That comes from the Encyclopedia Britannica, which voted Jonathon Edwards the greatest scholarly mind the United States ever produced. His work, The Freedom of the Will, is the closest examination and analysis of this thorny question that I’ve ever read. Martin Luther’s famous work, On the Bondage of the Will, is also one that’s very important and that Christians need to read. But let’s look for a moment at Edwards’ definition of the freedom of the will.
Edwards says that free will is “the mind choosing.” What he is saying is that, though he distinguishes between the mind and the will, the two are inseparably related. We do not make moral choices without the mind approving the direction of our choice.
It is closely related to the biblical concept of conscience that the mind is involved in moral choices. When I become aware of certain options, if I prefer one over the other, I have to have some awareness of what those options are for it to be a moral decision.
So, the will is not something that acts independently from the mind, but rather it acts in conjunction with the mind. Whatever the mind deems as being desirable is what the will is inclined to choose.
this is what happens when people have to make a book to explain a simple term "free will" because the term does not suit your doctrine

free will by definition is this. I am free to do or chose what I chose to trust in.

any decision anyone makes is based on what they trust in.. they freely chose to follow their trust.
 

awelight

Well-known member
Aug 10, 2020
1,629
490
83
69
Abraham still had to chose.

If he did not. we would not know an abraham, God would have chose someone else to birth his special people
Abraham believed God because God had first chosen him and loved him. Simple enough to understand. God's choosing was before the foundation of the world and Scripture clearly says why we love God, Jesus, promises and all His Word:

1Jn 4:19 We love, because he first loved us.

God initiates and we respond - again simple enough to understand. Just as all good things come down from heaven, to us and then return to God and never return "void" of there intended purpose.
 

Everlasting-Grace

Well-known member
Dec 18, 2021
5,803
1,843
113
Abraham believed God because God had first chosen him and loved him. Simple enough to understand. God's choosing was before the foundation of the world and Scripture clearly says why we love God, Jesus, promises and all His Word:

1Jn 4:19 We love, because he first loved us.

God initiates and we respond - again simple enough to understand. Just as all good things come down from heaven, to us and then return to God and never return "void" of there intended purpose.
No,

God went to abraham and did the same thing he did to adam and eve.

Gave him a choice

depart. from your fathers house and go to a land which I will show you

Abraham, like Adam, Had to chose what he would do

Abraham did not even obey completely. He did not follow all of Gods word.. But he went anyway. AND WE ARE TOLD ABRAHAM believed god AND IT WAS CREDITED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS

ie, his sin was forgiven, and he was seen as righteous because of God.

Abraham had to chose He could have said no and stayed in his fathers house. God would have found someone else.
 

Everlasting-Grace

Well-known member
Dec 18, 2021
5,803
1,843
113
Abraham believed God because God had first chosen him and loved him. Simple enough to understand. God's choosing was before the foundation of the world and Scripture clearly says why we love God, Jesus, promises and all His Word:

1Jn 4:19 We love, because he first loved us.

God initiates and we respond - again simple enough to understand. Just as all good things come down from heaven, to us and then return to God and never return "void" of there intended purpose.
You assume God chose based on random selection

I believe God chose based on the gospel. that whoever sees and believes will be saved.. (he chose to save them)

God loved the world not just abraham. He said so in his own words. Hwe was not sent to judge the world. but that the world might be saved..
 

awelight

Well-known member
Aug 10, 2020
1,629
490
83
69
No,

God went to abraham and did the same thing he did to adam and eve.

Gave him a choice

depart. from your fathers house and go to a land which I will show you

Abraham, like Adam, Had to chose what he would do

Abraham did not even obey completely. He did not follow all of Gods word.. But he went anyway. AND WE ARE TOLD ABRAHAM believed god AND IT WAS CREDITED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS

ie, his sin was forgiven, and he was seen as righteous because of God.

Abraham had to chose He could have said no and stayed in his fathers house. God would have found someone else.
Your response shows that you do not believe in a Sovereign God. Somehow, you think Abraham's choice was all his own, without understanding what God had already done in secret for Abram.
 

Everlasting-Grace

Well-known member
Dec 18, 2021
5,803
1,843
113
Your response shows that you do not believe in a Sovereign God. Somehow, you think Abraham's choice was all his own, without understanding what God had already done in secret for Abram.
oh I believe in a sovereign God

I also believe in a perfect loving God

A soverign God is allowed to love.. Just because he may not love as you think he should does not mean he is not soverign

Abraham chose.. because he trusted God.. He still had to chose.. He did not do it all on his own.. But he was no coerced either
 

awelight

Well-known member
Aug 10, 2020
1,629
490
83
69
You assume God chose based on random selection

I believe God chose based on the gospel. that whoever sees and believes will be saved.. (he chose to save them)

God loved the world not just abraham. He said so in his own words. Hwe was not sent to judge the world. but that the world might be saved..
That is Reactionism at it's finest. Man does - God reacts. This idea denies God's Sovereignty. Placing mankind's actions above that of the Creator. Scripture, my friend, does not teach that. Ephesians 1:4 is clear that Election took place before the foundation of the world and Romans 9:11 proves that God's Election is not based on our doing good or bad.

One cannot truly believe in a Sovereign God and believe that God will wait upon man's choices. Which is it? Is God running the show are is man?
 

cv5

Well-known member
Nov 20, 2018
22,549
8,105
113
God initiates and we respond
Totally agree. God is always the Prime Mover. And yes, the will of man is undoubtedly involved as well one way or another.

Attempting to defining precisely how and why and who is where the folly lies. Nobody knows.
 

awelight

Well-known member
Aug 10, 2020
1,629
490
83
69
Totally agree. God is always the Prime Mover. And yes, the will of man is undoubtedly involved as well one way or another.

Attempting to defining precisely how and why and who is where the folly lies. Nobody knows.
Completely agree... It's the age old question. Where does God's Sovereignty end and Man's will begin? Both do operate side by side. however, there should never be confusion on whos will prevails.
 

Everlasting-Grace

Well-known member
Dec 18, 2021
5,803
1,843
113
Completely agree... It's the age old question. Where does God's Sovereignty end and Man's will begin? Both do operate side by side. however, there should never be confusion on whos will prevails.
Gods soverignty means he can do as he wills

If God choses to love everyone, die for them, But only to give that gift to people who want it.

its within his soverign right to do so.
 

Everlasting-Grace

Well-known member
Dec 18, 2021
5,803
1,843
113
That is Reactionism at it's finest. Man does - God reacts. This idea denies God's Sovereignty. Placing mankind's actions above that of the Creator. Scripture, my friend, does not teach that. Ephesians 1:4 is clear that Election took place before the foundation of the world and Romans 9:11 proves that God's Election is not based on our doing good or bad.

One cannot truly believe in a Sovereign God and believe that God will wait upon man's choices. Which is it? Is God running the show are is man?
Your wrong my friend, You know absolutely nothing ob out Gods sovereignty or his love.

A parent who is soverign has the right to allow their kids to chose. It does not take away from their soverignty or their authority.
 

cv5

Well-known member
Nov 20, 2018
22,549
8,105
113
Your wrong my friend, You know absolutely nothing ob out Gods sovereignty or his love.

A parent who is soverign has the right to allow their kids to chose. It does not take away from their soverignty or their authority.
"That is Reactionism at it's finest. Man does - God reacts."

I think that what @awelight is saying is that "reactionism" is not the EXCLUSIVE mode of action/operative principle.
 

awelight

Well-known member
Aug 10, 2020
1,629
490
83
69
Your wrong my friend, You know absolutely nothing ob out Gods sovereignty or his love.

A parent who is soverign has the right to allow their kids to chose. It does not take away from their soverignty or their authority.
Well, sorry to say, I know quite a bit about what God has revealed in His Word on the subject of Sovereignty. It was and is one of my most studied subjects, for over thirty years. You cannot truly understand God's gift of Salvation until you get His Sovereignty right. And please, do not pit God's Love against His Sovereignty.

Man has a responsibility in his Salvation, it's called Conversion but conversion cannot take place apart from Regeneration.