"God is not a respecter of persons" and Calvinism

[Guest]

Well said David, as for me, I am a high school drop-out with no degrees!

In fact, my 10 year old daughter is perhaps more of a Calvinist than me at times...The other day I was upset about something, and she gently came along side me and said, "Dad, don't you think God has a plan and purpose in this?".

I was more than a little embarrassed, but proud at the same time!

Mark

[Guest]

Mark,

I am proud of your daughter's spiritual perception, as you are. And while I think you said it somewhat humorously, I would not agree that this particular comment makes her "more of a Calvinist." I have never been a Calvinist, but have always believed in God's purpose being infused in every circumstance that comes my way. There is nothing in my life in which I do not see (in Sproul's terminology) "the invisible hand" of God.

This is, I believe, a common misconception (mischaracterization?) of the imagined distinction between Calvinists and non-Calvinists. I have heard Calvinists say, often, that Arminainism does not allow for God to control the fate of individuals or history in general. This represents just as great a misunderstanding of Arminianism and we are accused of misunderstanding the implications of Calvinism.

If the Calvinist believes that his system of meticulously providential decrees is the only paradigm that allows God to rule the universe, then I can understand why he thinks he must cling loyally to a Reformed position. However, I think this reveals a lack of imagination, and of the ability to engage in nuanced thinking. Such thinking, I believe, is called for in the study of the scriptures.

Anyway, congratulations on having transmitted a confidient faith in God to your daughter!

[leeweiland]

Steve G,

You have a good point, since when I was Arminian I never doubted God's control over my life and world events.

There has been a lot of talk about one side or the other not understanding the implications of our respective premises. I think we should continue to challenge each other (with an intramural spirit) as to whether one premise or the other not only accurately reflects the Scriptures but whether it gives an account for what all of us here believe, which is that God is in control.

Rather than, say, the Calvinists being sensitive to any criticism of what they are told they "really believe", we could discuss for example whether a meticulous control or a greater degree of lattitude in people's choices are described in Scripture and also whether they would account for our shared conclusions that God is in control of this world. For another example, no one here at this forum would want to take a shred of glory from God in the process of their salvation. Can this conclusion follow from monergism? What about synergism? Or perhaps both? It is completely fair of either side to judge whether a premise leads logically to a certain conclusion, and if it does not, to state so. This requires a more careful reasoning than some of the accusations that lightly get tossed back and forth.

We all know what we believe; we come to the forum to discuss and debate with those who may not agree. It is a good exercise for us to test our understanding and to have our case examined by a neighbor. I think it is fair to say that although all of us reach the same ultimate conclusion, that God deserves all of the glory and praise, it is possible that one method of arguing for that conclusion is invalid. Perhaps both are valid, although I do not think so at this point. This could be our focus in comparing and contrasting the two systems; this is a more academic approach rather than me accusing someone else of closet humanism or someone accusing the Calvinist of springing forth fully formed from the forehead of a philosopher.

[Guest]

So then, God "works all things" after the counsel of His own will. This predetermination, according to Biblical teaching, applies to the most minute details of life. Jesus said: "not one sparrow shall fall on the ground without your Father; even the very hairs of your head are all numbered" (Matthew 10:29-30). God has planned in advance the number of hairs we will have on our heads from day to day -- how much more the more obviously important aspects of what we do and what happens to us! God's sovereign plan leaves nothing to "chance," not even those details of events which appear insignificant or purposeless to us. "The lot is cast into the lap, but the whole disposing thereof is from Jehovah" (Proverbs 16:33). God's sovereignty is seen everywhere, from the laws of physics to the toss of the dice in Las Vegas.


David, Eph 1.11 "In him we were also chosen" and "Having believed, you were marked" Eph 1.13
How were we chosen? Because we were in Him and how are we in him? As Paul says "having believed." 1.13
The chosen one is Christ just as Israel was the chosen people in the OT, God is consistent, he changes not. He does'nt save people through faith in the OT and then arbitrarily choose people for salvation in the NT. Who was predestined from the foundation of the world? Christ was predestined not individual people because if that were the case a person's name could not be blotted out of the book of life, but it can.
Job rightly attributed everything to God "though he slay me." But Job did'nt know that Satan and God used Job to see IF a man could love God if it appeared that God caused his misery.
By all accounts this was a real contest to see IF Job would be loyal to God through his severe testing, which he was. Satan made a challenge to God and God allowed it. Nothing in the language indicates God micromanaged Job's heart through the ordeal. If you see this please let me know since i don't.
You claim David, that God ordains the roll of the dice based on the fact the God has intimate knowledge of small details in the universe. IMO you're reading conclusions into scripture based on making assumptions that knowledge implies action. I think these assumptions are reaches and unless scripture states that God intervenes it's unjustified to assume He does ,even though He could if He chose to.

[leeweiland]

Steve7150,

Let me respond to your post part by part.

You spliced together two verses in Ephesians to explain your point of view. Eph. 1:11 says that "In Him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will..."

and v. 13 "In Him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in Him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit..."

S7150, v11 says that the inheritance we have obtained was because of what God has predestined (predetermined, determined beforehand), and this is no surprise, because He works all things according to the counsel of His will. I do not see in v11 any mention of a condition that we met, but rather I see the counsel of God having brought about what He determined and purposed to do beforehand. Verse 13 says that when we believed, we received the Holy Spirit, but it does not say, nor does v11 or v12, that by believing, or that by God foreseeing our faith, that we were conditionally predestined. Really, that is not predestination, it is more rightly called postdestination. If God chooses us only after He sees that we chose Him, then He is simply rubber stamping what we choose. And He is free to do that, absolutely, But I do not think that is what the Scripture teaches here and elsewhere. We love Him because He first loved us.

It would be one thing if God said that He had predestined a category, but instead Paul tells his readers that it is we as Christians who have been predestined to be joined to Christ.

And this is not surprising, since the same author said in Romans 8:28-30, dealing with much the same topics of God's workings in the affairs of men to bring about the salvation of His people: And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to His purpose. For those whom He foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, in order that He might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom He predestined He also called, and those whom He called He also justified, and those whom He justified He also glorified."

When Paul speaks of foreknowledge, predestination, or election, he speaks of it as personal. The target of God's foreknowledge in these verses is not a what (like a precognition of who has faith) but rather, it is a whom that is foreknown. And it is those who are foreknown that are called in an effectual sense because they are also said with no uncertainty to be justified and glorified. Their calling and keeping is unconditional and secure.

If, on the other hand, foreknow is simply precognition, then let us ask what it is that God foreknows? Whatever it is that God foreknows is going to heaven, because whom He foreknew, He called, He justified, and He glorified. Is this everyone? Or just some? If just some, then foreknow must mean more than our European/American word for know, which is very analytical and data oriented. Rather, it means what it meant when Moses said that "Adam knew Eve". It means favor and love being placed upon someone, not just a knowledge of their existence or what they will do. God knows what everyone will do, and the text itself does not say "foreknown faith", it simply says "whom He foreknew".

I have read people on the forum deal with this by saying that "we" means a category, not individuals. I find this odd, because Paul was writing to people who he had in mind, not a category with a certain mass of people who may belong to it now but not later. For example, Paul later in the same chapter tells his readers how much he wants them to understand the depth of God's love for them - this is directed to individuals who are in Christ, not a category. How can Paul hope that a category whose contents may be in flux with people coming either in or out be addressed in this manner?

I mentioned Job not because there is a verse that says that God micromanaged His heart, but because Job's outlook was that God's form of control was meticulous to the point that this man living in ancient times without printed Scripture understood that it was God who controls and governs this world, even to the point of saying that it was God who took away His health, His money, and His children. You had challenged my notion earlier that God controls events to that degree, and you had mentioned that we need not think God caused, say, a cancer in a loved one, but rather knew that it would develop and allowed it. I do not look down on that view as if it is somehow selfish or man-elevating, I just do not think that it is the view Scripture gives. Job gave God the credit: The Lord gives and the Lord takes away, but He is still blessed. And in saying this, Job did not charge God with sin. Job saw God as more "active" than just knowing and allowing it to happen. As a loving Father, I think we could expect that. God is as protective of a Father as we would be with our children and moreso.

"The lot is cast into the lap, but the whole disposing thereof is from Jehovah" (Proverbs 16:33)."

Brother, I do not question your integrity, but I will have to respectfully disagree with your treatment of this passage. The verse doesn't say that God knows what the outcome is; it says in the ESV "but every decision is from the Lord". Casting lots was a way of determining God's will in that day, and the verse is saying that even though the act of casting lots looks random as the lots fall into the lap of the men casting them, the outcome is determined by the Lord. Look this one up in your concordance - the Hebrew is very strong. I think the English is sufficient as well. Every decision is not just known by God, it is from God Proverbs says.

[Guest]

If God did not ordain that I developed cancer, then how should I look at my cancer? How did this befall me? Did God allow certain autonomous events to happen, and the random or chance outcome was cancer? If God knew I was going to get cancer, and He allowed it, then I wonder if that is much different than saying that He chose that for me? After all, He could have prevented, if He was aware of it.

Well David, if you think God would give you cancer, you better not go to the doctor to get treatment to try and avert "God's will" for your life! As a matter of fact, if the Lord is the one responsible for all the suffering and sickeness in the world, doctors are of the devil who somehow manage to often get people out from under the affliction that God "gave them".

Such a worldview is unBiblical and silly, but that is where Calvinism leads.

Its amazing how the Devil and God switched roles in the church 2000 years later. In NT times, Jesus was the healer, and the Devil was the enemy, and often afflicted people with sickness. The Lord went around undoing what the Devil had done to people.

In Calvinism, there is no Devil, no war, and no hope of anything being other than it is. No need to pray in faith to change things--you can't! Its all scripted already.

No need to fast and get rid of unbelief in your heart so prayer can be answered, just say "Oh well, it must not be God's will". Calvinism provides all the excuses necessary for defeat--blame God. Fortunatley, the Bible teaches no such folly. It teaches plainly, and assumes throughout the free-will system. Only those assumptions explain the many statements that contradict Calvinism.

You can rest assured, if you are sick, the Lord wants you well. He will heal and forgive, if you've committed sin. He is a restorer, the Devil is the destroyer. The Devil roams around as a roaring Lion, seeking who he may devour. God and the Devil are not on the same team, nor do they work together. We are laborers together with God to OVERTHROW the works of darkness in this world.

Not only is the free-will system SO OBVIOUS from Scripture, but it tells us more--the Lord is not "in control" and He is not "Sovereign" the way Calvinists teach. The Devil is "in control" and the Lord is calling out of this world, controlled by the Devil, a people for His name before He reclaims it, the Kingdoms of the world BECOME--in the future, the Kingdom of our Lord and of His Christ. The Bible calls Satan THE "god of this world", our Lord called him a "prince" three times on the Gospel of John, and John said the WHOLE WORLD is deceived by Him and is in his power-1John 5:19.

The Devil got his authority from Adam, when Adam yielded it to him by sin. All the kingdoms of this world and the glory of them were given to Satan, and he offered them all to Christ in Luke/Matt 4. All this time, the Lord has been undoing what Adam did.

The above is EXACTLY what you find in Scripture. The only time God "afflicts" people is in judgement, when all else fails. Otherwise rest assured, general suffering, and specifically, when good Christians suffer, the Devil is behind it every time, or our own mistakes bring them upon us. The Lord is our help and deliverer. In Calvinism, He is our friend one minute, and then our enemy the next. Ther is no way to know who is doing what, so just assume God is behind it all. The Bible teaches no such blasphemy.

[leeweiland]

SSS,

I guess your break from the Calvinism forum was short lived.

When Job became sick, when his children were killed, and when his riches were lost, was it silly for him to say "The Lord gives and the Lord takes away." He was not privy to the conversation that God had with Satan, but notice that his statement was ratified by the author of the book of Job in 1:22 where it says "In all this Job did not sin or charge God with wrong."

When Moses told God that he couldn't go to Pharaoh because he was not a good speaker, what did God tell Moses? In Exodus 4:11 the Lord said "Who has made man's mouth? Who makes him mute, or deaf, or seeing, or blind? Is it not I, the Lord?"

When the Corinthians were misappropriating and mishandling the Lord's supper, what did Paul tell them regarding God's judgment on their church? In I Corinthians 11 Paul said that since the Corinthians would not judge themselves and keep themselves in the precepts of God, that He was forced to judge them, and in v.30 Paul said "That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died".

In all of these examples, it is God who takes credit or is given credit for the dealings that come upon us. Why is this silly?

You become so angry and emotional when you come up against people who do not share your view that you jump to conclusions and make illogical statements. You said that if God is the one who brings sickness, then I should not go to the doctor? Really? Why? Just because God brings a trial my way that happens to be in the form of an illness, why should I jump illogically to the conclusion that He wants me to stay sick forever or that He wants me to die?

In John 9, Jesus encountered a man blind from birth, and His disciples asked Him in v. 2 "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?" They had the same misconceptions that you do, that somehow if a person has a disability or an illness then God has washed His hands with them and wants them to wither and die. Jesus, however, said in v.3 "It was not that this man sinned, or his parents, but that the works of God might be displayed in him."

Jesus said not to worry about where my food and clothing come from, for my Father knows what I need before I even ask it. Yet I am still going to the hospital tomorrow where I will comfort the sick, knowing that their illnesses are a part of God's plan for their lives, that He might in one way or another, display His power through this difficulty they are experiencing. I have had many patients accept Christ both on their death beds and on beds they rose out of, because their sicknesses humbled them.

The devil and Jesus have not switched roles; God simply has a horizon of vision that you will not allow. He used sickness to chasten and humble people and also glorify Himself, as the above Scriptures demonstrate. And no, God does afflict people outside of judgment, since Job was not being judged for any sin. In fact, one of Job's friends wrongly stated that he must have sinned or else this would not have happened. Your post contains the same misguided and unBiblical attitude toward this matter as Job's friend. Would the reverse be true? If we are rich and healthy does that mean we are being rewarded by God?

Your post is a long rant with no exegesis, no use of Scripture, and charges of silliness and blasphemy. This is not a good topic for you to discuss. You simply end up sinning against your brothers by flying off the handle, arrogantly charging people with blaspheming God, and shooting from the hip.

Many of us have been posting back and forth and not necessarily seeing eye-to-eye, but no one has been shoveling these invectives until you showed up. Since you are refusing to take a break, I have a new strategy that I would like to suggest to the other more level headed posters here. I propose a voluntary ignoring of SSS's posts until he can bite his tongue. There is little intelligent argumentation coming from his corner and all that is happening is the tempting of ourselves to go right back to the same grevious speech habits.

[Guest]

Many of us have been posting back and forth and not necessarily seeing eye-to-eye, but no one has been shoveling these invectives until you showed up. Since you are refusing to take a break, I have a new strategy that I would like to suggest to the other more level headed posters here. I propose a voluntary ignoring of SSS's posts until he can bite his tongue. There is little intelligent argumentation coming from his corner and all that is happening is the tempting of ourselves to go right back to the same grevious speech habits.

Agreed.

All of the things that you said in your last post are biblical by the way. Calvinist or Arminian.


SSS,

We want you around brother, but you have to chill out!

D-i-a-l-o-g-u-e brother!

Irenic as opposed to polemic.

We are all brothers in Christ here!

Respectfully,

[Guest]

David, it seems to me it is your post to me that reflects a "flying off the handle" and is out of control. My post is straight-forward and blunt--yes, , but there is no "long rant". That misrepresentation right there is the "sin" you need to be concerned with--bearing false witness. I am sorry that your doctrine leads logically to blasphemy. I am not the first to point that out to Calvinists, as devout men and women have said the same things ever since Calvin showed up, esp the Wesleys. Were they in sin and "ranting"? Hardly. They were honest and HORRIFIED at the gross caricature that Calvinism makes of our Saviour. To you, He is the great Sovereign--that is the trait that matters most to you. And you define it your way, not out of Scripture. God IS LOVE. That is the characteristic, the attribute, the paradigm that everything else should be viewed from. Calvinism fails at this elementary level. I am sorry that your doctrine is repugnant, and I do not hide it from you. I think it is to be full of guile to discuss things as if they don't bother you deeply, when they do.

As for me not having any exegesis? Whatever. Yours is the standard reply when you have no answer. I cited and alluded to MANY Scriptures. And the ones I referenced directly need no magical "exegesis". What they need is for you to either BELEIVE WHAT YOU READ, or admit you don't believe what you read. Much of Scripture IS that simple.

I have some questions for you. Why did Job have to repent? He said he committed no sin, for these things to come upon him--was he right? Then why did he repent? Why was not Elihu rebuked by the Lord in all the things he said against job, and in defending God??? And does not Proverbs say "the curse causeless shall not come"?

Did Jesus EVER say NO to a healing request??? Was not Jesus Christ our full view and understanding of the Father??? How does your doctrine fare in the Gospels? It shipwrecks.

Yet I am still going to the hospital tomorrow where I will comfort the sick, knowing that their illnesses are a part of God's plan for their lives, that He might in one way or another, display His power through this difficulty they are experiencing.

I am glad you are comforting the sick, but your confort is a false comfort and it is most assuredly blasphemous. It is fatalism. The NEW TESTAMENT clearly teaches we are to LAY HANDS ON THE SICK, and in the Name of Jesus Christ pray for and command their HEALING. Your behavior is found NOWHERE in the ministry of Christ, who is our model, or the Apostles. If Paul went to your hospital, he would preach Christ, and lay hands on the sick. Sickness is the result of the fall, sin and the Devil. It is NOT part of God's plan. And if it is, then stay sick until God, who brought the sickness, lifts it. Why turn to the arm of the flesh for relief from Divine illness???

You are offended at my remarks, yet you dare to speak for the Almighty, and to sinners who suffer you lay the blame for their pitiful condition upon the Lord God. And this you do with no fear, as you tell them to blame Him for their condition. And you expect to go unchallenged? And you expect other believers to not be in shock that you would say such outrageous things to sinners? Proverbs says that a true witness delivers souls. Deliver the sick, as a minister of Christ should by teaching them God loves them and wants to heal them, if they will believe. No other approach to the sick is found in the New Testament.

I already said God afflicts the wicked in Old and New Testaments. That does not help your view. Sin is the reason, not some "mysterious purpose". Your view is grossly unBiblical and I fear for all the people who have ever received counsel, when in trials and distress, from Calvinists. I have drawn the lines. Calvinists and Arminians can never minister together on even the most elementary things. There is no agreement.

[Guest]

, that by believing, or that by God foreseeing our faith, that we were conditionally predestined. Really, that is not predestination, it is more rightly called postdestination. If God chooses us only after He sees that we chose Him, then He is simply rubber stamping what we choose. And He is free to do that, absolutely, But I do not think that is what the Scripture teaches here and elsewhere. We love Him because He first loved us.



David, What you characterize as rubber stamping , i would call choosing us because we reciprocated God's love. That's what love is, it's not responding because we are in effect hypnotized but because we desire a relationship with God by being "in Christ." Christ the predestined one, Christ the elected one.
You quoted "we love Him because He first loved us" but you provide no basis of love in your belief system since we are dragged to God. I ask, "where is the love?"
Job did love God because he sensed and he BELIEVED God loved him first. What exactly would God be showing Satan if God were actually hypnotizing Job. BTW i don't use the word hypnotize lightly but if you believe we are incapable of responding unless God intervenes on our behalf then "hypnotize" is appropriate IMHO.
And finally i was wondering if someone is elected and predestined how their name could be blotted out from the book of life?