Calvinism critique continued

Our oracle is Christ & our triune God. your a funny little troll arent you!

 

Is Kistler here referencing Proverbs 15:8

"The Lord detests the sacrifice of wicked, but the prayers of the upright please him" ?

 

You are correct about the context. The context is God's acceptance of faith from any nationality.

 

I believe so.

Spurgeon had choice words for some nasty-dispositioned Calvinists he encountered spouting off Kistler's "scripture":

"I was preaching to children, and was exhorting them to pray, and I happened to say that long before any actual conversion I had prayed for common mercies, and that God had heard my prayers. This did not suit my good brethren of the superfine school; and afterwards they all came round me professedly to know what I meant, but really to cavil and carp according to their nature and wont. "They compassed me about like bees; yea, like bees they compassed me about!" After awhile, as I expected, they fell to their usual amusement of calling names. They began to say what rank Arminianism this was; and another expression they were pleased to honour with the title of "Fullerism;" a title, by the way, so honourable that I could heartily have thanked thern for appending it to what I had advanced. But to say that God should hear the prayer of natural men was something worse than Arminianism, if indeed anything could be worse to them. They quoted that counterfeit passage, "The prayer of the wicked is an abomination unto the Lord," which I speedily answered by asking them if they would find me that text in the word of God; for I ventured to assert that the devil was the author of that saying, and that it was not in the Bible at all." —"The Raven's Cry"

 

Just as I was about to add, the phrase, so far as I can tell is not found in scripture. If that were the case, then perhaps it might "prevent" God from hearing the "repentenant" prayers of a sinner.

 

I wasn't questioning the doctrine of Calvinism, I know where I stand on that and that's really all that matters. I was saying it doesn't make sense to try and convert calvinists because it would only be for our sastifaction.

 

This may be a good spot to interject some sanity on this issue...

First, I've seen caricatures of Calvinism in both directions posted in this and other threads discussing this issue. Some take Calvinism to a logical end -- and they end up in a hyper-Calvinistic position -- one that is not supported by Scripture. Others go the other direction, seeing a human directive to "be holy as I am holy..." in Scripture, the assumption becomes one that says that the human component is at the forefront of God's overall plan, but again, taken to a logical end results in heretical Pelagianism.

Now, here are some points to consider...

1) Neither hyper-Calvinism nor Pelagianism (and I would include semi-Pelagianism) are biblical. Both are based in arguments of human logic, and both positions have been seen as heretical because they carry a doctrine beyond what it is that is said in Scripture. Because of this, a DISCERNING look at what exactly is being said by an individual who claims that Calvinism is deterministic (hyper-Calvinistic) or that Arminianism is totally man-centered (Pelagian) needs to happen with any statement of doctrine made, no matter what the maker of the statement claims is their own doctrine. As an example, some would say that they hold to Calvinism, when in fact, a discerning view of their stated doctrine would indicate that they take the tenets of Calvinism beyond where the Scriptures allow -- and exclude some Scriptures that ought not be excluded. Same goes for those who clam Arminianism, but who argue for a more man-centered libertarian free will position, which is in fact beyond the tenets of Scripture on the Pelagian side.

2) The Scriptures (and please note this well!) have both human free will and God's sovereignty in multiple cases. God's sovereignty is not limited, but human free will is limited. We do not have "libertarian free will" in other words, the ability to do whatsoever we chose, whenever we chose it, with no consequence or with no other a priori qualifiers. The fact that we are here by God, act by God, are saved by God, etc., leads to one inescapable conclusion, there are a priori qualifiers for every action of the human will (and indeed for God's will, He not being a "liar" that can simply and arbitrarily change His mind once He has divinely willed something). Because the Scriptures show both positions, we must deal with both positions. We CANNOT pick and choose the Scriptures that best make our own case, but we must (MUST) deal with ALL the Scriptures, lest we be guilty of manipulating God's Word in such a was as to be blatant sin, and even heretical.

3) The tension between the will of humans and the sovereignty of God is rightly called an "antinomy" -- a difficult and seemingly paradoxical set of two conclusions that are not possible to reconcile using logic. This is exactly the case with the Scriptural view of God's sovereignty and human free will. God, our King and Lord, TELLS US that we must: evangelize, pray, minister, fellowship, worship, and disciple. All those issues are very human-centered issues, but they are carried out and empowered by a very sovereign God, who elects, ordains, and then gives gifts of the Spirit, passions, talents (that are honed by experience!), and abilities to accomplish His divine purpose and will. We DARE NOT set aside the expression of human will, nor the work that God has given for us to do. But, we also DARE NOT set aside God's sovereignty -- HE ALONE is the author and finisher of our faith and the executor of His divine will and purpose. He writes the story. We act it out.

4) That some, reading the Scriptures come down on the side of God's sovereignty is a given. That is the default position of the God to His people, including the Church all the way back to Genesis (yes, I understand that the church did not exist, but we must consider God's decrees as if to the Church). That some, reading the Scriptures come down on the side of human free will is a given. That is the position taken by God's people in response to His declaration that we are sinners in need of salvation and holiness. It is easy to understand why people come down on one side or the other, for both are represented in the Word, and we rightly have difficulties with the tension of the antimony expressed in the paragraph above. But... we dare not divide God nor divide God's Word in such a way as to set one portion against another, which is often the case when God's people come down on one side or the other in this discussion. Better to allow the resolution of the antinomy to stand until we are face-to-face with our King, sitting on His throne in eternity (when we will finally "see clearly") than to wrongly divide the Word of God on earth!

5) At the end of the day, all those who love God, are born anew by His Son through the in-dwelling of the Holy Spirit, are indeed ONE PEOPLE undivided, and who will inherit eternity together. God GAVE US the command to be unified as ONE PEOPLE. Jesus prayed that we be ONE PEOPLE. Are we so entrenched in our individual positions (as argued above) that we then fail to heed direct commands by our God? If so, then our positions have caused us to be sinners and if we are God's children, we can expect discipline from our Father in Heaven. We ought not desire that position, for ourselves or for our brothers and sisters in the faith! So... we should figure out how to live with each other even despite the issues and taking sides.

6) J.I. Packer, respected theologian and perhaps one of the primary thinkers in regards to resolving the antinomy between sovereignty and will, has asked the following diagnostic questions (paraphrased):

a) Do you believe that salvation is of God, and that no human saves himself? (Yes or No)
b) Do you believe that God's grace is the primary means by which He makes the atonement of Christ efficacious in one's salvation? (Yes or No)
c) Do you agree with God that you are a sinner, lost and dying (or dead)? (Yes or No)
d) Do you give God praise and thanksgiving for saving your soul, and for saving the souls of others? (Yes or No)
e) Do you pray in earnest for God to act, interact, and otherwise work to bring lost sinners to repentance, to heal broken and sick bodies, and to provide daily sustenance, to protect us from evil and the evil one, etc.? (Yes or No)
f) Do you believe that God will one day bring you to Himself in the eternity we commonly call heaven? (Yes or No)

If you answered yes to the questions above, then you already believe in God's sovereignty, and wherever you come down on the doctrines of grace, you hold that God alone can act in certain ways. If you answered no to the questions above, then you may not know the Jesus of the Bible as your Lord and Savior, for you are yet holding to some form of doctrine that is not biblical in any sense of the word.

 

Mets, I dont get why anyone would try in the 1st place. What would it profit someone to even attempt it?

 

Which is precisely why the Doctrines of Grace, or otherwise called Reformed, are not based "strictly" on John Calvin. We base them on the Scriptures, and on other godly men who have worked to interpret the Scriptures and on whom God has given spiritual gifts for understanding and teaching.

No one theologian has everything "just right." We do not have a "Goldilocks" theologian.

 

It would profit them nothing but a feeling of pride and we all know that's wrong.

 

I don't try to convert anyone.
That's not my job.
However, I do discuss and debate so I can see the strength and weaknesses of the doctrine I hold to, and up to now I don't see weaknesses in it.

 

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

 

I agree with that and I wasn't talking about you, I was refering to the original post.

 

I know. It's just that I will not presume to speak for anyone, just myself.

 

Been reading this thread and the original thread. Is anyone from the reformed camp going to actually answer Scarlett's question?

 

Was there a question worth answering ?

 

The Synod of Dort didn't duck the issue:

 

Very good post Brother!! I being in the FW camp(and my wife and I can't have kids), there is no guarantee that their kids would be saved, regardless which "camp" their mom and dad are in. As parents, the best any of them can do, is be a good witness, teach them the right way to live, teach them about God's Word, and show them the "benefits" of CHRISTianity, and the "curse" of living as a sinner.

What I meant by there "being no guarantee that their kids would be saved regardless which camp they're in" is this. IN Calvinism, God only picks, or rather foreordained some to heaven, and in this stance, some of their children are foreordained and some not, all are foreordained, or none of them were. In the FW camp, their children could accpt Christ when God calls, or reject Him. In either camp, there is no guarantee that their children(all, some or, none) will make it to heaven. As loving parents, all any can do is show them the Way and pray that God will give them the mind to follow Him.

Just fellowship with those four young couples in the church you go to, pray for them that God will lead them His way, and do not "force" you beliefs on them(I am speaking to the OP on this last paragraph Scarlett O).

i am I AM's!!

Willis

 

Calvin decrees, in Institutes 4:15:20

 

Can anyone answer the questions?