Why Do People Hate Calvinst?

It is a challenge to arrive at a theology of God and the origin of evil.

 

What are you asking? Are you asking if God is the author of evil?

 

My challenge is for calvinists on the BB to arrive at a theology of the origin of evil that is consistent with who God is and is in agreement with what 1 Sam 16:14-16 teaches.

I think that many do not recognize the failure in their own theology that they do not include to that extend. What I have found in the past that their view of the sovereignty of God does not include the origin of evil but they essentially ignore it.

 

OK, I think I understand you. It is true that some Calvinists have said that God is the author of evil, and I have posted those statements by Calvinists several times.

My own personal view is this, in order for there to be true and genuine love, you must have choice. If you truly love God it is because you choose to do so and are not forced. Love is never forced.

Allowing man the free will to love God also allows man to hate God if he so chooses.

God never tempts any man to sin (James 1:13-14).

God knew man would sin, but that does not mean God caused man to sin. I have used the car example several times, but I think it is a good analogy.

Our automobiles are designed to drive faster than all posted speed limits. They actually have to be designed this way to operate properly. And man must have free will to operate properly as well, we could not love without free will.

Do the automobile manufacturers know in advance that some drivers will drive their cars well over posted limits and cause deadly accidents? Yes. Does that make them the cause of the accident? No.

And it is the same with God, he had to give us free will in order that we be able to freely love him. Otherwise we would be no more than programmed robots.

But this same freedom can be used to commit evil. Does that make God the cause of evil? No, because we are all responsible for our own actions and in control of our own actions, just as the driver of a car is responsible for how he operates his vehicle. The very definition of responsible means we are in control of our response.

 

I take the position that God created everything and that includes evil. Then we must understand that in light of Jewish culture and understanding. The Jews saw everything in one big circle and God is in that circle. Whereas we tend to compartmentalize everything. So that makes it difficult for us to understand how God could possibly have anything to do with evil.

I also believe that God in His sovereignty created man with the ability to make choices. He made man with no choice in some cases and in other cases he left man with choices. It is like the farmer who puts his cows out to pasture. The cows had no choice in the choice of the pasture but within the boundaties of the pasture they have choice to eat wherever they want.

Most of scripture was written in a Jewish context that is very different than ours which is much closer to a Greek culture. I think that is where a lot of trouble is in interpreting scripture.

 

Hmmm... I really don't know much about traditional Jewish belief.

But even Satan was not evil when he was created.

Eze 28:13 Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created.
14 Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire.
15 Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.

Satan wasn't created evil, he was perfect the day he was created. But he had free will and chose to rebel against God. This is when he became evil.

Did God know he would rebel? I believe so. But again, that does not make God responsible for Satan's free actions.

Could God have made us so that we could not sin? Some would say yes, but I disagree. Because if we could not make a choice we could not love. We would be nothing but robots. Would you love God if you had no choice? I don't know about you, but I personally rebel against constraint. If I was forced against my will to obey someone, I would not love them, I would hate them. I think most folks feel this way.

But you say he could have made us with a will to love him. Well, maybe so, but we would be nothing more than a programmed robot. That would not be real love at all.

 

I think where folks get things backwards is believeing we must sin because we are the servants of sin. But if you read the scriptures carefully, you will see that Jesus said the exact opposite. He said we are servants of sin because we sin.

John 8:34 Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.

Now, read that carefully. Does it say we sin because we are the servants of sin?

Or does it say we are servants of sin because we sin?

What does it say?

 

Neither. It does not create a causal link in either direction. It neither says that one sins because they are a servant of sin, nor does it say that one is the servant because they sin. It says only that one who sins is a servant of sin.

Consider the same logical structure in these sentences:
Whoever pays taxes to the king is a subject of the king.
Whoever digs ditches is a ditch digger.
Whoever loves their neighbor is a servant of God.
Whoever lives by faith is a believer.

It should be evident that the logical structure of the verse does not necessarily imply causation in EITHER direction. In logic its called a categorical statement (in this case "All P are Q.") By itself, all a categorical statement provides is the truth value of certain relationships between P and Q. For instance, if we know that "All P are Q" is a true statement, then we can know that the statement "Some P are not Q" is false. However, none of the relationships defined by a categorical statement logically imply causation.

The only "exception" to this is if an actual statement of causation is present in the categorical statement. For instance, "All those with fevers are sick." (no causation either direction) is very different from "All sickness are fever-causers." (or in less formal structure "All sicknesses cause fevers." Without the actual statement of causation, no causal relationship can be implied from a simple categorical statement. However, this verse contains no statement of causation.

To demonstrate this further, lets take the statement in the verse and reverse its direction: "Whosoever is a servant of sin is one who committeth." Would you consider this statement logically imply that being a servant of sin causes one to sin? Or would you hold that the statements merely says how we can identify a servant of sin, or tells us one aspect of what it means to be a servant of sin?

 

I disagree. Someone who does not pay taxes is not being subject to the king. If you do not dig ditches you cannot be a ditch digger. You aren't born a murderer, you must murder someone to be a murderer, you cannot be a bank robber until you rob a bank. It is the robbing the bank that makes you a bank robber. And the same with sin, you must sin to be a sinner.

The scriptures do not teach that you have to sin because you are a slave to sin. They clearly teach the opposite.

Rom 6:16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?

The word "yield" shows we have a free will choice in the matter. If we yield ourselves to sin we become the servant of sin. If we yield ourselves to obey righteousness we become the servants of righteousness.

Calvinism teaches exactly the opposite of what the scriptures truly say. Calvinism teaches that we are born sinners and have no choice but to sin. If this were so, we would have no personal responsibility for our sin.

Calvinism reverses many scriptural doctrines like this, teaching exactly the opposite of what the scriptures say.

 

That may be true...but thats not what the verse *says*. I am not saying your overall conclusion is wrong but that your attempt to make the verse argue in that way is fallacious. The verse does not say that one must sin in order to be a servant of sin. The verse only says that whoever sins is a servant of sin. Regardless if you are right about one needing to sin in order to be a servant of sin, that is not what the verse says. The two statements are not logical equivalents.

The verse clearly indicates that those who Paul is addressing have the ability to freely yield themselves to one master or another. Who is Paul addressing? Clearly he is addressing believers (see vs. 1-15 of the same chapter). So, all that is clear is that this statement applies to believers. Might it also apply to both believers and unbelievers? Since Paul doesn't clearly restrict to only believers, then yes it might apply to unbelievers as well. However, such a conclusion is not so clear. Whether this applies to unbelievers or not will have a lot to do with what other suppositions you bring to this passage.

Short story, you are partly correct - it clearly indicates the ability to choose freely between masters...but it doesn't clearly teach this is true for unbelievers.

<snip pointless rhetoric>

 

Also, it appears you are confusing terms as well. You seem to be conflating terms like "sinner", "servant of sin" and "sin nature". To you they all be represent the same concept, but to the Cist they don't. So be careful in presenting Cist though using your own terms. Thats fallacious.

 

That is a ridiculous argument. How can you be a sinner if you never sin? Was Jesus a sinner? Why? Because he never sinned.

People don't simply start calling you a bank robber. You have to rob a bank first to become a bank robber.

But this is what Calvinism has done, it has turned folk's thinking topsy-turvy and says you sin because you are a sinner. That would be the same as saying you had to rob a bank because you were first a bank robber. Absurd.

Well, I'm glad you at least ascribe free will to believers, but the scriptures show all men have free will. Joshua told the Israelites to choose whom they would serve. Moses told the Jews to make a choice also. What? Moses and Joshua did not understand doctrine?

Joshua 24:15 And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that [were] on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.

Notice Joshua told them to choose "whom ye will serve". If they chose to serve God they would then be the servants of God. If they were totally enslaved, how could they make a choice?

Cain was lost, but God said he could do well and he would be accepted. He also said Cain would rule over sin, but Calvinism teaches the opposite.

Gen 4:7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.

Nobody has to sin. Even before I was saved I knew right from wrong and nobody put a gun to my head. Most of the time I chose to do good, but sometimes I chose to do wrong.

 

So does Arminianism. In order to avoid this, you have to become a Pelagian, and Pelagianism has been condemned as a heresy for more than 1500 years (if memory serves me correctly).

We may not be able to agree on everything, but every Bible believer should agree on that all men are born sinners. It is the only thing that gives us hope for salvation. If you believe that you are made sinful by your sin, then you have to believe that you are made righteous by your righteousness. The Bible, filled with God's grace, in Romans 5 teaches us that because we are made sinful by something we did not do, we can be made righteous by something we did not do. Every true believer affirms the latter. Only inconsistent believers don't affirm the former.

That's neither logical nor theological. All men are born sinners and all are responsible for it.

 

I am neither an Arminian nor a Pelagian. I believe what the scriptures say, and both Jesus and Paul said you become servants of sin when you sin.

Show me one place in the Bible where it says a man is born a sinner. The Pharisees accused Jesus of being born in sin, was that correct?

John 9:34 They answered and said unto him, Thou wast altogether born in sins, and dost thou teach us? And they cast him out.

So, by your reasoning you must be a Pharisee, you are making the same argument they made. Are you a Pharisee?

I believe 100% of men sin (excepting Jesus of course). All men choose to sin and therefore become sinners. But nowhere do the scriptures say we are forced to sin by nature, in fact, Paul said the Gentiles by nature do the law.

Rom 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

Now you explain to me how these Gentiles could by nature do the things contained in the law if their nature was sinful and they could only sin?

Explain that to me, I would like to see how you wiggle out of this one.

 

1. Be careful conflating terms. The passage doesn't say "sinner" it says "servant of sin". Maybe the difference isn't significant, and maybe it is. Either way, lets stick with what the passage actually says to avoid confusion if nothing else.

2. "How can you be a sinner if you never sin?" Generally speaking Cists don't even argue that one can be a sinner w/o having sinned. Certainly I am sure that there are some who do, but then nobody is precise in the use of terms as they should be. If you go to *the* Calvinist document for English speakers, the Westminster Confession, you will find that no such argument is made. There a sinner is simply one who sins. That is, after all, the most basic meaning of the term.

Instead, the argument that better represents Cism is that the sin nature precedes sin. So technically, one may have a sin nature w/o being a sinner. One becomes a sinner when one sins. As far as I can tell, your argument that a contradiction exists is based on a misunderstanding of how Cism uses terms. Regardless of what some individual Cist on the BB may have said, I don't believe you will find many (if any) Cist theologians who takes such a stance.

3. I point out again that this is different than what you originally argued. Originally you argued that sinning was the cause of one being a servant of sin. I simply point out that the verse does not say such. Finding a causal link in the verse would be fallacious.

4. Additionally, exchanging the term "sinner" for "servant of sin" only compounds the problem. Certainly, sinning one must sin to be a sinner, but the verse talks about "servant of sin" rather than "sinner". That sinning causes one to be a servant of sin is not at all clear in the verse. It is not even clear or logically necessary from the verse that one must sin in order to be a servant of sin. The only way it becomes "clear" is if you switch out "servant of sin" and insert the term "sinner". But if you do that, then the verse becomes a tautology.

<snip pointless rhetoric>

First of all, the discussion over that verse was never about free will. After all, most Cists will readily agree that everyone has free will (ie. that is, everyone freely chooses whatever they wish to choose - God does not compel them against their will). See Jonathan Edwards writings on free will for a good explanation of the Cist view of free will.

What?! you may ask. Well, I will readily admit there is confusion on this. The reason for the confusion has to do with a choice of how terms are defined...but thats a lengthy discussion. I would be glad to explain in more detail on another thread, but for here is is sufficient to point out that I, as a Cist, believe that everyone has free will (although our meanings for the word may be different).

Ditto to what I said above...and taking further comments to another thread.

 

Be careful with terms here. What do you mean by "sinner" and "born sinners"? For instance, if you mean "born sinners" does that imply we might not have been a sinner while in the womb? You get my drift?

 

Hated

I don't think one group hates the other, it is the argument that the other is wrong is causing the friction. One group is saying that there is those elected to life eternal and others to death and nothing man can do that can change that. I am sorry that you can't put all Calvinist believe by one sentence nor can you say all that God is saying and put them in five points. The other group to me is saying that God has also included anyone who hears the Gospel of their salvation having believed after Jesus is lifted up and glorified.

That trust in the Lord is the only way not to work for your salvation.

Romans 4
Abraham Justified by Faith
1What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather, discovered in this matter? 2If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about—but not before God. 3What does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness."[Gen. 15:6; also in verse 22]

4Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. 5However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness. 6David says the same thing when he speaks of the blessedness of the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works:
7"Blessed are they
whose transgressions are forgiven,
whose sins are covered.
8Blessed is the man
whose sin the Lord will never count against him."[Psalm 32:1,2]

The world hates both groups not just the Calvinist, because both preach Jesus is the only way.


1 John 3:
11This is the message you heard from the beginning: We should love one another. 12Do not be like Cain, who belonged to the evil one and murdered his brother. And why did he murder him? Because his own actions were evil and his brother's were righteous. 13Do not be surprised, my brothers, if the world hates you. 14We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love our brothers. Anyone who does not love remains in death. 15Anyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life in him.

I pray that we don't hate (murder) one another but communicate in Love.

 

Look up what the terms mean in a good theological dictionary (though a bad theological dictionary will still be right).

Not familiar with that passage. I did a quick search and can't find anything. I saw earlier someone reference John 8:34, but I can't imagine you are referring to that because that verse clearly does not say anything about becoming servants of sin. I also saw Romans 6 referenced, but that does not say anything similar either. So we can see that both proof texts don't actually make the point. Perhaps you have come up with something else.

Rom 5 is clear on this, as is a verse like Psa 51:4. There are others. You are spitting in the face of the entire history of orthodox theology. This isn't really even disputed.

No, Jesus was God. That is a reference to his virgin birth. They were speaking of being born to an unwed mother. That is a completely different issue than this.

No, I'm making an entirely different argument, one that virtually all believers in church history have made. You are showing you don't understand the point if you think mine is the same as the Pharisees.

Because having a sin nature doesn't mean we can only sin. Again, you are showing ignorance of the Bible. Sinners do good things because of the image of God in man. The image of God in man prevents man from being as bad as he could be. It is part of God's common grace.

Total depravity means does not mean that man is as bad as he could be or that all men are equally bad. It means that sin affects every area of man's being. Even the worst of sinners do good things by God's common grace. The "nature" there is the image of God in man.

If you were not ignorant of the Bible and theology, you would know that there is no wiggling there. This is what has been taught for 2000 years. I think we are seeing that you have been grossly failed by your pastor and your teachers over the years because you do not understand the basic facts.

This is not about Cal vs. Arm. It is about basic biblical teaching about the nature of man.

Spend the next week or so in Romans 5:12-21. Do not post here. Just pour yourself into that passage and study it out. Draw pictures and charts, define the words in the original language, pay particular attention to the conjunctions and connecting words. It won't make you a Calvinist, but it will help you to understand how basic this issue is to the salvation of our souls.

Simply put, if what you say is true, then the whole gospel is changed.

 

You are absolutely right.