"God is not a respecter of persons" and Calvinism

[Guest]

I liked today's Oswald Chambers reading; i found it instructive in light of our recent controversies:

LIBERTY ON THE ABYSS OF THE GOSPEL

"Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free." Galatians 5:1

A spiritually minded man will never come to you with the demand - "Believe this and that;" but with the demand that you square your life with the standards of Jesus. We are not asked to believe the Bible, but to believe the One Whom the Bible reveals (cf. John 5:39-40). We are called to present liberty of conscience, not liberty of view. If we are free with the liberty of Christ, others will be brought into that same liberty - the liberty of realizing the dominance of Jesus Christ.

Always keep your life measured by the standards of Jesus. Bow your neck to His yoke alone, and to no other yoke whatever; and be careful to see that you never bind a yoke on others that is not placed by Jesus Christ. It takes God a long time to get us out of the way of thinking that unless everyone sees as we do, they must be wrong. That is never God's view. There is only one liberty, the liberty of Jesus at work in our conscience enabling us to do what is right.

Don't get impatient, remember how God dealt with you - with patience and with gentleness; but never water down the truth of God. Let it have its way and never apologize for it. Jesus said, "Go and make disciples," not "make converts to your opinions."

TK

[Guest]

[quote="STEVE7150"] wrote "Because David , these are exceptions to the norm which is God always encouraging us to choose the right path. These exceptions to the norm are few and far between and the weight of scripture goes against God micromanaging every detail of human decisions.

Steve 7150, how do you know that these are special circumstances? What about the verses or the context tells you this? Some have accused me of trying to "absolutize" things that should not be, but I feel as if the opposite is happening here. In fact, as I understand it, Romans 9 is a Pauline teaching on how God's election of people, whether to historical appointments or to salvation, has always been in this manner, since Paul is trying to answer the question of why some his fellow Jews are currently lost. He starts with Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Ishmael, Esau, and Pharaoh as examples of how patriarchal heads and others who were not even eligible to be in the line of Jesus were chosen unconditionally. What they were chosen for we will have to discuss and debate, but their choosing was unconditional, before anyone "could walk or run, ro do good or evil" so that God's purpose according to election might stand.

You have re-asserted that these examples are just special circumstances, but I need you to demonstrate that. If I pulled out a bizarre miracle from the OT and said "This is what we can expect today", that is one thing. But this choosing of God is demonstrated over and over again in the OT and NT, and is also mentioned in the epistles as near as I can tell.

I also think you will step into many problems if you argue "God saves us conditionally, except for the time that He reprobated those other guys, but they are exceptions". Then how do I know when God is operating as an Arminian or as a Calvinist? Should I take the verses that Arminians use less seriously and say they were exceptions? I have never heard this line of reasonig before; I wonder if other Arminians use it.


Steve 7150 wrote "As to whether God made them sin or perhaps they would have done it anyway , we can't know but God used these interventions to bring about his greater plan for salvation which means He used it for good. "

Steve7150, I do not think that God made them sin, as if God reached into their hearts and made a fresh batch of evil. How God ordains all things and yet doesn't violate our wills and remove accountability, I do not know, and I am attempting to not go beyond the Scriptures in reaching an explanation. However, the Bible says that God is not the of author sin, I believe that these verses show that God ordained the actions of these men, and that at the same time they had a will with compatible freedom, where they made decisions in accordance with their wicked and sinful nature, and thus are accountable for what they did. I would have no bones about taking the Arminian interpretation of these verses, as I did for many years, except that I do not feel that the Arminian's rendering is fair to the texts. I do not doubt their sincerity, and since the issue is difficult, I pass no judgments for these kinds of questions. I had them too.

[Guest]

Then how do I know when God is operating as an Arminian or as a Calvinist? Should I take the verses that Arminians use less seriously and say they were exceptions? I have never heard this line of reasonig before; I wonder if other Arminians use it.



David, Jesus told us how God is operating, that's why he told us to call God, our Father. God is very big on symbolism and i think the description of God being a Father to us is to give us an image of how to understand God by a human image which symbolizes certain characteristics.
Father's will let their kids develop unimpeded most of the time but from time to time will intervene for the child's benefit. If the Father constantly intervened to the point of making every minute decision for the child that would impede the child's growth and that kind of behavior would be viewed as inappropriate.
The reason Jesus told us to call God, Father is because we could look at a good human father and have some idea of how God operates.

[Guest]

Tartanarmy,

I am sorry for misrepresenting your belief. Please accept my apology.

Mike

[Guest]

Thanks Mike. You are a gentleman.

Mark

[Guest]

Mark,

Thanks for taking the time to write such a thorough response to my inquiry. Unfortunately, I will not have the time to write so thorough an answer to you, because I have much else calling for my time, and because I did put in the time to address many of the points in the early years of this forum and the things I wrote are still posted here.

I might say, without meaning to disparage you, that your answers did not clarify the issues I was asking about, any better than have the notable Calvinists I have read on these subjects previously. This is probably not your fault, because I am beginning to feel that Calvinists will never do any better than they have done in the past at showing the exegetical or philosophical validity of the system.

You suggest that I am interacting only with the weakest of the Calvinist arguments and am neglecting the best ones. I honestly was not aware of this. Which ones are the best ones? Are they the ones you gave in your post? If not, why did you not give them there? I so, then I think you and I will simply disagree about the strength of certain arguments. That's all right, isn't it?

The conclusion I am reaching is that the Calvinist position on the sovereignty of God, the "decrees" of God, the concept of "libertarian free will" and the contrast between "monergism" and "synergism" are philosophical arguments that appeal to people of a certain philosophical persuasion, but which do not arise from any biblical text. I realize that this must sound very "amazing" to you to hear this, but that is because you have learned to see these doctrines in texts that many intelligent believers (not reprobates) simply cannot discover in the words (or the sentences) appealed to by the Calvinist.

I state this only as an observation, not a value judgment. In a debate between a Calvinist and a non-Calvinist, it may appear that both are simply working from their own lists of "proof texts", and each has learned "pat answers" to the texts on the other guy's list. I myself usually resort to dealing with proof texts in a formal debate, because this is the approach that best fits into the time-frame and structure of a debate.

However, in my judgment, the choice between the two paradigms does not reduce to a treatment of the lists of proof texts, primarily. At least, with me it never has. I am of the opinion that the intelligent, plain (Christian) man, reading the Bible repeatedly, cover-to-cover, unaware that there are lists of proof texts for him to comb out of the narrative, will get a particular view of God and of His plans and purposes as He reveals Himself in every story, in every command, in every threat, and every promise. In reading the whole, the various "proof texts" for both sides will be encountered in their respective contexts, and I believe that that man will have little difficulty understanding them all quite naturally as fitting in to the general truth that is conveyed in those passages that are not proof texts. This man, without an agenda to defend his side of any controversy, will doubtless be in the best position to understand the teaching of scripture on these matters.

You and I will, no doubt, disagree on this point, but I am of the opinion that that man will not naturally reach any conclusions from the scriptures that salvation is "monergistic" or that God's dealings with man involve meticulous providence, o0r that God's is the only free will in the universe. If you think that he would reach these conclusions, then we will have to leave this discussion with different conclusions. I am not sure why doing so should be unsatisfying for either of us, since we have both (presumably) made intelligent, honest inquiry into the question, and have therefore left the matter in the hands of God to bring us to the conclusions he wishes for us to reach. I have done this, but I alone can speak for myself about my motives and my diligence. I do not know about yours, so I will make the charitable judgment that you have done the same thing. If this is the case, there is no need for us to continue arguing. ..is there?

[Guest]

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.

Westminster Confession of Faith Chapter 3 on God’s Decree

IMHO this is nonsense. A good example of why creeds cause so much trouble. God has ordained everything that comes to pass and is responsible for none of it. And they were serious men who wrote this!

[Guest]

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.

Westminster Confession of Faith Chapter 3 on God’s Decree

I agree with Homer. This is the answer I have received many times from Calvinists. In my opinion, this is an illogical statement. Wouldn't it be more logical to make the case from scripture? I mean, this is part of the issue that is up for debate. You can't say your being misrepresented if non-Calvinists feel the Westminster Confession is in error. The case must be made from scripture itself. I do see your point, that in principle your technically being misrepresented. But to have any type of fruitful discussion, you must first prove the confession valid before you can argue from it. Otherwise you are arguing in a circle.

Mark,
I'm glad you have taken the time here to state your position and the non-Calvinist position. I'd like to comment on a few of your points:

The idea that man is free from constraint, especially that of God, is not taught in scripture, but is part of every philosophy there ever has been, including ancient and modern thought.

I don't think a non-Calvinist believes this. I don't believe man is free from his own constraints, not to mention God Himself. I do, however, believe that man can respond to the Gospel. Why? Because it's the power of God, conviction is through the Holy Spirit. Is man's depravity more powerful than God working through the Gospel? Why is the argument against this usually aimed at the depravity of man being too great? Why not place the focus on the power of God coming through the Gospel? Isn't it at least possible that the Potter can have this affect on the clay? And once a man's eyes are opened he can turn his back on God and reject Him (just as Adam and Eve essentially did)?

Salvation is the work of God upon a sinner. It is a “revelation” by God to “the sinner”. It is monergistic not synergistic, and therefore things like intelligence, bias, knowledge of Greek etc, are irrelevant.

Don't you have to prove this first?

Anyway, just as above I believe this is a misunderstanding of what non-Calvinist believe. In scripture I see the command to repent and believe. I see Abraham used as an example of our justification, being justified not by what works he did but by his faith, his unfailing belief that God could do what He had promised. This is synergistic.

I believe the misunderstanding is that Calvinist believe that non-Calvinist are saying that we are saved by believing, repenting, responding to God, etc. Salvation has already been procured by Christ and offered to those who believe. Do you see the difference? It's not believing that saves us, it's God who saves us. Believing is how we access procured salvation. As Paul says in Romans 5:2 We have access by faith into this Grace...

Again, the example Paul uses in Romans 4 is telling. Abraham believed God. Now stop and think about that. So what! What does that get Abraham? Nothing. Believing God does not do anything in and of itself. The rest of the sentence tells us who does the work: and it was credited as righteousness. His faith, his belief was credited by God. You know the passage ...it is God who justifies. God does this, not us. Believing does not earn justification. Justification is granted by God, on God's terms.

So when you say: "Salvation is the work of God upon a sinner. It is a “revelation” by God to “the sinner”." I agree completely! But when you say: "It is monergistic not synergistic". I don't quite understand, since Abraham was used as an example by Paul for our justification and said that "it was credited as righteousness". The "it" refers to Abraham's faith. Paul goes on in the passage of Romans 4 to explain what faith is. It's believing God when it seems impossible. And when you remain faithful God then does 100% of the work. So while I could even argue that I believe salvation is monergistic (looking at it one way), It still seems that it's synergistic as Paul presented it, at least in the sense that Abraham had to believe before God acted and justified him. All this from Paul, who said this was something Abraham "did" (believe) but was not considered something God "owed" since it was not "work". Interesting way he put it. I would very much like to hear a Calvinistic explanation of Romans 4.

God originally created humans upright, perfect, sinless but certainly not free from God, hence capable of sinning.

God has the only “free” will in the universe.

...

Does that mean that God made them evil?
Certainly not, but He did create them with the absolute guarantee that they would fall and become captives to the nature we now possess through disobedience.

As long as you maintain, as scripture does, that Man in every point, pre and post fall, has a real will that functions and acts according to it’s nature, and is not some kind of robot, as is so often ignorantly suggested, you will not stray too far from understanding these issues.

I don't understand. If people only act according to their nature, and God made Adam and Eve perfect and sinless and God is the only "free" will in the universe, then how were they able to sin? Certainly they couldn't overcome or change their own nature, could they? If Adam and Eve couldn't hold off one temptation then why would we think their "nature" is any different from ours?

[Guest]

Homer,

Yes, the Westminster divines were serious men. They wrote this way because the Scriptures indicate that God is not the author of sin, that people make real choices that they are accountable for, and that God ordains the actions of men (as in the example in Acts 2 and 4 where we are told that what befell Jesus was according to what God had determined by His counsel, by His foreknowledge, and what He had predestined. These are not words I am imposing on the passages - these are the words Luke used. God predestined that Jesus would die at the hands of sinners, and yet they who murdered Him were responsible.

If you want to ridicule this line of thinking, that is your choice. I wonder how you would explain the Bible's teaching on the Triune nature of our God. Would I be justified in ridiculing the Trinity because it is not taught in the form of "Now here is the doctrine of the Trinity". Would I be justified to ignore the statements that the Father is God Almighty, that the Son is God Almighty, and that the Spirit is God Almighty, and yet there is "supposedly" just one God, since 3 cannot be one? Is this non-sense?

No one is asking anyone else on this forum to go against the grain of reason in thinking through God's Word, but to simply recognize that there are aspects to God's nature and dealings that are beyond our comprehension. We have no problem recongizing this in other areas; I think our difficulty in this area is because Calvinism is offensive to some people. Yet the charge that "this is non-sense" could equally be applied to other teachings that are less controversial among us brothers on the forum. Does anyone want to explain how God spoke and then matter that did not exist came into existence and formed the universe?

When you say that this snippet from the Westminster Confession is ridiculous, what you are saying is that this is impossible. But, with all due respect, how do you know? How did you or anyone else at the forum come to know so much about God and our will and His planning and governing the world to say that this is impossible with God? There are passages that seem to affirm every part of this portion of the Westminster Confession according to my reading of the Scripture.

In fact, when Job demanded a meeting with God, and wanted to know why his sufferings had befallen him, God pointed out that Job did not even really understand the mundane operatings of the earth and how God cares for it, let alone the deeper issues such as what is fair with God or why He does certain things. So while many may find your response to be sound reason, I cannot since as I understand it the Bible says that God can and does deal with people in this fashion.

I consider the Westminster Confession to be an invaluable tool to help young believers understand core Biblical truths. I use the confession with my children; there are Bible references with each statement in the confession, and it provides an orderly manner with which to survey theology. It is also nice to attend a church where all of the elders agree to the same core beliefs. It is not a requirement to agree with any confession to join the church I attend, but all of the teachers must agree with the confession.

[Guest]

Homer,

Yes, the Westminster divines were serious men. They wrote this way because the Scriptures indicate that God is not the author of sin, that people make real choices that they are accountable for, and that God ordains the actions of men (as in the example in Acts 2 and 4 where we are told that what befell Jesus was according to what God had determined by His counsel, by His foreknowledge, and what He had predestined. These are not words I am imposing on the passages - these are the words Luke used. God predestined that Jesus would die at the hands of sinners, and yet they who murdered Him were responsible.

If you want to ridicule this line of thinking, that is your choice. I wonder how you would explain the Bible's teaching on the Triune nature of our God. Would I be justified in ridiculing the Trinity because it is not taught in the form of "Now here is the doctrine of the Trinity". Would I be justified to ignore the statements that the Father is God Almighty, that the Son is God Almighty, and that the Spirit is God Almighty, and yet there is "supposedly" just one God, since 3 cannot be one? Is this non-sense?

No one is asking anyone else on this forum to go against the grain of reason in thinking through God's Word, but to simply recognize that there are aspects to God's nature and dealings that are beyond our comprehension. We have no problem recongizing this in other areas; I think our difficulty in this area is because Calvinism is offensive to some people. Yet the charge that "this is non-sense" could equally be applied to other teachings that are less controversial among us brothers on the forum. Does anyone want to explain how God spoke and then matter that did not exist came into existence and formed the universe?

When you say that this snippet from the Westminster Confession is ridiculous, what you are saying is that this is impossible. But, with all due respect, how do you know? How did you or anyone else at the forum come to know so much about God and our will and His planning and governing the world to say that this is impossible with God? There are passages that seem to affirm every part of this portion of the Westminster Confession according to my reading of the Scripture.

In fact, when Job demanded a meeting with God, and wanted to know why his sufferings had befallen him, God pointed out that Job did not even really understand the mundane operatings of the earth and how God cares for it, let alone the deeper issues such as what is fair with God or why He does certain things. So while many may find your response to be sound reason, I cannot since as I understand it the Bible says that God can and does deal with people in this fashion.

I consider the Westminster Confession to be an invaluable tool to help young believers understand core Biblical truths. I use the confession with my children; there are Bible references with each statement in the confession, and it provides an orderly manner with which to survey theology. It is also nice to attend a church where all of the elders agree to the same core beliefs. It is not a requirement to agree with any confession to join the church I attend, but all of the teachers must agree with the confession.

Hi David,

Let me ask you something, suppose I stood behind you while you were target practising, and I grabbed the gun while you were holding it and made you shoot the guy beside you. Am I responsible?