Calvinism - an attempt at a common definition for the sake of discussion

God doesn’t choose to know anything. He is all-knowing, iow, omniscient.

 

Yes, God is just. But you’re conflating that with fairness. God consigning wicked ppl to hell is Him being just.

 

In man's view.

 

If that man was Jesus Christ.

Ever heard the story about that guy who beat then sold his car because it did not have gasoline?

I have its God implied by Calvinism.

 

There is a thing called Sincerity.....and HONESTY. I think God is Honest. Has absolutely NO FEAR to allow pride or mortal rubbish to get in the way of speaking his mind.

Here's something that is not a secret. God COMMANDS ALL PEOPLE Not to sin. \

That means he WANTS everyone in heaven. Unless you think God is Deceptive.

Again it takes a person with worldy view, who thinks God is is paganlike being closer to human suffering defects like pride and fear to think God can command he wants everyone to do GOOD and believe well he said it tongue in cheek he doesn't REALLY want them to do good.

We all have various views of the character of God, What he would be like.

But when a Calvinist is behind the wheel to the wonderings of what God must be like, I can only think you poor abused child.

They think they are so tough and by the book but its all based on a coward's view of Power.


If God showed up and said I command all to sit down......I think i would immediately look at our Calvinist brethren and wonder if that would register as a want. I'd lean over......"are you sure he wants you to sit down?":Devilish

Did he really say don't eat the fruit?:Devilish

 

Bit confusing. God knows everything. You don't think he knows what you will or will not believe? if yes, why?

 

I agree. However, creating a soul with no chance to avoid hell is NOT just nor fair. God does NOT do that!

 

And that view was given to man by GOD in His word. As God said ALL sin carries punishment, culminating in the 2nd death in hell, if not forgiven by Jesus, He punishes in other ways as He chooses, sometimes not at all in this life. He punished Achan & family with death, as well as a man gathering wood on the Sabbath, which seem like minor sins compared to murder & other violent crimes, while people like Stalin and Pol Pot received no earthly punishment. And he said ALL have sinned & come short of the glory of God, so ANYONE, to be saved, must come to JESUS for forgiveness of their sin, & deliverance from the penalty of hell for those sins.

 

Calvinists and Arminians both presuppose that if God were in control of whom is saved and if God loves all men equally, then God would have to save all men. The former resolves this by denying that God loves all men equally, while the latter resolves it by denying that God controls whom is saved. Here's a view from the middle:

God does not merely deal with men as individuals. He also deals with the race (of man) as a race. There's an understanding of how God deals with men that's older than federal headship, and that used to be the majority view prior to about the 18th century. It's the idea that the moral and spiritual nature of all men was mysteriously (but literally) present within Adam and participated in his sin--and that natural propagation involved more than mere physical nature, giving all men a deserved responsibility and ownership in Adam's sin.

Because we as a race participated in Adam's sin, then no man deserves anything good from God. The rebellion of the race in Eden brought sin and death into the world, along with other deserved consequences. One of the awful consequences that fall upon the race for that original sinful act is that now, only a remnant will be saved, and the remainder will be lost. All sides ought to agree that this is the result. We need only look to the Old Testament to find that God at various times saved only a remnant when His people rebelled against Him. The sins of a race bring consequences to the race.

Some have said that it would be unjust for God to bring a man into the world knowing that he would not be saved. This is the same as saying that God was unjust to allow sin to come into the world, knowing that it would cost the eternal lives of so many---or saying God was unjust to bring Adam and Eve into the world, knowing they would sin and as a result, so many would be lost.

But it is not unjust for God to glorify Himself by creating as He sees fit. The whole purpose of creation was so that the Savior could become a man and sacrifice Himself to save sinners. Without sin, no one would know what righteousness is. Without death, no one would comprehend life. Without the cross, no one would understand the love of God. So while the cost of allowing sin into the world was and is so high, God must have decided it would be worth the price to obtain a redeemed people in the end.

 

That's good. I thought at first you believed God made souls automatically & irrevocably destined for hell no matter what.

 

from the 1689 cof

3._____ By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestinated, or foreordained to eternal life through Jesus Christ, to the praise of his glorious grace; others being left to act in their sin to their just condemnation, to the praise of his glorious justice.
( 1 Timothy 5:21; Matthew 25:34; Ephesians 1:5, 6; Romans 9:22, 23; Jude 4 )

 

1689 cof
6._____ As God hath appointed the elect unto glory, so he hath, by the eternal and most free purpose of his will, foreordained all the means thereunto; wherefore they who are elected, being fallen in Adam, are redeemed by Christ, are effectually called unto faith in Christ, by his Spirit working in due season, are justified, adopted, sanctified, and kept by his power through faith unto salvation; neither are any other redeemed by Christ, or effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only.
( 1 Peter 1:2; 2 Thessalonians 2:13; 1 Thessalonians 5:9, 10; Romans 8:30; 2 Thessalonians 2:13; 1 Peter 1:5; John 10:26; John 17:9; John 6:64 )

 

From my perspective, there are actually two ways.

"The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance." ( 2 Peter 3:9 ).

The first way is the way I was exposed to it for over 25 years in the IFB circles I was part of...
With the verse isolated from the text, as in the above, it is used as support ( in conjunction with John 3:16, 1 Timothy 2:4, Romans 2:11, 1 John 2:2 and several others, to give people the idea that God loves all men, wants to save all men, is no respecter of persons, and that He sent His Son to die for all men.

The "us-ward" was believed and taught as applying to all men...and until placed back into the context of the passage, it very much looks that way to those of us who were exposed to this for a long time.
Then one day I was reading and it occurred to me, that there is context to the passage:

" But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day [is] with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up." ( 2 Peter 3:8-10 )

The "us-ward" goes from "all men" to the subject of the passage in verse 8...the "beloved".
In the greater sense, the entire letter is written to believers and concerns believers, not unbelievers.

So, the "us-ward" changed it's identity from all men, like I'd had it presented by my pastors for years, to God's children, His beloved.


I now understand it as saying that God is long-suffering to His children, not willing that any of them perish ( for support, please see Matthew 18:14, John 3:16, John 6:39, and John 10:28 to see how much God is willing for His children to perish ), but that they all come to repentance.

 

He may not ( and I'm not saying that he does or doesn't ), but I do.


"And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, [even to them] which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed." ( 1 Peter 2:8 )

" But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption; " ( 2 Peter 2:12 ).

" These are wells without water, clouds that are carried with a tempest; to whom the mist of darkness is reserved for ever." ( 2 Peter 2:17 )

" For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ." ( Jude 1:4 )

I also think that this is for another thread.;)


Now that this thread has de-railed, I'll back out of here. :)

 

I could almost agree to this statement because it doesn't say "others" forced to act.

But "being left to act" isn't exactly true, we even bug sinners not to sin, jail criminal sins, ect. Even if I give you a license to kill that doesn't mean you will use it.

Also some of the wording like "their" Just condemnation VS "God's" Just condemnation. I don't think "Just condemnation" might not even fit here.

I also have a problem with the idea that God only has predestinated SOME oppose to ALL.


With the use of the word "SOME" the LOOPHOLE here is so massive, Your non-cal buddies can simply say. Yes Jesus Christ was the only preordained/predestinated/foreordained ect.

What if I say, I WILL leave you to act as a murderer tomorrow. Does that guarantee me everyone will murder someone?

When its to your just condemnation = you justly deserve no condemnation.

 

All this is telling me is Everyone in heaven is ELECT. I think everyone agrees with this.

Just saying everyone in heaven was appointed by God does NOT EQUAL to all appointed by God will go to heaven.


Using a complicated word like effectual may shoot Calvinist agenda in the foot here even in its multiple definitions.
Especially when that word is tied to "DESIRE" and "WANT". Or in the case of effect having no effect against wetting water for example.

I'm not even a lawyer but I bet they can spot the cracks here.

 

I feel like there are some issues here of not being able to harmonize paradoxes like absolute sovereignty, predestination and free will that people have not thought through.

Theres alot of things stated by NON-CALS that make me think if they thought things through and actually believe what they say they believed they would be Calvinists.

There are also plenty of Calvinist beliefs that make me think if they thought things through and actually believe what they believed they would be HYPER CALVINISTS.

And once they get to that HYPER CALVINIST spot there is a couple of things that make me think if they thought it through and actually believed what they say they believe they would be NON-CALVINIST.

 

I agree with this. HOWEVER, nothing you said here supports the idea that God would somehow not be completely just if, for his own purpose and glory, created vessels prepared for destruction.