ELECTION/PREDESTINATION AND THE NEED FOR A THEOLOGICAL BALANCE

[Thunderrr-mental]

IMO, Calvinism is the search for Biblical proof texts to justify reading the same philosophy as Manichaean Gnosticism into the Bible, with a twist that God is all powerful and could stop all evil if He wanted to, and He must have therefore planned and ordained all evil, but for some inscrutable good purpose.

well I've just listened to a Calvinist who says God wills his people to make the right choice. I have believed this not knowing it was even a Calvinist belief.

So I wonder how accurate the believe is about Calvinists, where people say Calvinists believe God created evil so people could live in sin, who haven't been chosen.

I'm not seeing where that has come from, from a Calvinist perspective.

 

[studentoftheword]

Thread Title
ELECTION/PREDESTINATION AND THE NEED FOR A THEOLOGICAL BALANCE


There is no Theological Balance ----you either make a choice to accept Christ which is what God elected from the beginning or you make a choice to Reject Christ and stay by choice to be the unelected ----

Theology Balance plays no part in what Jesus says here ----

-----Period ----it matters not what Theologians say or think -----it matters what God Says

 

[PaulThomson]

well I've just listened to a Calvinist who says God wills his people to make the right choice. I have believed this not knowing it was even a Calvinist belief.

So I wonder how accurate the believe is about Calvinists, where people say Calvinists believe God created evil so people could live in sin, who haven't been chosen.

I'm not seeing where that has come from, from a Calvinist perspective.

Calvinists, those who believe as Calvin taught, assert that God irresistibly decreed from eternity past whatsoever comes to pass and whatsoever comes to pass maximises His glory. That includes every evil thing that is done.

In order to post hoc rationalise the logical corrollary of this theological presupposition, and explain away God's commands to men not to do evil, when He has decreed and brings to pass all evil, Calvinists need to invent two wills for God, His decretive will (what He decreed from eternity past that creature will do: that all the evil be done) and his preceptive will (what he commands in precepts that men should do, even though men cannot do it because He has irresististibly ordained them to do the evil they end up doing.)

By this sophistry, Calvinists somehow claim to absolve God from being the unholy inventor and author of evil.

The Bible does not mention the concepts of God having contradictory decretive and preceptive wills, but Calvin invented the concepts to back-fill ethical holes in His flawed systematic.

This stems from Calvin's authoritarian nature which He imposed onto God in the Bible, a concept of sovereignty where a sovereign demands and imposes His will on every person and atom in creation in every second of time.

 

[Cameron143]

Calvinists, those who believe as Calvin taught, assert that God irresistibly decreed from eternity past whatsoever comes to pass and whatsoever comes to pass maximises His glory. That includes every evil thing that is done.

In order to post hoc rationalise the logical corrollary of this theological presupposition, and explain away God's commands to men not to do evil, when He has decreed and brings to pass all evil, Calvinists need to invent two wills for God, His decretive will (what He decreed from eternity past that creature will do: that all the evil be done) and his preceptive will (what he commands in precepts that men should do, even though men cannot do it because He has irresististibly ordained them to do the evil they end up doing.)

By this sophistry, Calvinists somehow claim to absolve God from being the unholy inventor and author of evil.

The Bible does not mention the concepts of God having contradictory decretive and preceptive wills, but Calvin invented the concepts to back-fill ethical holes in His flawed systematic.

Can you give a reference for what you claim in the first paragraph? I'd like to read it.

 

[PaulThomson]

Can you give a reference for what you claim in the first paragraph? I'd like to read it.

https://www.christianstudylibrary.org/article/god’s-eternal-decree
https://www.blueletterbible.org/study/ccc/westminster/Of_Gods_Eternal_Decree.cfm

God’s Eternal DecreeThe Westminster Confession of Faith (3.1)

God from all eternity did, by the most wise (Rom. 11:33) and holy counsel of His own will, freely (Rom. 9:15, 18), and unchangeably (Heb. 6:17) ordain whatsoever comes to pass (Eph. 1:11): yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin (James 1:13, 17; 1 John 1:5), nor is violence coffered to the will of the creatures (Matt. 17:12; Acts 2:23; 4:27-28); nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established (John 19:11; Prov. 16:33).

 

[Cameron143]

https://www.christianstudylibrary.org/article/god’s-eternal-decree
https://www.blueletterbible.org/study/ccc/westminster/Of_Gods_Eternal_Decree.cfm

God’s Eternal DecreeThe Westminster Confession of Faith (3.1)

God from all eternity did, by the most wise (Rom. 11:33) and holy counsel of His own will, freely (Rom. 9:15, 18), and unchangeably (Heb. 6:17) ordain whatsoever comes to pass (Eph. 1:11): yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin (James 1:13, 17; 1 John 1:5), nor is violence coffered to the will of the creatures (Matt. 17:12; Acts 2:23; 4:27-28); nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established (John 19:11; Prov. 16:33).

Appreciate you doing this. Hope you don't mind me asking some questions.
Do you believe those who wrote the Westminster Confession reflect the views of Calvin?

 

[PaulThomson]

Appreciate you doing this. Hope you don't mind me asking some questions.
Do you believe those who wrote the Westminster Confession reflect the views of Calvin?

https://www.christianstudylibrary.org/article/calvin-and-wcf

"The difference between John Calvin and the Westminster Confession is found in their historical context and theological methodology. Does this mean that they are different in their teaching? This article looks at points of similarities to show that their teachings are consistent.


Calvin and the WCF Any Differences are Cultural and Historical rather than Theological -

Three generations separate the work of John Calvin (best represented in his Institutes of 1560) from that of the Westminster divines who composed the Westminster Confession (1646). The theological relationship between the two is a complex one that scholars are only now exploring. That there are both similarities and differences between the two is obvious to anyone who takes the trouble to read and compare them honestly. The major question is whether the supposed differences are so great that they destroy the theological lineage from the Westminster divines back to Calvin....."

https://gentlereformation.com/2018/04/30/john-calvin-and-the-awful-doctrine-of-predestination/

 

[Cameron143]

https://www.christianstudylibrary.org/article/calvin-and-wcf

"The difference between John Calvin and the Westminster Confession is found in their historical context and theological methodology. Does this mean that they are different in their teaching? This article looks at points of similarities to show that their teachings are consistent.


Calvin and the WCF Any Differences are Cultural and Historical rather than Theological -

Three generations separate the work of John Calvin (best represented in his Institutes of 1560) from that of the Westminster divines who composed the Westminster Confession (1646). The theological relationship between the two is a complex one that scholars are only now exploring. That there are both similarities and differences between the two is obvious to anyone who takes the trouble to read and compare them honestly. The major question is whether the supposed differences are so great that they destroy the theological lineage from the Westminster divines back to Calvin....."

https://gentlereformation.com/2018/04/30/john-calvin-and-the-awful-doctrine-of-predestination/

I appreciate the references, but I don't need any more references. I'm asking for your understanding from here on out.
The very first reference you gave...was that quoting Calvin or writings of Calvin, or just someone's understanding of what he wrote? Also, do you believe God decreed things in eternity past?

 

[NightTwister]

Calvinists, those who believe as Calvin taught, assert that God irresistibly decreed from eternity past whatsoever comes to pass and whatsoever comes to pass maximises His glory. That includes every evil thing that is done.

God from all eternity did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.

 

[PaulThomson]

God from all eternity did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.

This contradicts the logical law of non-contradiction.
The red portion logically contradicts the blue portion.
An appeal to mystery does not remove the internal contradiction.

 

[PaulThomson]

Appreciate you doing this. Hope you don't mind me asking some questions.
Do you believe those who wrote the Westminster Confession reflect the views of Calvin?

Likely, no two Christians agree absolutely on what the Bible teaches. Unless they belong to the same cult. I have not read all of Calvin or all of the Westminister confession in enough detail to be able to compare every minutiae in them. I think the writers themselves believed their confession reflected Calvin's views.

I should be more disciplined in avoiding using such labels as Calvinism. Arminianism, Catholicism, Protestantism, Reformed etc. They are such muddy classifications as to be meaningless in the present age.

 

[NightTwister]

This contradicts the logical law of non-contradiction.
The red portion logically contradicts the blue portion.
An appeal to mystery does not remove the internal contradiction.

No, actually it does not.

 

[PaulThomson]

NightTwister said:
God from all eternity did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.

PaulThomson said:
This contradicts the logical law of non-contradiction.
The red portion logically contradicts the blue portion.
An appeal to mystery does not remove the internal contradiction.

No, actually it does not.

Please explain how the red portion and blue portion can both be true.

The problem is in either wrong exegesis of the cited texts that are presumed to support the red portion.
God from all eternity did, by the most wise (Rom. 11:33) and holy counsel of His own will, freely (Rom. 9:15, 18), and unchangeably (Heb. 6:17) ordain whatsoever comes to pass (Eph. 1:11)

Or wrong exegesis of the cited texts that are presumed to support the blue portion.
yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin (James 1:13, 17; 1 John 1:5), nor is violence coffered to the will of the creatures (Matt. 17:12; Acts 2:23; 4:27-28); nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established (John 19:11; Prov. 16:33).

 

[Cameron143]

Likely, no two Christians agree absolutely on what the Bible teaches. Unless they belong to the same cult. I have not read all of Calvin or all of the Westminister confession in enough detail to be able to compare every minutiae in them. I think the writers themselves believed their confession reflected Calvin's views.

I should be more disciplined in avoiding using such labels as Calvinism. Arminianism, Catholicism, Protestantism, Reformed etc. They are such muddy classifications as to be meaningless in the present age.

There is wisdom in this.

 

[Cameron143]

NightTwister said:
God from all eternity did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.

PaulThomson said:
This contradicts the logical law of non-contradiction.
The red portion logically contradicts the blue portion.
An appeal to mystery does not remove the internal contradiction.



Please explain how the red portion and blue portion can both be true.

The problem is in either wrong exegesis of the cited texts that are presumed to support the red portion.
God from all eternity did, by the most wise (Rom. 11:33) and holy counsel of His own will, freely (Rom. 9:15, 18), and unchangeably (Heb. 6:17) ordain whatsoever comes to pass (Eph. 1:11)

Or wrong exegesis of the cited texts that are presumed to support the blue portion.
yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin (James 1:13, 17; 1 John 1:5), nor is violence coffered to the will of the creatures (Matt. 17:12; Acts 2:23; 4:27-28); nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established (John 19:11; Prov. 16:33).

How do you understand Acts 2:23?

 

[NightTwister]

NightTwister said:
God from all eternity did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.

PaulThomson said:
This contradicts the logical law of non-contradiction.
The red portion logically contradicts the blue portion.
An appeal to mystery does not remove the internal contradiction.



Please explain how the red portion and blue portion can both be true.

The problem is in either wrong exegesis of the cited texts that are presumed to support the red portion.
God from all eternity did, by the most wise (Rom. 11:33) and holy counsel of His own will, freely (Rom. 9:15, 18), and unchangeably (Heb. 6:17) ordain whatsoever comes to pass (Eph. 1:11)

Or wrong exegesis of the cited texts that are presumed to support the blue portion.
yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin (James 1:13, 17; 1 John 1:5), nor is violence coffered to the will of the creatures (Matt. 17:12; Acts 2:23; 4:27-28); nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established (John 19:11; Prov. 16:33).

Your god is too small.

 

[PaulThomson]

How do you understand Acts 2:23?

23 this [one] touton, by the tEi having been delimited plan hOrismenEi bouklEi and foreknowledge of God kai prognOsei tou theou, delivered over ekdoton by the hands of godless [men] dia cheiros anomOn having nailed to a cross prospExan you put to death aneilate.

God anticipated that selfish men would be offended by the teaching of repentance from sin and submission to a perfect king, and would want to kill him rather that obey him.To demonstrate His omnipotence, God limited to crucifixion the manner by which men could kill Jesus. God prevented them from stoning Him or throwing Him off a cliff because God knew they would resort to crucifixion, if all other options were closed off to them. In this way Jesus was identified as the one fulfilling old testament messianic prophesies so that many would recognise Him as God's predicted Saviour and King promised through Moses and others.

 

[PaulThomson]

Your god is too small.

That is not an explanation for your holding two contradictory positions on how God manages the cosmos.

 

[Cameron143]

23 this [one] touton, by the tEi having been delimited plan hOrismenEi bouklEi and foreknowledge of God kai prognOsei tou theou, delivered over ekdoton by the hands of godless [men] dia cheiros anomOn having nailed to a cross prospExan you put to death aneilate.

God anticipated that selfish men would be offended by the teaching of repentance from sin and submission to a perfect king, and would want to kill him rather that obey him.To demonstrate His omnipotence, God limited to crucifixion the manner by which men could kill Jesus. God prevented them from stoning Him or throwing Him off a cliff because God knew they would resort to crucifixion, if all other options were closed off to them. In this way Jesus was identified as the one fulfilling old testament messianic prophesies so that many would recognise Him as God's predicted Saviour and King promised through Moses and others.

God didn't anticipate anything. We know this because it was according to His deliberate counsel. And yet, the will of man was not violated. Wicked men chose to do these things without any compunction of God.

 

[PaulThomson]

well I've just listened to a Calvinist who says God wills his people to make the right choice. I have believed this not knowing it was even a Calvinist belief..

The exhaustive divine determinist believes "His people" are those individuals God chose before the foundation of the world to be holy amd blameless before Him in love. The exhaustive divine determinist God's preceptive will is that his people make the right choices. The exhaustive divine determinist believes God's decretive will is that His people make wrong choices for His Glory. The exhaustive divine determinist thinks these premises are not contradictory.