Does God receive any glory at all in the Calvinist system?

[Guest]

I’ve provided Calvin’s position on Adam that directly refutes your claim and shows

Why is it we hear again and again Calvin says this or that, Gill says this or that? I think it is because, as has been pointed out, people who pick up the bible and read it for themselves will not get Calvinism out of it apart from the Calvinist grid imposed upon the text.

the God of the Bible who indeed is Omniscient and has no opponents

Are you kidding? God has no opponents?

2 Thessalonians 2:3-4 (New King James Version)

3. Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, 4. who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.

Are enemies opponents? Does God have enemies? Hint, Romans 5:10.

[Guest]

Which author of a Reformed point of view has suggested God “meticulously” control’s every person’s decision?

Bruce Ware, Systematic Theology teacher at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, and author of the two twin books: God's Lessor Glory and God's Greater Glory. Therefore, your accusation of "red herring" against Steve is inaccurate. By the way, for what it's worth, one of my best friends is a one of Ware's students, and I sat in a class when Ware just happened to be teaching on one of the communcable attributes of God referred to as omniscience. He used the term "Meticulous Sovereignty" and "Exhaustive Sovereignty" a little more than a few times.

Do you have the quote, not that I doubt your representation, but from what I read on the hall’s of this web-site most of what is written on the Reformed position consist of straw-man, red herring’s and misrepresentation as the OP on Calvin’s real position regarding Adam demonstrates. Nevertheless, even assuming you’ve accurately processed what Ware wrote, just one author does not prove the standard and Gregg represented the position as the “Calvinist” position which I don’t believe can be substantiated in either the confessions or writings of Calvin himself, after all Calvin wrote Adam had a free choice, so sorry, Gregg did use a logical fallacy aka a red herring to argue his case. BTW, the terms you’ve pointed out above don’t indicate to me the “Calvinist” position is like characters in a video game. "Meticulous Sovereignty" given the context could mean particular redemption which wouldn’t necessarily mean God controlled all the thoughts he just enabled certain and specific folks to see the light. I would have to understand the context of "Exhaustive Sovereignty" to gain an understanding. I understand Southern Baptist Theological Seminary is orthodox so it doesn’t surprise me the teacher spoke of God as having the attribute of “Omniscience”, I do believe all orthodox Christians believe this to be the case, but that doesn’t then mean God then “meticulous control(‘s)”’ man.

BTW, upon further reflection the title of this OP is ironic given Gregg’s illustration of a chess game. God sits at the chess table on an equal level with the opponent sharing the glory so to speak, perhaps a Freudian slip. Which if that is how Gregg really feels the author of the OP got his answer, in Gregg’s view, God shares the stage, which by necessity would suggest He splits the glory.

PaulT

[Guest]

I’ve provided Calvin’s position on Adam that directly refutes your claim and shows

Why is it we hear again and again Calvin says this or that, Gill says this or that? I think it is because, as has been pointed out, people who pick up the bible and read it for themselves will not get Calvinism out of it apart from the Calvinist grid imposed upon the text.

Well Calvin’s quote was used to clear up a misrepresentation of his position, are you suggesting we shouldn’t be allowed to quote a man if his position is being misrepresented? The Gill quote was used to correct your poor use of Greek, don’t use Greek poorly and I won’t quote Gill, although you may miss much his works have been used for close to 400 years.

BTW, and FWIW, I came to an understanding of the Reformed point of view through personal study in the Word in opposition to the school I was attending. You see I came across some verses that were very clear which seemed to be in opposition to what I was been taught. I started to question, didn't buy the bogus answers and the rest shall we say is history.

I’ve provided Calvin’s position on Adam that directly refutes your claim and shows

the God of the Bible who indeed is Omniscient and has no opponents

Are you kidding? God has no opponents?

2 Thessalonians 2:3-4 (New King James Version)

3. Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, 4. who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.

Are enemies opponents? Does God have enemies? Hint, Romans 5:10.

Someone may oppose God, but that doesn’t mean they are an opponent. I trust you misunderstood my meaning,
Main Entry:
1op•po•nent

1 : one that takes an opposite position (as in a debate, contest, or conflict) 2 : a muscle that opposes or counteracts and limits the action of another

As you can see the definition of the word opponent presupposes and equal and opposite reaction, are you suggesting someone is equal to God who created the universe? Tis a said thing when I need remind a Christian that there is none like God,
Psalms 86 Read This Chapter

GEN -> Study Notes on 86:8
JFB -> Commentary on 86:8
MHC-COM -> Commentary on 86:8
MHC-CON -> Commentary on 86:8
TOD -> Commentary on 86:8
NTB -> Afflictions And Adversities; God (continued)
TSK -> Entry for 86:8

86:8
Among the gods there is none like unto thee, O Lord; neither are there any works like unto thy works.

Psalms 113 Read This Chapter

GEN -> Study Notes on 113:5
JFB -> Commentary on 113:5
MHC-COM -> Commentary on 113:5
MHC-CON -> Commentary on 113:5
TOD -> Commentary on 113:5
NTB -> Condescension Of God; Heaven
TSK -> Entry for 113:5
BED -> Abortion; Humility

113:5
Who is like unto the LORD our God, who dwelleth on high,

Jeremiah 10 Read This Chapter

GEN -> Study Notes on 10:6
JFB -> Commentary on 10:6
MHC-COM -> Commentary on 10:6
MHC-CON -> Commentary on 10:6
NTB -> God (continued); Idolatry
TTT -> God
TSK -> Entry for 10:6
EBD -> Jeremiah, Book of

10:6
Forasmuch as there is none like unto thee, O LORD; thou art great, and thy name is great in might.

Jeremiah 10 Read This Chapter

GEN -> Study Notes on 10:7
JFB -> Commentary on 10:7
MHC-COM -> Commentary on 10:7
MHC-CON -> Commentary on 10:7
NTB -> Fear Of God; God (continued); Idolatry
TTT -> Wisdom of God, The
TSK -> Entry for 10:7
EBD -> Jeremiah, Book of

10:7
Who would not fear thee, O King of nations? for to thee doth it appertain: forasmuch as among all the wise men of the nations, and in all their kingdoms, there is none like unto thee.

Homer, perhaps you should get back to rereading Acts 17.

PaulT

[Guest]

Hi Bshow!

I find the Calvinist's 'compatiblist' concept interesting. Can you please site a real-life/physical illustration of that so I can better understand?

In Christ,
Richard

[Guest]

I quote: "I feel like we're being forced, to somehow attribute to God some kind, for some reason, some attitude of desire that not only do I never see expressed - but that God has some sort of unfulfilled desire - but it's not really the same desire that He chooses to fulfill with other people. You're not only left with the two wills conundrum, but multiple desires conundrums. I just don't see a reason for it".

"I know where this comes from in liberal/European theology - I went to Fuller seminary, for crying out loud! ... But within the Reformed realm of folks, I understand, and have stood against hypercalvinism for a long long time, where people think they can somehow know where the elect are, but on the other side, I wanna go "all right, I fully understand what the means are that God uses to draw His elect unto Himself, that there is a free offer of the Gospel, that I do not have the right to reprobate anyone, I cannot do that. I have to proclaim to everybody." But I have a problem then saying, in my proclamation of the gospel, I then have to affirm some kind of a "partially salvific desire", because it can only be partially salvific. If it's truly a salvific desire - if it's truly a desire of God - does not He do whatever He pleases, in the heavens and the earth?"

Does that sound confused? He stated, during the earlier part of this exchange, that he'd never heard a satisfying reason for this topic of "desires" to be brought up, as if God could have an unfulfilled desire. That's the only confusion I heard. I just transcribed the above for you - if you understand that these were two reformed folks discussing minutae, it makes more sense in that context. It's a common thing for those who have read Murray, as it is also stated at one point, for this issue to come up. Dunno where you're getting "confused" from.

"Intramural Debate" really only makes sense to me if we're talking about a debate within Christian circles -- any question about the coherence of a view is fair discussion among all believers. The only distinction I make is with non-Christians because we don't want them to think that Christianity, itself (as a reflection on Christ) is somehow incoherent. Beyond that concern as a reflection on Christ, we should freely discuss these issues among ourselves, and it shouldn't matter who the question comes from -- the issue here is just as reasonable coming from an Arminian as a Calvinist. It addresses the coherence of the view.

As to whether it sounds confused -- yes, it does -- especially as you listen to it, his tone is one of frustration or confusion as if he recognizes the incoherence but can live with it.

Maybe it's just me, but the concern over God somehow having a "desire" or will (in a salvific sense) that can be frustrated with respect to the "non-elect" is just as problematic with the Calvinist "two wills" with regard to all mankind. It may be just that I don't understand the "two wills" resolution, which to me is just as much a problematic "tension" as this non-elect gospel presentation issue.

Another point where it sounds as if we're talking past each other is that when we ask whether God wants the non-elect to hear the gospel (and why), the Calvinist assumes we're talking about the need for the elect to share with "all people" or rather discern the non-elect and withhold it -- that's not what I mean when I ask the question. Instead, I ask whether God actually wants those people to hear the gospel message, and to what end.

[Guest]

“Will’s” and “makes” are 2 different concepts. If you do something you want to do and it is within my will I need not compel you to do it I can just allow you to do it and what you do is within my will while I didn’t “make” you do that which you did. Man was created with the capacity to do evil, this is fundamentally different than “God makes man evil.”

I thought the Calvinist believed that in no way could God's will be thwarted and that He has seen fit to make sure that things are made in a way and controlled in a way if necessary to see that such will is obtained. That is what removes the distinction, I think, between will and make.

Did you read Calvin’s quote? Did you on another post state,

In your view how can God be “assured” His plan will come together.

His Will will not be thwarted to the extent He decides to enforce it --

Surely the Calvinist believes that all who rebel against God and do not repent of their sin will be condemned to everlasting punishment. Are you suggesting some might get a get out of jail card without repentance? The fact Calvin states God made Adam with a bias toward Him while still having a will to freely choose to rebel clearly cuts against what you thought. The only way for God to ensure no one rebelled would have been to make Adam in such a way that he could not have sinned, another one of Calvin’s points.

The fact God, Sovereign and in control such that all things that come to pass are in His will does not then mean “God makes man sin”. I think the issue here is the fundamental misrepresentation or misunderstanding of Calvin’s position regarding the who and what of God and the who and what of man. Adam was never “autonomous” in any aspect of his creature-hood, because he was created, he was finite and organically connected to creation. God is Sovereign over creation, but within creation Adam was created with a will that had the ability to chose to follow God or rebel. Adam, do to his lack of comprehensive knowledge sinned against God. I don’t get the impression no one has really ever taken the time to explain to you the Reformed position, most here operate under straw-men positions.

PaulT

[Guest]

PaulT,

The Gill quote was used to correct your poor use of Greek, don’t use Greek poorly and I won’t quote Gill, although you may miss much his works have been used for close to 400 years.

The reason I didn’t want to go to the Greek is that I understand a little Greek is very dangerous, which seems to be the case with your reading of this passage. The admonition of the Apostle doesn’t mean they will seek which is obviously why the translators inserted the word “should”. Here is
John Gill’s view of the passage,

Poor use of Greek? Dangerous? It seems a little use of English is even more dangerous . You ignore the fact that some translations use "should" while others use "would", neither of which is in the Greek text. Gill's comments are useless; I could quote authorities who affirm my position, so what?

Homer, perhaps you should get back to rereading Acts 17.

I have and Paul rather plainly expresses God's purpose in arranging His creation: so that men can seek God.

[Guest]

PaulT,

The Gill quote was used to correct your poor use of Greek, don’t use Greek poorly and I won’t quote Gill, although you may miss much his works have been used for close to 400 years.

The reason I didn’t want to go to the Greek is that I understand a little Greek is very dangerous, which seems to be the case with your reading of this passage. The admonition of the Apostle doesn’t mean they will seek which is obviously why the translators inserted the word “should”. Here is
John Gill’s view of the passage,

Poor use of Greek? Dangerous? It seems a little use of English is even more dangerous . You ignore the fact that some translations use "should" while others use "would", neither of which is in the Greek text. Gill's comments are useless; I could quote authorities who affirm my position, so what?

Homer, perhaps you should get back to rereading Acts 17.

I have and Paul rather plainly expresses God's purpose in arranging His creation: so that men can seek God.

Homer, I doubt you could quote an authority whose commentary is still used daily in Christian circles around the world, nevertheless, the context of the passage doesn’t support your argument. Like I pointed out just because men seek a god doesn’t mean they seek the true God and certainly the universe speaks loud and clear who the true God is and certainly is a condemnation against man because he denies the clear evidence God provides of His presence but the fact is that just because the evidence God provides so that man can seek Him doesn’t then mean they do seek Him, in fact as is pointed out the passage under discussion instead of seeking Him they worship a god of gold, silver and stone, why do they do this? You guessed it, they suppress the truth of God and turn it into unrighteousness because they are at enmity with God, IOW while the evidence exists so that they can seek God they don’t because the paradigm kicks in and they process the evidence that causes them to deny the truth of God. Which means man will stand without defense when judged, Ro 3:23. Like I said, you need to take the text in context.

PaulT

[Guest]

Do you have the quote, not that I doubt your representation, but from what I read on the hall’s of this web-site most of what is written on the Reformed position consist of straw-man, red herring’s and misrepresentation as the OP on Calvin’s real position regarding Adam demonstrates

More baloney from the Calvinist baloney factory. We understand ENGLISH, and Calvinism is not that hard to understand at all. We also understand blatant CONTRADICTIONS, and we understand human pride which refuses to admit error, even when it is as obvious as the sunshine in the middle of a beautiful spring day.

[Guest]

Hi Bshow!

I find the Calvinist's 'compatiblist' concept interesting. Can you please site a real-life/physical illustration of that so I can better understand?

In Christ,
Richard