SOME THOUGHTS ON THE VARIOUS MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT THE DOCTRINES OF GRACE, COMMONLY CALLED CALVINISM

"Well can I remember the manner in which I learned the doctrines of grace in a single instant. Born, as all of us are by nature, an Arminian, I still believed the old things I had heard continually from the pulpit, and did not see the grace of God. When I was coming to Christ, I thought I was doing it all myself, and though I sought the Lord earnestly, I had no idea the Lord was seeking me. I do not think the young convert is at first aware of this. I can recall the very day and hour when I first received those truths in my own soul - when they were, as John Bunyan says, burned into my heart as with a hot iron, and I can recollect how I felt that I had grown on a sudden from a babe into a man - that I had made progress in Scriptural Knowledge , through having found, once for all, the clue to the truth of God.

"One week night, when I was sitting in the house of God, I was not thinking much about the preacher's sermon, for I did not believe it. The thought struck me, "How did you come to be a Christian?" I sought the Lord. "But how did you come to seek the Lord?" The truth flashed across my mind in a moment - I should not have sought Him unless there had been some previous influence in my mind to make me seek Him. I prayed, thought I, but then I asked myself, How came I to pray? I was induced to pray by reading the Scriptures. How came I to read the Scriptures? I did read them, but what led me to do so? Then, in a moment, I saw that God was at the bottom of it all, and that He was the Author of my faith, and so the whole doctrine of grace opened up to me, and from that doctrine I have not departed to this day, and I desire to make my constant confession: "I ascribe my change wholly to God." [CH Spurgeon: Defence of Calvinism]

Like Spurgeon, quoted above, the writer was not of the Calvinistic faith when converted to Christ. I only began to be aware even of its existence listening every week to a fellow open air preacher in Belfast who, no matter what his text, always made his way to total depravity?unconditional election etc., At first, I fumed with several others, as my cherished doctrine of freewill * was demolished by this brother. Indeed, we used to encourage him to preach first, but only that we might go out after him "and repair the damage." However, the issue would not go away and I decided to investigate it further. Romans 9 was an obvious passage to go to and I left it very uncomfortable indeed with a forced interpretation which practically denied its central message.

I came to be convinced of the truth of God's sovereignty in salvation largely through reading Iain Murray's book: The Forgotten Spurgeon (Banner of Truth) Since then I have always been an exponent of that system of thought commonly called Calvinism but what is indeed the very heart of the gospel.

There is much that could be (and has been) written about Calvinism but it is not my purpose to go over old ground or duplicate what might be found elsewhere. Those who desire a positive declaration of the Doctrines of Grace should see the following web link to:

These are a series of messages preached at the opening of Spurgeon's Metropolitan Tabernacle in London when a number of men preached on the five points of Calvin.

My intention on this page is to simply set forth a few things which Calvinists do not believe i.e. clear up a few misconceptions. There is a world of difference between Calvinism and hyper Calvinism. I have read quite a number of booklets etc., all setting forth to refute Calvinism when it is obvious that the refuter had not done his home work. The thoughts below might not convince Arminian believers of the truth of these doctrines, but hopefully it will enable them to understand Calvinists a little better.

* The term freewill has many connotations. It should not be opposed per se without having it defined. See below.

We intend generally to give an appropriate quote from Calvin. This is not because we hold him to be of joint authority with the word of God but simply to show that the man himself after whom these doctrines have come to be named (the wisdom of which is debatable - but we are just taking things as they stand) refuted the misunderstandings that are attached to his name. A useful book for Calvin quotations is Calvin's Wisdom by Graham Miller subtitled: An Anthology Alphabetically Arranged and published by the Banner of Truth.

There is an old joke on the go about the Calvinist who fell down the stairs ? and laying somewhat bruised at the bottom praised the Lord and said: "I'm glad that's that over!" Certainly we believe God worketh all things after the counsel of his own will (Ephesians 1:11) having ordained whatsoever comes to pass. But this is a far cry from fatalism. Fatalism places the running of the universe into the hands of blind random chance. Calvinists place the running of the universe in the hands of all wise, all loving and all just God. There is a world of difference.

CALVIN: He next adds, Jehovah our God is just in all his works. In this clause the Prophet confirms his former teaching, and the phrase, God is just, appears like rendering a reason for his dealings; for the nature of God supplies a reason why it becomes impossible for anything to happen by the blind impulse of fortune. God sits as a judge in heaven; whence these two ideas are directly contrary to each other. Thus if one of the following assertions is made, the other is at the same time denied; if God is the judge of the world, fortune has no place in its government; and, whatever is attributed to fortune is abstracted from God?s justice. (Commentary on Prophecy of Daniel)

The providence of God, as it is taught in Scripture, is opposed to fortune and fortuitous accidents. (Institutes: 1:16:2)

This flows from the above. We believe that men are free agents i.e. they are free to follow the dictates of their own will. We deny, however, that man's will is free in the sense that the will is always dictated to by the heart and man's heart is naturally sinful (Jeremiah 17:9/Proverbs 23:7) Man is the slave of sin and that slavery extends to his way of thinking and acting. But God still holds man responsible for his actions. It cannot be right that because man, through sin, loses his ability to serve or please God that he is no longer responsible to obey God's commands. Judas freely chose his deed in betraying the Lord Jesus, as did the Jewish nation at that time. God holds them both accountable and refers to this in explaining why they were punished accordingly. (Acts 1:25/2:23) If man was a robot or a pawn, then there could not be a hell awaiting him when he died unrepentant. Indeed, he would have nothing to repent of.

CALVIN: The blame lies solely with ourselves, if we do not become partakers of this salvation; for he calls all men to himself, without a single exception, and gives Christ to all, that we may be illuminated by him. (Commentary on Isaiah the Prophet)

3) CALVINISTS DO NOT BELIEVE THAT MEN OWE THEIR DAMNATION PURELY TO THE DECREE OF GOD WITHOUT ANY REFERENCE TO MAN'S OWN SIN:

Both Calvinists and Arminians agree that there is such a thing as predestination from before the foundation of the world (Ephesians 1:4) However some Arminians perceives that the Calvinist thinks that all men were viewed by God as being in a kind of state of neutrality and that He arbitrarily decreed that one would go to Heaven whilst another would go to Hell. This is not so. When God made His sovereign choice before time began, He viewed the whole human race as fallen in sin and so there were no neutrals. He could have left us all to be damned because of our sin and saved none. The wonder of grace is that He decreed to save any. If He was not obliged to save any, then He certainly was not obliged to save all. Spurgeon's maxim stands true: Salvation is all of grace?damnation is all of sin.

CALVIN: [The Reprobate] are not induced to sin, as the faithful are to act aright, by the impulse of the Spirit, but they are the authors of their own evil, and follow Satan as their leader. [Commentary on Genesis]

Such blinding and hardening?must be ascribed exclusively to the depravity of man. (Commentary on Isaiah the Prophet)

4) CALVINISTS DO BELIEVE THAT ALL MEN ARE DUTY BOUND TO REPENT AND BELIEVE THE GOSPEL:

Granted that there are some who call themselves Calvinists (but are in reality hyper Calvinists) who deny what is called duty faith and duty repentance. Since the Lord Jesus began to upbraid those cities wherein His mighty works were done because of they repented not (Matthew 11:20) and since the Holy Spirit reproves or convinces the world of sin because it believes not on Christ (John 16:7-9) we conclude that man, although unable to believe/repent in himself without divine strength (because of sin), is held fully responsible and therefore has a duty. If the sinner perceives himself here to be "caught between a rock and a hard place" ? then isn't it time that he cried out to the Lord to save him? God says: Let him take hold of my strength, that he may make peace with me? (Isaiah 27:5)

CALVIN: It is the ordinary practice of Scripture, whenever redemption is mentioned, to exhort to repentance. (Commentary on Isaiah)

Again, although there are hyper Calvinists who deny either verbally or by their actions that evangelism is unnecessary, yet true Calvinists will seek "by all means to win some" The great evangelists whose praise is still in the churches were Calvinists e.g. George Whitefield, Jonathan Edwards, Charles Spurgeon, Robert Murray McCheyne, John Bunyan etc., (to name but a few) William Carey, who has been called the Father of modern missionary endeavour, was a Calvinist. We evangelise because [1] it is commanded of God (Mark 16:15 etc.,) and [2] because God who has ordained the end (the ingathering of His elect) has ordained the ends thereto (evangelism). As above, we are not fatalists.

CALVIN: God commands the gospel to be preached indiscriminately to all. (Commentary on Genesis)

The writer once heard an Arminian preacher take up a comment of Spurgeon along this line. When Spurgeon first met his wife to be, she had not yet openly confessed the Lord, but was showing evidences of grace. Spurgeon said that he perceived that she was already a Christian. Now, out of the many ways Spurgeon could have worded this e.g. I knew she was a Christian?I knew she was born again?I knew that she belonged to Christ?or was in union with Him etc., he worded like this: I knew that her name was in the Lamb's Book of Life. This comment was produced as evidence that Calvinists claim to have access to the Lamb's Book of Life. Silly isn't it? Admittedly I have only ever heard one frustrated preacher at it, but let us lay that spectre to rest. We don't?at least not before they profess faith in the Lord Jesus. Then we can urge them to make their calling and election sure.

CALVIN: As we cannot distinguish between the elect and the reprobate, it is our duty to pray form all who trouble us, to desire the salvation of all men. (Commentary on Psalms)

Again, hyper Calvinists will only offer Christ to those whom they discern to be spiritually awakened enough to receive it, but true Calvinists will offer Christ freely to all men, assuring all that there is salvation if they will prevail of it. Whitefield's sermons and Spurgeon's are full of gospel invitation without any limitations of any kind. Here is how Arthur Pink closed one sermon preached in 1927:

Why not believe in him for yourself? Why not trust his precious blood for yourself, and why not tonight? Why not tonight, my friend? God is ready, God is ready to save you now if you believe on him. The blood has been shed, the sacrifice has been offered, the atonement has been made, the feast has been spread. The call goes out to you tonight. 'Come, for all things are now ready.' (Studies in the Scriptures 1927)

We note how Paul in his great sermon in Acts 13 made good use of the phrase "unto you" when preaching, including those great words of v38:

Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins:

Yet we read that many to whom these words were spoken rejected them. Here is indiscriminate preaching at its best.

CALVIN: The gospel is to preached indiscriminately to the elect and to the reprobate? (Commentary on Isaiah)

God offers his word indiscriminately to the good and bad? (Commentary on Ezekiel)

Stephen said so: Ye stiff snecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye. (Acts 7:53) There is a time when the Spirit of God stops striving with men (Genesis 6:3) and this is when they resist His convictions and He "leaves them alone in their darkness to dwell" But we believe that the elect cannot always resist Him - that there comes a time when the Spirit prevails and they are born again. We call this irresistible grace.

Let me point out something here. When Arminian Christians offer up petitions to God for the lost: "Lord, save my love ones?" etc., they are praying Calvinistic prayers. Arminianism effectively teaches that God has done everything that He can do since He cannot interfere with man's free and sovereign will. Calvinism teaches that God needs to do everything and we can consistently ask Him to do more and save our lost ones etc., Thank God for inconsistent Arminians! Keep praying!

CALVIN: God?closes up the way of salvation against those who spurn the Holy Spirit, the only true guide. (Commentary on Hebrews)

Spurgeon answers this misconception (which he calls among other things: the wicked calumny and the basest lie ever uttered):

We say, with regard to infants, Scripture saith but very little, and, therefore, where Scripture is confessedly scant, it is for no man to determine dogmatically. But I think I speak for the entire body, or certainly with exceedingly few exceptions, and those unknown to me, when I say we hold that all infants are elect of God and are therefore saved, and we look to this as being the means by which Christ shall see of the travail of his soul to a great degree, and we do sometimes hope that thus the multitude of the saved shall be made to exceed the multitude of the lost. Whatever views our friends may hold upon the point, they are not necessarily connected with Calvinistic doctrine. I believe that the Lord Jesus, who said, "Of such is the kingdom of heaven," doth daily and constantly receive into his loving arms those tender ones who are only shown, and then snatched away to heaven. Our hymns are no ill witness to our faith on this point, and one of them runs thus:

"Toplady, one of the keenest of Calvinists, was of this number. ?In my remarks,? says he, ?on Dr. Nowell, I testified my firm belief that the souls of all departed infants are with God in glory; that in the decree of predestination to life, God hath included all whom he decreed to take away in infancy, and that the decree of reprobation hath nothing to do with them.? ? John Newton, of London, the friend of Cowper, noted for his Calvinism, holds that the children in heaven exceed its adult inhabitants in all their multitudinous array. Gill, a very champion of Calvinism, held the doctrine, that all dying in infancy are saved. An intelligent modern writer, (Dr. Russell, of Dundee) also a Calvinist maintains the same views; and when it is considered that nearly one-half of the human race die in early years, it is easy to see what a vast accession must be daily and hourly making to the blessed population of heaven." (CHS Sermons Vol 7:385)

As Spurgeon rightly observes, the scripture says very little about the subject at all and so we cannot be dogmatic, but I believe that the whole tenor of Scripture would point us in the direction that little children dying in infancy are saved.

I must omit any reference to Calvin as I am unable to find any definitive reference to this subject one way or the other. I am pretty sure that if he had written one way or the other, Mr Spurgeon would have commented accordingly.

10) CALVINISTS DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THE "5 POINTS OF CALVINISM" ARE ALL THAT THERE IS TO BE KNOWN ABOUT THE WORD OF GOD:

The so called 5 points were not "highlighted" by Calvinists at all but by Dutchman Jacob Arminius who lived in 17^th Century Holland. Arminius challenged the truthfulness of these doctrines and subsequently it is here the theological battles have raged. Of course there are Calvinists who cannot see beyond these particular doctrines, just as there are Dispensationalists who cannot see beyond Bible prophecy or Wesleyans who cannot see beyond the doctrine of the Second Blessing etc., Every doctrine has its adherents who live and breathe nothing else. That in itself does not make any doctrine wrong. The great classic theological works written by Calvinists cover pretty extensively other subjects. They are balanced and there is no evidence that all roads lead to unconditional election or particular redemption. Dr Paisley commented once that we should not be taken up just with the 5 buttons, but preach the whole garment and there is a lot of balance and wisdom in that comment.

Since the 5 points controversy followed nearly two centuries after Calvin's death, obviously we cannot find any reference to it as such in his writings. It is evident however from the massive selection of Bible commentaries which we have on many of the various parts of scripture that Calvin believed in preaching the whole counsel of God. Even Jacob Arminius who vehemently opposed his teachings wrote:

Next to the perusal of the Scriptures. Which I earnestly inculcate, I exhort my pupils to peruse Calvin's commentaries, which I extol in loftier terms that Helmich himself: for I affirm that he excels beyond comparison in the interpretation of Scripture, and that his commentaries ought to be more highly valued than all that is handed down to us by the Library of the Fathers: so that I acknowledge him to have possessed above all others, or rather above all other men, what may be called an eminent gift of prophecy." (Quoted by CH Spurgeon in Commenting and Commentaries)

It must be said that there are those who think that unless the preacher asks the congregation at the end of the sermon to "bow their heads and close their eyes" and put a hand in the air if they want to be saved and come to the front to the strains of "Just as I am without one plea" then there was no appeal. This is not so. Some preachers are not comfortable with such procedures, but they will still urge and plead with sinners to be saved. True, there are hyper Calvinists who do not make urgent verbal appeals, but true Calvinists will employ language such as used by Arthur Pink above.

CALVIN: Yet it is highly useful to us, that the Evangelist introduces Christ exclaiming aloud, Let all who thirst come to me. For we infer from it that the invitation was not addressed to one or two persons only, or in a low and gentle whisper, but that this doctrine is proclaimed to all, in such a manner that none may be ignorant of it, but those who, of their own accord shutting their ears, will not receive this loud and distinct cry. (Commentary on John's Gospel)

12) CALVINISTS DO NOT BELIEVE THAT ONCE YOU ARE SAVED, YOU CAN LIVE AS YOU LIKE AS YOU CANNOT BE LOST:

Again a good doctrine has been abused and the abuse is held up as the genuine article. Calvinists believe that once a man is saved, the evidence will be holiness in the life. Christ saves His people from their sins (Matthew 1:21) A man who professes to be saved but insists on living like the devil is only evidencing how deluded he is and how false his profession.

CALVIN: No man?is a believer who is not also a saint?no man is a saint who is not a believer." (Commentary on Ephesians)

Let us not be ashamed to be ignorant in a matter in which ignorance is learning. Rather let us willingly abstain from the search after knowledge, to which it is both foolish as well as perilous, and even fatal to aspire.

Ah, but why should the basis of salvation -- seemingly the central message of the Scriptures to all save the determinists both before and since -- be 'foolish as well as perilous, and even fatal to aspire [to].'

Here's ol' Johnny waxing eloquent in the same chapter:

"[W]e assert, that by an eternal and immutable counsel, God hath once for all determined both whom he would admit to salvation, and whom he would condemn to destruction. We affirm that this counsel, as far as concerns the elect, is founded on his gratuitous mercy, totally irrespective of human merit; but that to those whom he devotes to condemnation, the gate of life is closed by a just and irreprehensible, but incomprehensible, judgment. ... As God seals his elect by vocation and justification, so by excluding the reprobate from the knowledge of his name, and sanctification of his Spirit, he affords another indication of the judgment that awaits them," [and later] "It is a HORRIBLE DECREE, I confess; but no one can deny that God foreknew the future fate of man before he created him; and that he did foreknow it, because it was appointed by his own decree."

Ah, now we see. By what Ol' Johnny admits is a 'horrible decree', the construct god 'decreed' the lost to their state so that he could later impose an 'incomprehensible' judgment upon them. [Remember these are Ol' Johnny's own words.]

Thus, it is 'foolish', 'perilous' and even 'fatal' to inquire into it in that it shows the 'foolishness' of the construct, and is 'perilous' and even 'fatal' to anyone who should deign to read Scripture (rather than the construct) to accept the construct as other than the odious product of a warped mind. No wonder, Ol' Johnny finds 'ignorance is bliss.' Yup. It's "incomprehensible", so 'don't ask too many questions.' I could have told him that.

Just have god close his eyes and let the world turn with no divine intervention ..that makes reading scripture of no effect..could change or fall apart tomorrow..we coulds re title the Bible " Gods Best Guess"

That's called the 'fallacy of the false choice'. You consistently portray that one either accepts Ol' Johnny's manmade construct or 'Gee, the Bible will just be meaningless." Unfortunately, in the entire history of Chrisitanity, only the Calvinists thought it necessary to make up the double 'decree' business. The 'decree' presupposition perverts the Bible, it doesn't explain it.

It is true that there are a range of views of the nature and extent of God's 'foreknowledge' and 'immutability' other than total theological determinism (aka 'Calvinism'). Frankly, all of them (other than 'process theology' -- which I don't know much about) are more biblical (i.e. more easily aligned with biblical teaching) than Calvinistic determinism.

Yours is the one systematic view, whose author advises you that it is 'perilous' and 'even fatal' to inquire into it because it is 'incomprehensible'. No wonder he thinks 'ignorance is bliss.'

Hence, your running to secret counsels and two wills to explain away clear Scripture for a false philosophical supposition.

huh???? I don't know to what you refer regarding the "secret counsels." I've definately never appealed to them as evidence. Two wills? I don't subscribe to that interpretation -- that would require a contradiction amongst the persons of the Godhead. I do not believe there is any contradiction regarding the will of God. The sense in which he wills "all men to be saved" according to I Tim 2:4 is best explained by John Gill:

The salvation which God wills that all men should enjoy, is not a mere possibility of salvation, or a mere putting them into a salvable state; or an offer of salvation to them; or a proposal of sufficient means of it to all in his word; but a real, certain, and actual salvation, which he has determined they shall have; and is sure from his own appointment, from the provision of Christ as a Saviour for them, from the covenant of grace, in which everything is secured necessary for it, and from the mission of Christ to effect it, and from its being effected by him: wherefore the will of God, that all men should be saved, is not a conditional will, or what depends on the will of man, or on anything to be performed by him, for then none might be saved; and if any should, it would be of him that willeth, contrary to the express words of Scripture; but it is an absolute and unconditional will respecting their salvation, and which infallibly secures it: nor is it such a will as is distinguishable into antecedent and consequent; with the former of which it is said, God wills the salvation of all men, as they are his creatures, and the work of his hands; and with the latter he wills, or not wills it, according to their future conduct and behaviour; but the will of God concerning man’s salvation is entirely one, invariable, unalterable, and unchangeable: nor is it merely his will of approbation or complacency, which expresses only what would be grateful and well pleasing, should it be, and which is not always fulfilled; but it is his ordaining, purposing, and determining will, which is never resisted, so as to be frustrated, but is always accomplished: the will of God, the sovereign and unfrustrable will of God, has the governing sway and influence in the salvation of men; it rises from it, and is according to it; and all who are saved God wills they should be saved; nor are any saved, but whom he wills they should be saved: hence by all men, whom God would have saved, cannot be meant every individual of mankind, since it is not his will that all men, in this large sense, should be saved, unless there are two contrary wills in God; for there are some who were before ordained by him unto condemnation, and are vessels of wrath fitted for destruction; and it is his will concerning some, that they should believe a lie, that they all might be damned; nor is it fact that all are saved, as they would be, if it was his will they should; for who hath resisted his will? but there is a world of ungodly men that will be condemned, and who will go into everlasting punishment: rather therefore all sorts of men, agreeably to the use of the phrase in #1Ti 2:1 are here intended, kings and peasants, rich and poor, bond and free, male and female, young and old, greater and lesser sinners; and therefore all are to be prayed for, even all sorts of men, because God will have all men, or all sorts of men, saved; and particularly the Gentiles may be designed, who are sometimes called the world, the whole world, and every creature; whom God would have saved, as well as the Jews, and therefore Heathens, and Heathen magistrates, were to be prayed for as well as Jewish ones.

Why is man unable to respond to God? Because God put in that position. That is why you now have to run to your potter defense.

I'm not quite sure what you're saying, since this conveys nothing according to the conventions of English grammar. what do you mean by "because God put in that position"? You're missing a verb.

And that's not "my potter defense." That's Paul's. Don't like it, no skin off my nose. Take it up with him. He wrote it, not me. But I warn you about scoffing about the plain teachings of Scripture. Those scoffs have a tendancy to bite you in the rear -- I know from personal experience. I, like you, was once a rabid anti-Calvinist, spouting a lot of the same objections you have. But they don't hold water, as I am willing to demonstrate, if you are willing to engage in dialogue, not name-calling or belittling.

The Arminian idea of God's foreknowledge without His soverignty kinda reminds me of the Emperor in the movie The Return of the Jedi. Makes a good illustration, I think.

In the movie, the Emperor tells Darth Vader that Luke Skywalker will come to Vader, and that he will then be turned to evil too. He assures Vader "I have foreseen it." But the Emperor is powerless to make it stick-- he is forced to give Skywalker the choice-- turn to the Dark Side or die -- he chooses death, but is rescued by Darth Vader, who kills the Emperor.

Now this excercise serves more than to just recite a scene from a popular 1980's movie, but it demonstrates something-- without the power to make something happen, the foreknowledge is useless. Ditto with God. The Arminian is stuck with the pleading Savior-- oh, won't you please let me save You?

Theres a song I remember from church -- about half are Arminian in my denomination. This song's close was as follows:

I own the cattle on a thousand hills
I wrote the music for the whip-poor-wills
Control the planets with their rocks and rills
But give you freedom to use your own will
And if you want me to, I'll make you whole
I'll only do it, though, if you say so
I'll never force you, for I love you so
I give you freedom, is it yes or no?

It strikes me though -- given the consequences of rejection -- how can it be, "I'll never force you, for I love you so"? I know this is the Arminian mantra-- love cannot be forced -- but that makes no sense! It would be like a parent letting his child, who he loves, choose to kill himself because he loves the child and doesnt want to force him to live. But that's what the Arminians would have us believe God is -- a wuss unable to have what he wants performed.

Hence, your running to secret counsels and two wills to explain away clear Scripture for a false philosophical supposition. huh???? I don't know to what you refer regarding the "secret counsels." I've definately never appealed to them as evidence. Two wills? I don't subscribe to that interpretation -- that would require a contradiction amongst the persons of the Godhead. I do not believe there is any contradiction regarding the will of God.

Thats funny, Calvin, Piper, Spurgeon, Augustine, and Boettmer all make appeals to the secret counsels to explain that scripture does say that God does want all men saved and yet not all are being saved.

Thus, you have scripture contradicting scripture and the appeal to the hidden will of God

The sense in which he wills "all men to be saved" according to I Tim 2:4 is best explained by John Gill: Why is man unable to respond to God? Because God put in that position. That is why you now have to run to your potter defense. I'm not quite sure what you're saying, since this conveys nothing according to the conventions of English grammar. what do you mean by "because God put in that position"? You're missing a verb.

Excuse me, I was writing quickly. (By the way, I am not missing the verb(put) I am missing the object (man))

What I was pointing out is that it is God who put man in the sin state in the first place, through His Directive will.

According to Calvinism, everything happening is happening because God willed it, thus Adam sinned because God Decreed it as part of His directive will.

When did I call you a name? Paul is not using the Potter/clay to explain predestination, he is explaining to Israel why they have been set aside for the Gentiles (Rom.11:25)As for scoffing, Calvinism's only defense of its unscriptural postion is an appeal to secret counsels and how one ought not to question the great theological insights of Augustine and Calvin,

Now, if you want to engage in a dialogue that is fine with me, but the key question is going to be over unconditional vs conditional election, or why God chose some men and not all (or some different ones).

I think I know already what your reply will be to that ultimate question. (Rom.9:20-23). If you have another answer, then let me have it, I would be very interested in hearing it.

Jhn 6:65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father. He will not cast out any that come to Him dec..those that come are sent by the Father..

He also said that when He was lifted up He would draw all men to Him. (Jn.12:32)

According to Calvinism Man is a sinful state because God placed him in that state. Man is spiritually dead because of the choice of Adam..God gave Adam free will..and Adam chose to sin..and mans will has never been free since.

Read your Calvinism!

Adam sinned because God willed it! Thus, the sin state mankind is in is because God wanted it that way. You deny permissive will (even though you love to use the word), and state that everything that happens happens because God wants it to happen (good and bad). Pink went so far as to say that man acts unconsciously when he acts to fullfill God's sovereign decree.

Mans will is in bondage to sin. That is why man will never freely choose God. He can not. His will is in bondage. ONLY Gods grace can free mans will and restore it to a true free will. Once it has been freed man desires God ,and freely chooses Him

Nice little story, any scripture to back it up? I mean contextual scripture not this wrenched out of context nonsense you keep throwing out!

Now, why can't God provide the light (2Cor.4:6) so man can see the issue and them make a decision for God.

Oh, that cannot be because the elect have already been chosen in eternity based on the sovereign will of God.

So what is all this TULIP garbage you keep trying to peddle when the real issue is unconditional vs conditional election.

The reason man cannot choose for God isn't because of his sinful state, but rather God put him in that sinful state so man couldn't choose Him!

Calvinists love producing smoke to keep people away from the real 'fire' the eternal decree where everything started, with God's Decision

TULIP is a nothing but an attempt to keep people arguing about man's state now and not ask the real question, 'how did he get in this state' and 'why won't God save everyone'?

Do not attribute the sin of Adam to God..

Why shouldn't I, Calvin does! Augustine does!

They may not say it that way, but they concede that everything happened because God Decreed it that way according to His directive will.

You yourself said that there could not be any will that went against God's will, so when Adam sinned he was doing exactly what God wanted him to do.

Do not complain, that is your system-live with it!

Man is going to Hell, because God chose not to save him. Man is going to hell because man chooses to go to hell. No one will be in hell that does not deserve it or that does not choose it..

Did not choose it? Could they 'choose' otherwise? Did not God make that 'choice' for them? God created them just to throw them into the lake of Fire-well, praise God!

Any objective reason He chose you and not someone else? No? And God isn't arbitrary?

Spurgeon's maxim stands true: Salvation is all of grace?damnation is all of sin.

Nice little maxim, but where did sin come from? It came from the Sovereign Eternal Decree of God!

The god of Calvin is the ultimate source of everything that happens in the Universe.

All the tap-dancing, word twisting, and denials cannot change the fact that your god-less system makes God the author of sin, death and hell and is responsible for it by not just permitting it, but actually wanting it.

You have been deceived into worshipping a false god (2Cor.4:4)

Was Jacob a man? Did God Elect him? Nations are made up of People..Did God Elect the nation of Israel from all the other nations?

Yes, that is correct the two nations were selected by God. Nowhere is salvation mentioned.

Esau (Edom) is said to be 'hated' in Mal.1:2-3

It was two nations who were called (Gen.25) and their futures being predicted, not the eternal destiny of Jacob and Esau.

Gee, I see predestination to adoption which comes after salvation. I see chosen Dec you need to read this carefully...It does NOT say he adopted us then predestioned us..(your reading) It says Eph 1:5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will he presestined our adoption I know you do not like that ..but that is what it says..God predestines individuals to salvation dec..Paul knew that ...

No, adoption is not salvation, adoption is a result of salvation.

Just like inheritance and being conformed to His image are post salvation results. They occur because you are saved, they are not salvation per se.

Adoption is not so much a word of relationship as of position. The believer's relation to God as a child results from the new birth (Jn.1:12-13), whereas adoption is the act of God whereby one already a child is, through redemption from the law, placed in the position of an adult son (Gal.4.1-5). (Scofield note,p.1250)

drsteve posted the entire quote within context the other day, and you contine to cut it out of context.. ..hey we will be happy to misquote your guys IF that is the way you want to go Bump to the PHD to repost the accurate quote from the institutes

I gave the context. I quoted first from Palmer who said it exactly how I put it.

Then I went to the Institutes themselves and stated that it was referring to Predestination and changed the word used by Palmer 'wisdom' to 'learning'

I also gave the place in the Institutes where you could check both statements (he made that statment in two different places)

Now, it is not my fault if the statement is idiotic! Ignorance is learning

That sums up Calvinism very nicely!

I do find it very interesting that a professing Christian would state that they would return evil for evil!

Even if I had purposefully misquoted him (which I did not), the fact that you would threaten to do the same shows the wickedness of your own heart!

According to Calvinism Man is a sinful state because God placed him in that state.

Not true. Man is in a sinful state because he willfully chose to rebel against a Holy God.

Man cannot respond to the Gospel, because God did not choose him

Not true. Man cannot respond to the Gospel because he is dead in his sin due to his rebellion against a just and holy God.

Man is going to Hell, because God chose not to save him.

Ridiculous. Man is going to hell because he sinned against a just and holy God.

God could have saved everyone but chose not to? Any reasons for that?

You think much too highly of man.

God doesn't owe anyone anything.

Mankind is CONDEMNED.

Man rejects Jesus Christ because he is CONDEMNED ALREADY.

We all deserve hell.

If God saved everyone then mercy would no longer be called mercy.

According to Calvinism, everything happening is happening because God willed it, thus Adam sinned because God Decreed it as part of His directive will.

Got that straight. Otherwise, how could God plan the Redemption without planning the cause for it? Or was He just reacting to Adam's choice? It's not like God was taken off-guard -- "Oh, crud. Adam sinned. Now I have to send my Son to die." No, thats not how it worked.

. When did I call you a name? Paul is not using the Potter/clay to explain predestination, he is explaining to Israel why they have been set aside for the Gentiles.

I've heard that before, but don't buy it. Here's why. To limit the sense of Romans 9 to nations or historical tasks rather than the unconditional election of individuals distorts the nature of the problem in Romans 9:1-5 (Paul's solicitude is not for the nation of Israel, per se, but for them individually) and the grammatical individualism of 9:6b ("For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel."). Finally, and most importantly, the national view is inconsistant with the conclusions reached in Rom 9:14-23.

You called what my next argument would be, but that's because that's what Paul's would be. You are asking, in essence, v. 19. ("Why does He yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?").

I honestly don't see how the Arminian position is tenable given the clear teaching of Rom. 9:20-24.

How is 9:24 consistant with a national interpretation? ("vessels which he hath afore prepared for glory, (24) Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?") I see no wiggle-room to say, "oh, he's talking about nations" here. This makes it clear that he's talking about the election of individuals. And what about 9:27? A remnant of Israel shall be saved -- certainly that refers to individuals within the Israelite nation, not to a national sense.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.