Want Calvinist thoughts

ESV. If it were a biased translation, I do think it would be biased toward my side… :)

I think probably the main thing that you find to be harder to interpret differently is "So then it depends not on human will or exertion". I'll be honest: this is not a word-for-word translation of the original Greek, which actually says, "So then not of him who is willing nor him who is running". But the two things mean the same thing in the context. "I will have mercy / compassion on him whom I will have mercy / compassion." It is this that depends not on the man who is willing or running, but on God. So while the translators have taken the liberty of translating with clearer terms, it means the same thing.
Of course if there are other parts of the translation you find difficult, I'll have to check the actual Greek…

I don't think God's wills conflict. In his mercy, he takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked. But his eternal purposes don't have to be only merciful. If he leaned on only one of his attributes, everything would be rather imbalanced. But I can still see where you're coming from. :)

Fare thee well, then. :) See you next fall, have a nice trip. (Hmm… hopefully that's not a joke.)

I myself will also be withdrawing from the conversation…it would be interesting to keep up with it, but I am finding I just don't have the time to read everything (i.e. your lonnnnng posts xD ), plus respond to everything… xP I didn't mean to get this involved in the conversation anyways. Thanks all!
God bless!
Rachel

^And I was going to do this even before Matthew posted…so I'm not trying to copy him…jsyk…xP^

^And sorry to leave you "alone", witness!^

I may have come to see your position better, (Spurgeon 442) and now I feel like we have been arguing for the same end, me championing Human Responsibility, and you championing God's sovereignty. Though I am sure we still disagree on some of the finer points.

Now here is a question, We do not always know God's sovereign will. We do know His revealed will. We do know we can go against God's revealed will. Does that make God revealed will more of standard that we can choose to obey or rebel?

Do you know what I am saying?

Do you have a verse saying Pharaoh's heart was softened?

Not specifically. But Pharaoh's heart had been so hard before that he wouldn't even let the children of Israel go after nine horrific plagues! That's pretty hard! So what did God do? He actually bumped off a large number of the people who were on Pharaoh's side, by taking out all the firstborn. After THAT, Pharaoh decided maybe he might as well just let the people go; he wasn't interested in seeing #11. Now this doesn't mean that his heart was penitent before God. But God still changed his determined mind, which was no doubt humbling.

Lead a horse to water; you can't make him drink, but you can salt the oats. After that, if he still doesn't drink, you can spray a hose at his mouth and have your friend hold the mouth open. But he might spit it out. If all else fails, you can put tranquilize him and have your vet put a tube in him. But God doesn't need to do any of that. He can make the horse WANT to drink from the start. Or, He can lead him to the water, salt the oats, hold his mouth open and spray it with a hose, and THEN make him want to drink. God allowed Pharaoh's heart to be hard so that He could disply His unstoppable power to all of pagan Egypt. Then, when His power had been displayed in many convincing ways, He changed Pharaoh's mind. But Egypt was still wicked, and Pharaoh obviously forgot about the unforgettable plagues when he wanted the slaves back; so God decided to wash out Pharaoh and his men in the Red Sea, after hardening his heart yet again.

Thanks, @Christian… I guess reading your arguments have effected me more than I realized! xD I'd pretty much left the debating up to you, and only come in to say something occasionally… because in my opinion, you debate this subject better than I do (I think you're more competent).

I may have come to see your position better, (Spurgeon 442) and now I feel like we have been arguing for the same end, me championing Human Responsibility, and you championing God's sovereignty. Though I am sure we still disagree on some of the finer points. Now here is a question, We do not always know God's sovereign will. We do know His revealed will. We do know we can go against God's revealed will. Does that make God revealed will more of standard that we can choose to obey or rebel? Do you know what I am saying?

No, I'm not quite sure what you're saying. In particular, I'm not sure what "more of standard that" means. :P

If you're asking whether or not we can disobey God's revealed will, the answer is yes. God says "don't sin", "be perfect" - these are parts of his revealed will. But nobody, not even Christians, ever stops sinning or starts being perfect. It is not God's sovereign will that we do so until death. Whenever we disobey God's revealed will, that is because he sovereignly willed that we would not. But it is still disobedience against God - we're never told to obey God's sovereign will, because we always do. So on the practical level of day-to-day living, it is the revealed will we need to be concerned about, trying to obey it.

Can someone please give me a semi-detailed definition of Calvinism or what makes someone a Calvinist? I probably am one, but I don't want to say that I am if I'm not. I believe that God is sovereign over EVERYTHING, and that this includes salvation. I believe that He has mercy on whom He has mercy, and hardens whomever He will. I believe that God does not change, and that He is true to character; thus, I believe that God is both just and merciful. I believe that I am saved of nothing of myself, but all because of the grace of God.

I can give a more detailed explanation of what I believe :), but this will probably give you some idea.

Most people would boil "Calvinism" down to a 5-point systematization that was established at the Synod of Dort around 1618. The points are called The Canons of Dort, the Five Points of Calvinism, or T.U.L.I.P. for short, so you may have heard them go by one of those names. I'll try to go through them as briefly as possible. They build on each other, so I'll go in order, trying to include supporting Scripture references for each point:

T otal Depravity: Man cannot do any good whatsoever. He is dead and a slave to sin, and his will is only as free as his nature allows it to be. His nature can only sin; therefore, apart from God's common grace, all he can do is sin. Therefore, he cannot respond to or even understand the gospel apart from the working of the Holy Spirit. (Rom. 8:5; Rom. 3:10-12; Gen. 8:21; John 6:44)

U nconditional Election: Because man is totally unable to respond to God's offer of salvation in Christ, God must initiate the process. And if God must initiate and control the whole salvation process, that means He must choose who to save and, indirectly, who not to save. No one deserves to be saved, so God's passing over the unsaved is not unjust; it is, in fact, supremely merciful and gracious that He saves any. It is His prerogative, and it is not based on anything we have done. He didn't look down through the corridors of time and see who would choose Him and then choose those individuals; we can't choose Him, so He had to choose us. This election is 100% unconditional – He chooses because He loves. (Eph. 1:3-5; Acts 13:48; Matt. 22:14; Rom. 9:16)

L imited Atonement: (Many prefer the term Particular Redemption instead, because "Limited" has a negative connotation. But that would result in T.U.P.I.P., so most people just keep it the way it is. =P) Because God has a specific people whom He endeavors to save, Jesus' mission in coming to Earth was to save that people. He came to save and sanctify His Bride by His death. Every drop of His blood is effectual. He didn't come to potentially save – to make salvation possible for all – but to make salvation actual for His Church. Verses that talk about Jesus dying for "all" or for "the world" refer to the scope of His work – it was not just for the Jewish nation but for all peoples. He died for people from every tribe, language, people, and nation. (Matt. 1:21; John 10:15; Isa. 53:8; Rev. 5:9)

I rresistible Grace: God never tries to save someone and fails. If He wills to save someone, the person will be saved. When the Holy Spirit regenerates a man, he is brought to life from the dead, he sees truth for the first time, and he inevitably responds in repentance and faith because he has a new heart that can please God. The Spirit's quickening, life-giving grace is irresistible. There are people who will resist His common grace – His promptings to do good and to consider the gospel, for example – but if He intends to save someone, He will. (John 6:37-40; Titus 3:5; 2 Cor. 4:6; Acts 16:14)

P erseverance of the Saints: Those whom God saves will never fall away. If the Father elected a soul; if Christ redeemed a soul; if the Holy Spirit regenerated a soul; that soul will enter glory with Christ and will never be lost. Someone with a regenerate heart, a new mind, the seal of the Holy Spirit, the guarantee of eternal life, justification before God, and forgiveness of sins cannot suddenly become dead, unregenerate, barren, lifeless, guilty, and rebellious again. And if a person who initially appeared to be all those former things suddenly and habitually begins to display the latter things… there could be a big problem – it could be that the person was never saved to begin with. But we know for certain that nothing can ever separate us from the love of God and nothing could ever snatch us from Christ's hands. (John 10:27-30; 1 John 2:19; Rom. 8:29-39; Heb. 7:25)

Other preeminent emphases of those who call themselves Calvinists typically include, but are not limited to:

• The idea that everything – even the most despicable sins – are used by God for His highest glory. We know this from the fact that the worst sin ever committed, the crucifixion of the Son of God, is said to be according to God's settled purpose and foreknowledge (Acts 2:23). No action of man is out of the realm of His control, for He does whatever He pleases in all circumstances.

• The idea that in electing some, God indirectly condemns others – sometimes called "double predestination." This was mentioned earlier, but more closely considered, it's what we find in Romans 9 where we see two different kinds of vessels made from the same clay: vessels for honorable use and vessels for dishonorable use. The vessels don't deserve or require any particular use in and of themselves – the Potter can do whatever He wants with them. So, some people God chooses to save, in order that His mercy and grace might be magnified; and others He chooses not to save, so that His justice and wrath might be magnified. Both vessels ultimately serve to make Him supremely glorious.

• The idea that "good is God" – meaning that God sets the standard for everything good. If God does something and we have a problem with it, the problem is with us, not with God. Everything God does is good, even if it initially appears to be unjust or cruel by our standards.

Hopefully that helps you! =)

Thank you! I agree with most of it. I also found helpful what you said about Jesus dying for all meaning some from every tribe, nation, etc. That had actually been something that I wondering about, and was planning to ask what others thought it meant. I guess I would like to study the Bible more before I can say that that is definitely what I believe, because I don't what to be like children tossed to and fro by the waves, and believe everything I hear, but that was very helpful!

Here is another question, "And Jesus said unto him, No man, having put his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God." Luke 9:62 Why did Jesus warn about this, if it was impossible to do? Thanks,

I really like Aidan's interpretation of this. From there, I think we can conclude that if someone looks back, he was never a true Christian to begin with. So basically, if someone was a professing Christian, acted like a Christian, was maybe even baptized, the whole deal--and then turns away from the faith and "stops being a Christian", _then he was never a true Christian to begin with_. He was a false convert all that time.

Yes, Thats what I think too!

Yup, exactly. Once a Christian, always a Christian. You can't "used to be" a Christian.

So basically, if someone was a professing Christian, acted like a Christian, was maybe even baptized, the whole deal–and then turns away from the faith and "stops being a Christian", then he was never a true Christian to begin with. He was a false convert all that time.
Yes, Thats what I think too! </ blockquote/>

This is why, as a teenager, my dad didn't want to become a Christian. He thought there was no difference between Christians and nonbelievers. The Christians he knew went to church on Sunday, then lived the rest of there lives like anyone else. These professed they were Christians but never really were. I'm so glad he became a Christian as a young man or I wouldn't be here! This story has really opened my eyes to how important it is for believers to be that lighthouse in the darkness and how we are to be the salt of the earth. Many Christians are the same, go to church, but there really isn't anything different that sets them apart. Not the kind I would like to be.

After our discussion about this a year or so ago, a lot has happened. I've re-assessed my beliefs on free will and predestination considerably. I'm wondering now if anyone cares about hearing my new perspective on this topic. (While skimming through the previous pages, I realized that I promised to post an article/paper twice, but never did. :P) It's just as well if nobody does, but I thought I might as well throw it out there.

After our discussion about this a year or so ago, a lot has happened. I've re-assessed my beliefs on free will and predestination considerably. I'm wondering now if anyone cares about hearing my new perspective on this topic. (While skimming through the previous pages, I realized that I promised to post an article/paper twice, but never did. :P) It's just as well if nobody does, but I thought I might as well throw it out there.

I'd love to hear your new perspective, though I probably won't get to read it until tomorrow if it's long.

YOU! I almost forgot you were involved in that discussion! xP Okay, I'll get it for you soon.

Sure, I'm interested. My nature demands it. :P

:P Though I can't promise you'll be super thrilled or anything.

Welp, we can't change destiny. I take full responsibility for my reaction, even so. :)

Lol, Caleb… xD

Okay, I'll stop. :P Heh.

Wow, you two Wright's must have been subscribed to this topic or something. xP xD

Wow, you two Wright's must have been subscribed to this topic or something. xP xD

Yeup.

Alright, guys. The following was written by myself, to myself and for myself, as an attempt to convince myself of Calvinistic doctrine and reconcile it with what I was raised with, that is, a strong focus on human responsibility. Discussing this on here last year really got me thinking. When Scripture (Romans 9 in particular) makes me uncomfortable, I know I'm in the wrong somewhere. ;) One of the biggest problems that kept raising itself in my raised-as-an-anti-Calvinist mind as I went through this "cocoon" (gotta love that terminology from the Truth Project xD) was the question: to what can we attribute the decision of man to accept Christ? That's the main thought of this little essay. It has the feel of a persuasive dissertation, but it's really just my way of organizing my many disjointed thoughts on paper so I can process it easier. :) (And did I mention it was long-winded? Or wait, did I even have to? xP) One more disclaimer: I used almost no Scripture references, but that is because 1) this was meant as a logical argument, and 2) it was written to myself to help me reconcile my thinking, and I don't usually need references for reading my own writing.

^(Titles are not original but added for easier reading.)^

1. The First Cause argument - not just for the creationist
Here is one statement that has caused me at least to consider Calvinistic beliefs with less bias: "Everything has a reason." Things do not just happen; innumerable variables, both material and immaterial, work together to cause a reaction or hold up a law ("law" in this paragraph refers to not just an established scientific "fact", which can be overthrown by new evidence, but an immutable part of reality). One direct corollary of this idea is this: if in theory it were possible to create the exact same circumstances for an experiment - down to the molecule - twice in a row, then the exact same thing would happen. (Aside: Although it seems like an obvious assumption, this proposition actually leads directly to a paradox that can only be resolved by the existence of our eternal God. In some sense, everything that happens in the universe is a chain reaction based on other variables or laws. Each of the variables in turn are in place because of other variables and laws, and each of the laws are based on some other more fundamental law - and if one follows the chain back far enough, eventually one must reconcile with the one most fundamental law. What is this most fundamental law based on, though? Unless one realizes that the existence of the eternal God is the most fundamental law, and He rests solely on Himself, there is no real answer to this question. Those who do not accept God’s existence are forced to accept the illogical conclusion that things do indeed “just happen”, hence the existence of theories such as the Big Bang and Evolution.)

2. An object lesson to explain what what we call "chance" really is
Nothing happens "by chance" in the truest sense of the word. For example, if I roll a die, there are many variables that act upon it to decide the outcome - including the size, shape and mass of the die, the position, direction, velocity and spin of the die when thrown, the air pressure and gravitational force in the room, the size, position and texture of the surface it is thrown on, and many more. The reason I throw the die is to get a random number from one through six. But how can I call it "random", since nothing happens by chance? I can because, although I may be aware of the variables, I do not or cannot control them all precisely. Thus, from my perspective, simply picking up a die and dropping it will yield a random outcome - one that I cannot predetermine. Nevertheless, if I could set up the exact same circumstances two times in a row, I would get the same outcome. Now say Jesus rolls a die. He knows every variable there is to know, including many we don’t even know of. Furthermore, He can control each one of them. Thus, He can not only predict the outcome, but He can predetermine the outcome (in fact, in a sense it must be that He does predetermine, simply due to His infinite attributes – Proverbs 16:33). He will hold the die in just the right position, throw it in just the right direction with just the right velocity and spin, and cause it to tumble precisely to result in the outcome that He sees fit. Actually, I can predict and predetermine the outcome too. Want to know how? Simply by holding the die correctly - facing up the way I want it to land - and placing it on the table! In this case, I am acting upon my knowledge and control of the variables that affect the outcome. Notice that several of the variables are lost in this instance, including all of the ones that I cannot control.

3. The ultimate cause of everything is God
Now let's apply this to the process of decision-making. What causes a person to make a decision (what variables affect the outcome?) Among other things, the person's circumstances, mood, personality, abilities, habit, memory, experience, relationships and spiritual condition will affect his decision-making. Each of these variables are in place not by chance, but can be directly traced back to the influence of either God Himself (through the laws of nature or supernatural intervention) or other beings (that is, anyone with a will; humans, angels, demons or otherwise). But what influences these beings to influence the person to make a decision? Carry it back far enough and you will encounter Adam and Eve, who influenced all of humanity with their choice. They certainly had free will to choose, but what influenced their decision? Well, God created them able to make decisions in the first place, so the way He created them was the influence! Satan was also a major influence on man’s rebellion, but what influenced his choice to rebel? There must have been a reason! The answer must be this: God in His sovereignty created Satan perfect in deeds, but with an incomplete understanding of his Creator. Satan willfully rebelled because of the desires of his own heart. His rebellion was not of God, but it was a result of the way God chose to create him. So, from God's perspective, all the credit for every decision ever made (including the decision of man to accept salvation) must go to Him! In a nutshell, this is my thinking: Every decision, every occurrence, every truth must have a reason; and ultimately, that reason must be the One who created all!

4. Why the Biblical doctrine of free will (NOT the convoluted Arminian definition) does not compromise God's sovereignty
Does all this lead to fatalism? I don’t think so. Let us turn to the perspective of man. Does it create a problem for the sovereignty of God if man can choose what he wants to do (in accordance with his own nature)? Did God delegate some of His power to His creation, or did He preprogram everything they would do? I would argue that He did, in fact, delegate some of His power to His creation, to mankind and angelic beings in particular. Consider this: God has infinite power. If He gave some power to another, what would He have left? What are the properties of infinity? His power would still be infinite – He would not have lost any! Thus, even though humans enjoy limited power to make choices in the world, they will only work according to God’s will because God still has infinite power. The ability of man to make choices according to his nature does not create a problem for God. God does not, and cannot, “give up” His power – He only delegates it.

5. Even Reformed theology accepts "free will"
I must add that even Calvinists embrace this idea in some form. Even they believe that the first sin of mankind was committed by a couple who had a free will to choose between good and evil. The first sin ever committed as far as we know was Satan’s rebellion, and he too had a free will. Mankind, as a result of the Fall, has lost the innate power to choose good, but the angels who did not sin still possess it. The power of all these individuals to choose does not detract from God’s sovereignty – and neither does the sinner’s power to choose once the Spirit works in his heart, showing him the true light. He will choose based on his circumstances, mood, personality, etc. etc. – i.e. his choice will be in accordance with the way God made him and placed him. In this sense, his choice is predetermined by God – and I believe this is the sense that passages like Ephesians 1 and Romans 8-9 are using when they speak of the predestination of the saints and God creating different vessels for different purposes, some for wrath and some for mercy.

6. Miscellaneous ending thoughts - not exactly related, but interesting
Some men choose life because of the way God made them; and some men choose death because of the way God made them. God does this of His own free and sovereign will, and who are we to question Him? He can do whatever He wants to do with what He has created! If we don’t like that He is indirectly responsible for man’s doom, why don’t we question Him then for not providing a way for Satan and his angels to be saved? God didn’t make the angels in His image. Jesus didn’t become an angel and die for the angels. God created them differently, knowing that in the way He created them, some would rebel; He sovereignly chose not to save those who rebelled. Perhaps that is one of the reasons Satan and his angels are so bent on destroying as many members of mankind as they can - they are jealous of mankind’s chance at eternal life which they themselves lost! I don’t know, but it’s an interesting thought. :)

Wow, you two Wright's must have been subscribed to this topic or something. xP xD

Exactly what I was thinking, Rachel. xP

Of course I love points one through three. I definitely agree there. :) But I agree with points four through six as well, though I would probably have said things differently.
As you maintain throughout, humans act according to their nature, which is derived from their circumstances, and ultimately God. (At least that's what you seemed to say to me.) Does this lead to fatalism? Well, that's pretty much a new word to me, so I'm not sure of its connotations. I've always preferred determinism myself. If God set everything in motion, with no randomness, then everything must be in some sense predetermined, except in such cases as God supernaturally intervenes. (Though even then, if he is the only variable, it's still predetermined by him.)
But it's crucial not to forget that man's choices are real, which is one of the main things you point out. Even if, because of our restrictive natures, we could not choose anything other than what God wills, we are still very much making a choice. Our choices are not supernaturally imposed on us by God (which would be a bad case of Hyper-Calvinism), but they are natural, and therefore we are still responsible. God has given us power, as you say, to make choices (though not changes), and "they will only work according to God’s will".
Per Calvinistic theology, the exception to man's choices being all natural is that of "choosing" God. This requires a supernatural change in man's nature so that he can make the right choice, and therefore the responsibility for this is God's, and also the credit. I can't quite tell if you said essentially the same thing yourself in point five, but it seems like maybe you did. :)

So yeah, I agree with the substance of everything you said. (I think.) I would word things differently, such as rejecting "free" will in favor of something like "natural" will, but it's actually really awesome to see many of the same things from a different perspective. By the way, I really appreciate (and agree with) your view on the cause of Satan's fall. As I remember, that's been a point of some division / confusion in the past.
And don't get the idea that what you wrote was unclear. I'm just trying to be careful not to put things you didn't say into your mouth. :) It's a great dissertation, and I enjoyed reading it.

This was very interesting. May I ask if some of this was a result of studying John last year? :)

Haha, no, this was actually before John. But studying those chapters was great to help solidify my beliefs. :)

Wow, that was a fairly positive reaction! xD Thanks for adding your thoughts, too - it's always good to have more than one perspective! I understand your reluctance to use the phrase "free will"; it's tricky for me to use it too, as it can carry so many different connotations that it's getting kind of close to becoming meaningless anyways. (Similar to "dating", "courtship", and "betrothal"; but that's another discussion for another time. ;) )

I'll try to explain "fatalism": as I understand it, the core definition of the word is - "the belief that all events are predetermined and that men cannot change their destinies". Which, as I've pointed out, must be true in a sense if God is all-powerful. But, more often than not, "fatalism" carries also the connotation of a lifestyle of passivity and inactiveness (indeed, "passivity" and "pessimism" are a couple of the synonyms I found for "fatalism" in the thesaurus).
I used to fall into the category of people (and there are many of them) who think Calvinism leads to a fatalistic lifestyle. I've realized now I was judging without knowing all the facts. The anti-Calvinist preachers (whom I still deeply respect) will always say that Calvinism leaves no reason for evangelism. But actually, as I've learned, Calvinistic evangelists may even have an advantage over Arminians, because while the latter group may feel the pressure of "getting everyone saved" and deal with discouragement when faced with rejection, the Calvinist can more easily rejoice no matter what, because their main objective is just to glorify God in all circumstances!

And by the way, I still don't consider myself a Calvinist. I definitely find myself leaning that direction now, but I don't think I will ever be able to fully reconcile either Calvinism or Arminianism with Scripture. I see the merits of both, and I think in some way, the gist of both doctrines are true. How that is possible when they seem so diametrically opposed to each other is beyond my full understanding. But, as a friend of mine so aptly said, "I don't understand Eternity, the Trinity, or some of Algebra either, so I'm not really worried about it." xD ^Actually, probably not the algebra part for me. xP^

A little Reformed Baptist humour :) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7cQwBKFm7ls