Argument against Calvinism

[TheProcess]

I don't think so and actually I think Calvin would likely accept the definition of free will as defined in wikipedia. People can choose their own deeds and they do so freely according to their inclinations. Inclinations is the money term of course.

sw

Which definition?

[TheProcess]

God is sovereign over his creation and nothing happens that he did not ordain to happen. If that is not true then we can count on nothing from God. We can't even count on his promise of salvation in Jesus Christ since if God does not control everything then he indeed controls nothing.

I am not entirely sure what you believe about free will, but I will assume here that you subscribe to compatibilism. If not, then please explain your view of free will, and how it fits with everything being "ordained" by God, so I can understand your position.

With regard to sovereignty: If God delegates power to creatures, in that they have libertarian free will, (which I believe would involve not everything having been ordained) then I can't see that this causes a problem to God's sovereignty. God is understood to be the creator and sustainer of the universe. In that position, it is inevitable that God will have a very great degree of control, even if some has been delegated to the creature. I can't see any reason that you couldn't depend on a Deity in that circumstance.

I will quote part of an article giving an Arminian view of God's sovereignty:

God's Sovereignty

by: Allan Turner

http://allanturner.com/calbk_2.html

In an over-reaction to Calvinist extremes, many Christians have shied away from a study of God's sovereignty. This is a serious mistake. The sovereignty of God is a thoroughly biblical subject. Although the words "sovereign" or "sovereignty" are not found in the KJV, one or both of these words appear in the NKJV, ASV, NIV, and NRSV. Nevertheless, the idea of God's sovereignty is clearly taught in both the Old and New Testament. "Sovereignty," according to the American Heritage Dictionary, means, "Supremacy of authority or rule as exercised by a sovereign." This idea is applied to God by such words as "dominion," "rule," "ruler," "Lord," "King," and "Potentate." As Jack Cottrell points out in his outstanding book What The Bible Says About God The Ruler, "The sovereignty of God may be concisely summed up as absolute Lordship." Sovereignty, then, is equal to lordship, lordship is equal to ownership, and ownership is equal to control. It is precisely at this point that Calvinism strays. We will have more to say about this farther along; but before proceeding on, let us make sure we understand the ramifications of Sovereignty.

The Ramifications Of Sovereignty

If God is truly the Sovereign of the universe, then whatever happens, we are told, is the will of God. A young baby dies of cancer or a young mother or father is seriously injured in an automobile accident and this is said to be God's will. We pray earnestly for a fellow Christian's recovery from a serious illness and in closing our prayer we say, "Not our will but Thine be done." But, recovery does not take place and death occurs. Has God's will really been done? Invariably, at funerals, if one listens to what is being said to the bereaved, one will be heard saying, "It is God's will." Are these things truly God's will, and if so, in what sense?

Repelled by the thought of a loving God being responsible for the death of the innocent and those we love, many Christians have concluded that God is not yet Sovereign Ruler of the universe. Unlike now, one day, they say, God's will is to be done in all things. As sympathetic as we are to their reasons for coming to this conclusion, we are nevertheless convinced that those who hold such a position are terribly wrong. From a biblical standpoint, the sovereignty of God is simply not open for debate. If God is not sovereign, He is clearly not God! Therefore, when I answer "yes" to the question, "Is it true that whatever happens is the will of God?," I must make sure that those who hear me understand that my answer is not an unqualified "yes." Failing to do so would be theologically misleading and personally devastating.

My "yes" is qualified by the fact that there are at least three different senses in which the "will of God" is used in the Bible. When we understand the different ways in which this phrase is used, then we can understand that God is not personally nor directly responsible for the many things people want to either credit or discredit Him with, even though it remains true that everything that happens ultimately falls within His sovereignty.

God's Decretive Will

There are things that God decrees to happen. He causes these things to happen by His own omnipotence. These can be described as God's decretive will. A biblical description of God's decretive will is found in Psalm 33:11, which says: "The counsel of the Lord stands forever, the plans of His heart from generation to generation," and again in Isaiah 14:27, which says: "For the Lord of hosts has planned, and who can frustrate it? And as for His stretched-out hand, who can turn it back?"

It was God's decretive will that was at work in His scheme to redeem mankind through His Son Jesus Christ.1 For the Bible believer, it is a given that whatever God purposes cannot be thwarted. For example, in Romans 8:28-30, we learn that God has decreed that He will justify, and one day glorify, certain foreknown individuals (viz., "whosoever will") on the basis of a foreordained Christ,2 a foreordained gospel plan,3 and a foreordained life.4 With this fact firmly established, the apostle Paul joyously affirms, "If God is for us, who can be against us?"5

In like manner, the doctrine of the resurrection rests firmly on God's decretive will. In John 6:40, Jesus said, "And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day." Again, "If God is for us, who can be against us?" Whatever God proposes, and Himself carries out, will, in fact, happen. This is the reason why God can assert that He declares "the end from the beginning, and from ancient times things that are not yet done, saying, 'My counsel shall stand, and I will do all My pleasure.'"6 This is God's decretive will.

God's Preceptive Will

But there is a second way in which the "will of God" is used in the Bible. This has to do not with what God purposed to do Himself, but with what He desires for man to do. This can be described as God's preceptive will and is primarily concerned with man's obedience to His word or precepts. The writer of Hebrews speaks of the "will of God" in this sense when he writes, "For you have need of endurance, so that after you have done the will of God, you may receive the promise."7 It was in this sense that the Lord used the expression in Matthew 7:21: "Not every who says to Me, Lord, Lord, shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven." When Jesus said "the will of My Father," He was speaking of God's precepts, statutes, or commandments. Consequently, it is in connection with God's preceptive will, and not His decretive will, that man is commanded to "work out [his] own salvation with fear and trembling."8

Furthermore, it is in connection with God's preceptive will that we understand that the Lord is "longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance."9 Actually, God's desire (i.e., His will) for the salvation of all men is reflected many places in His word,10 but such must be kept distinct from His decretive will. A failure to make such a distinction will cause one to land squarely within the Calvinist camp.

God's Permissive Will

There is a third sense in which the "will of God" is used in the Scriptures. It can be described as God's permissive will. Perhaps it is with God's permissive will that men have the most trouble. In this category are to be found all those things which God neither purposes nor desires, but which he allows man, in his freedom, to bring about.11 That which makes this third category different from the second is not the presence of God's permission, but the absence of a stated desire on God's part that these events or circumstances should happen. In this category are events God neither purposed nor desired, but, nevertheless, permits, including some things that are clearly contrary to His stated desire (will), such as man's sins. Therefore, when, in Jeremiah 19:5, God said, "They have also built the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings to Baal, which I did not command or speak, nor did it come into my mind," He made it plain that it was not His will they were doing, whether decretive or preceptive. In other words, it was not the mind (will) of God that they should do such a thing. Nevertheless, the Lord permitted His people to exercise their free wills and do those things clearly contrary to His counsel (will). Things such as this are within the "will of God" only in the sense that He permits them to happen.12

God's permissive will allows both bad and good things to occur. It is used by Paul in this latter sense in 1 Corinthians 16:7, when he writes: "For I do not wish to see you now on the way; but I hope to stay a while with you, if the Lord permits." Again, he uses it this way when, in Acts 18:21, he writes: "I must by all means keep this coming feast in Jerusalem; but I will return again to you, God willing." The writer of Hebrews put it this way: "And this we will do if God permits."13

Of course, sometimes the Lord does not will (permit) something to happen that His creatures desire to happen. As Sovereign, He has the perfect right to do so. For example, in Acts 16:7, Luke writes: "After they had come to Mysia they tried to go into Bithynia, but the Spirit did not permit them." And, according to James, the height of man's prideful arrogance is manifested by the one who does not take into consideration the fact that his desires may be, and sometimes are, superseded by the Sovereign Ruler of the universe.14

Control Not Causation

Calvinists have thought that the key to sovereignty is causation. They are wrong. The key to sovereignty is ultimate control. Through His absolute foreknowledge of every plan of man's heart, and through His absolute ability (omnipotence) to either permit or prevent any particular plan man may have, God maintains complete control (sovereignty) over His creation. The power to prevent means that God ultimately has the final word in everything that happens. To deny this is to deny the sovereignty of God!

It is true, then, that whatever happens is God's will. Everything that transpires falls within the sovereign will of God in one sense or another. However, it is absolutely crucial to understand that there are three different senses in which this may be true: (1) Sometimes a thing occurs because God decides it will happen, and then He makes it happen. This we have called God's decretive will and it seems to be limited mostly to His working out the "scheme of redemption." (2) Sometimes a thing occurs because God desires it and man decides, of his own free will, to do what God desires. This we have identified as God's preceptive will and has to do with God's commandments or precepts. (3) Sometimes a thing occurs because of the agency of an individual or group of individuals, and God permits it to happen. We have called this God's permissive will. Included in this category are sinful or careless acts like murder, or the death of one caused by the actions of a drunken driver. Even tragedies that occur through the natural processes would fit in this category. All three of these categories can be classified as "God's will," but only the first category is God's will in any causative sense. And even though God is Sovereign Ruler of the universe, categories two and three remind us that we must allow the Sovereign Ruler to respect the integrity of the freedom He has so graciously accorded His creation. As His creatures, we must learn to trust God's wisdom in knowing what good can be drawn from the tragic episodes He permits to take place in category three.

[TheProcess]

I don't think so and actually I think Calvin would likely accept the definition of free will as defined in wikipedia. People can choose their own deeds and they do so freely according to their inclinations. Inclinations is the money term of course.

sw

Which definition?

Calvin On Free Will

(From Institutes of the Christian Religion)

http://www.mbrem.com/calvinism/cal-free.htm

The impression I get, is that Calvin is a compatibilist. Can anyone quote material showing different?

[TheProcess]

So far in the discussion, I haven't seen anyone back up the claim that the argument which started the thread involves any serious misrepresentation of Calvinism, such that the argument wouldn't work against genuine and mainstream Calvinism. And there hasn't been a single post challenging the logic or premises of the argument.

[billie]

So far in the discussion, I haven't seen anyone back up the claim that the argument which started the thread involves any serious misrepresentation of Calvinism, such that the argument wouldn't work against genuine and mainstream Calvinism. And there hasn't been a single post challenging the logic or premises of the argument.

More bait ...

Great minds think alike.....

[Observer of dreams]

The most important theological position that Calvin took was his formulation of the doctrine of predestination. The early church had struggled with this issue. Since God knew the future, did that mean that salvation was predestined? That is, do human beings have any choice in the matter, or did God make the salvation decision for each of us at the beginning of time? The early church, and the moderate Protestant churches, had decided that God had not predestined salvation for individuals. Salvation was in part the product of human choice. Calvin, on the other hand, built his reformed church on the concept that salvation was not a choice, but was rather pre-decided by God from the beginning of time. This mean that individuals were "elected" for salvation by God; this "elect" would form the population of the Calvinist church.

Process the argument you presented in the begginning is valid if based on a false interperitation of Gods forsight. The argument is invalid however if this is the way the bible meant Gods forsight to be seen. So lets see....

Isaiah 32:17-18

17 The fruit of righteousness will be peace;

the effect of righteousness will be quietness and confidence forever.

18 My people will live in peaceful dwelling places,

in secure homes,

in undisturbed places of rest.

Ok so this describes the fruit of righteousness, but how do we know people aren`t predestined to be righteous?

Here is the definition of righteous

Morally upright; without guilt or sin: a righteous parishioner.

So what is a sin? here it is...

A transgression of a religious or moral law, especially when deliberate.

Ok so what is transgression...

the act of transgressing; the violation of a law or a duty or moral principle; "the boy was punished for the transgressions of his father"

So in order for you to be part of God`s kingdom you have to be righteous meaning you have to follow the law. So what is the law?

The ten commandments....ok so sum it all up

Thou shalt love yourself as you love God, and treat thy neighbor as thyself.

So if you honestly and truly love everyone and treat everyone as if they were God you will become righteous. If you don`t, but you ask for forgivness and are TRULY repentant than you are righteous also. If you refuse to love others, and refuse to repent you are unrighteous.

Unrighteousness is therefore a choice meaning the argument or doctrine of predestiny is false.

Edited August 15, 2006 by Observer of dreams

[thepreacher]

The most important theological position that Calvin took was his formulation of the doctrine of predestination. The early church had struggled with this issue. Since God knew the future, did that mean that salvation was predestined? That is, do human beings have any choice in the matter, or did God make the salvation decision for each of us at the beginning of time? The early church, and the moderate Protestant churches, had decided that God had not predestined salvation for individuals. Salvation was in part the product of human choice. Calvin, on the other hand, built his reformed church on the concept that salvation was not a choice, but was rather pre-decided by God from the beginning of time. This mean that individuals were "elected" for salvation by God; this "elect" would form the population of the Calvinist church.

Process the argument you presented in the begginning is valid if based on a false interperitation of Gods forsight. The argument is invalid however if this is the way the bible meant Gods forsight to be seen. So lets see....

<snip>

Unrighteousness is therefore a choice meaning the argument or doctrine of predestiny is false.

(O Lord help me BLD, I'm actually jumping into this exercise in arm-chair theology. )

Okay - I'm not supporting either "side" here, just asking some important questions for someone so certain and dogmatic.

How do you reconcile scriptures like John Chapter 6 (as just one example) with your statement?

Vs 37 All that the Father gives to Me will come to me and I will not cast them out.

Vs 39 That I shall lose none of all that He has given Me, but will raise them up at the last day.

Vs 44 No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day.

Vs 65 Therefore I have said 'no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him by the Father'.

Hope you don't mind me jumping in here...

No real need to reconcile these scriptures!

To me, these four scriptures don

[TheProcess]

So far in the discussion, I haven't seen anyone back up the claim that the argument which started the thread involves any serious misrepresentation of Calvinism, such that the argument wouldn't work against genuine and mainstream Calvinism. And there hasn't been a single post challenging the logic or premises of the argument.

More bait ...

How is this "bait"? Please explain exactly what you mean by that.

The view I have, is that if all certain people want to do is accuse me of "bait" then they are disrupting the discussion and contributing nothing. If you don't like a thread, if you aren't interested in it, then you don't have to participate! Coming in to a thread to make the accusation of "bait" looks suspiciously like a personal attack to me.

[TheProcess]

The most important theological position that Calvin took was his formulation of the doctrine of predestination. The early church had struggled with this issue. Since God knew the future, did that mean that salvation was predestined? That is, do human beings have any choice in the matter, or did God make the salvation decision for each of us at the beginning of time? The early church, and the moderate Protestant churches, had decided that God had not predestined salvation for individuals. Salvation was in part the product of human choice. Calvin, on the other hand, built his reformed church on the concept that salvation was not a choice, but was rather pre-decided by God from the beginning of time. This mean that individuals were "elected" for salvation by God; this "elect" would form the population of the Calvinist church.

Process the argument you presented in the begginning is valid if based on a false interperitation of Gods forsight. The argument is invalid however if this is the way the bible meant Gods forsight to be seen. So lets see....

Isaiah 32:17-18

17 The fruit of righteousness will be peace;

the effect of righteousness will be quietness and confidence forever.

18 My people will live in peaceful dwelling places,

in secure homes,

in undisturbed places of rest.

Ok so this describes the fruit of righteousness, but how do we know people aren`t predestined to be righteous?

Here is the definition of righteous

Morally upright; without guilt or sin: a righteous parishioner.

So what is a sin? here it is...

A transgression of a religious or moral law, especially when deliberate.

Ok so what is transgression...

the act of transgressing; the violation of a law or a duty or moral principle; "the boy was punished for the transgressions of his father"

So in order for you to be part of God`s kingdom you have to be righteous meaning you have to follow the law. So what is the law?

The ten commandments....ok so sum it all up

Thou shalt love yourself as you love God, and treat thy neighbor as thyself.

So if you honestly and truly love everyone and treat everyone as if they were God you will become righteous. If you don`t, but you ask for forgivness and are TRULY repentant than you are righteous also. If you refuse to love others, and refuse to repent you are unrighteous.

Unrighteousness is therefore a choice meaning the argument or doctrine of predestiny is false.

I believe you are arguing against Calvin's view of predestination? As far as I can tell, what you are saying is completely irrelevant to the soundness of the argument under discussion.

Process the argument you presented in the begginning is valid if based on a false interperitation of Gods forsight. The argument is invalid however if this is the way the bible meant Gods forsight to be seen. So lets see....

You are misusing the terms "valid" and "invalid", which have to do only with the logic of an argument, not the truth of the premises or whether the argument is necessarily sound. And anyway, the argument doesn't depend on the meaning of the Bible, (except for 1 Corinthians 10:13), but depends on its representation of Calvinist doctrine, which is claimed to be incompatible with 1 Corinthians 10:13.

[jgredline]

The doctrine of election

The doctrine of election raises serious problems in the human mind, so we must consider more fully what the Bible does (and does not) teach on this subject.

First, it teaches that God does choose men to salvation (2 Thess. 2:13). It addresses believers as those who are