Calvins house of cards

[Guest]

The Westminster Confession of faith reads as follows....

3:1 God from all eternity did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass: yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established

3:2 Although God knows whatsoever may or can come to pass upon all supposed conditions, yet hath He not decreed any thing because He foresaw it as future, or as that which would come to pass upon such conditions

What we can learn from this

So God ordained everything according to his will, everything that happens only happens because God decreed it, but God takes no responsibility for the sin he decreed. Nothing he decreed was based on foreknowledge but SOLELY based on his will for it to come to pass.

So the wicked go to hell not because of their sins, but because God willed them to go to hell and he decreed their sins as the means to justify the end.

Now that is some sick stuff.....

The problem with this is that Gods will is clearly stated in the bible to be the opposite of this

1Ti 2:4 who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

2Pe 3:9 The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.

Eze 33:11 Say to them, As I live, declares the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live; turn back, turn back from your evil ways, for why will you die, O house of Israel?

Eze 18:23 Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked, declares the Lord GOD, and not rather that he should turn from his way and live?

Eze 18:32 For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Lord GOD; so turn, and live."

Joh 3:17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.

and the bible clearly shows that God's will is not always done

Mat 7:21 "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.

If God's will is always done as the westminster confession says then i guess everyone will be entering the kingdom of heaven

Mat 12:50 For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother."

I guess everyone is Jesus brother, sister and mother since God's decreed everything according to his will, and therefore his will is always done


The calvinists would have us believe that God who abhors sin and evil, decreed it to happen, so he could show how angry it makes him, so that he could then punish it to make himself look good? Now that is one insecure being.

[_Steve]

I agree whole-heartedly!

Here is some correspondence that occurred on this topic between myself and a listener just yesterday:

Dear Steve,
I am a sporadic listener to the Narrow Path, only because I forget to turn the radio on some days! My husband and I have been Reformed Christians for well over 20 years, and belonged to a Presbyterian assembly for not quite that long. You're probably thinking, "Oh, oh, here it comes." Well, as I said, I am a sporadic listener to the Narrow Path. I finally remember to tune your program in today, and the first thing I hear is that Calvinism teaches that God desired man to fall so that God could get with His program of salvation. HUH? I am not angry, but am scratching my head in wonderment. Where is that written in the Institutes, or in the Westminster standards? The last time I listened to you, you told a caller that the God of Calvinism was like the Allah of Islam. I've been Reformed for well over two decades (my husband and I came to believe in the sovereign grace of God through the study of Scripture). and have NEVER heard God described in such a manner. Where do you get your information? As a sister in Christ to a brother in Christ, because as a whole, your answers to callers are very Biblical and godly. But when you start talking about the Reformed faith, I begin to cringe, because I wonder whether you have really studied it, and compared it with Scripture, or whether you just plain old don't like Calvinism!

I will continue to listen, when I remember, but PLEASE, be sure to know what the Reformed faith actually teaches, when answering questions. All this cringing is beginning to hurt.

Your friend in Christ, I hope!
K—


Hi K—,

Thanks for writing to me about this. Actually, I have studied Calvinism extensively, and have nine lectures on the subject, which cover every relevant scriptural text. The series is called, "God's Sovereignty and Man's Salvation." The mp3 files can be downloaded free of charge from my website: www.thenarrowpath.com.

I try to disagree charitably. If the way I paraphrase the Calvinist points seems stark, it is because I am trying, without misrepresentation, to underscore the issues upon which Calvinism and historic Christianity differ from one another.

Where did I get the idea that Calvinism teaches that God meant for Adam to fall? Both Calvin and subsequent Calvinists have taught this unequivocally. In fact, one of the great debates in Calvinism has to do with whether God decreed the decrees of salvation and reprobation before the decree of the fall (supralapsarianism) or after the decree of the fall (sub- or infralapsarianism). The latter view has become the majority view in Reformed churches, ever since the Council of Dort (where Calvin's five points were first enumerated). Calvin himself, however, taught supralapsarianism (as the quotes below will demonstrate). "The Evangelical Dictionary of Theology" (edited by Walter Elwell) states: "Luther, Zwingli and Calvin were agreed that Adam's fall was somehow included in God's decree" (p.1061).

Modern Calvinist writers seem somewhat uncomfortable admitting that they believe that God sovereignly ordained Adam's sin, though they cannot deny it without surrendering their consistent Calvinism. Consider the statements of the following Calvinist writers:

"...that it could not be but that Adam would sin is equally true, considering Adam was subordinate to the decrees of God, determining what Adam would do out of the freedom of his own will." (Christopher Ness, "An Antidote Against Arminianism," 1700, p.54)

"We know that God is sovereign because we know that God is God. Therefore we must conclude that God foreordained sin. What else can we conclude? (R.C. Sproul, "Chosen by God, " 1986, p.31)

“The Reformed Christian may even biblically say that God has foreordained sin. For if sin was outside the plan of God, then we would have to maintain that God does not control all things, and that some things come into being apart from His sovereign will...Nothing is outside His sovereign purpose, including sin. But the decree with reference to sin... is a decree that renders sin an absolute certainty, but it is not brought about by a direct divine act.” (Kenneth Talbot & W. Gary Crampton, "Calvinism, Hyper-Calvinism & Arminianism," 1990, pp.67,68,70-71)

If Calvinism teaches that God sovereignly decreed that man would fall, then this seems to justify my statement that the God of Calvinism desired for the fall to occur.

If you would like to see some of the places where Calvin himself taught the things I have represented him as teaching, the following quotes may suffice:

“By predestination we mean the eternal decree of God by which he determined with himself whatever he wished to happen with regard to every man. All are not created on equal terms, but some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and, accordingly as each has been created for one or other of these ends, we say that he has been predestinated to life or to death” (John Calvin, "Institutes," 3:21:5)

“We say, then, that Scripture clearly proves this much, that God by his eternal and immutable counsel determined once for all those whom it was his pleasure one day to admit to salvation, and those whom, on the other hand, it was his pleasure to doom to destruction” (John Calvin, "Institutes," 3:21:7)

"Those therefore whom God passes by he reprobates, and that for no other cause but because he is pleased to exclude them from the inheritance which he predestines to his children." (John Calvin, "Institutes," 3:23:1)

“If what I teach is true, that those who perish are destined to death by the eternal good pleasure of God, though the reason does not appear, then they are not found but made worthy of destruction...The eternal predestination of God, by which before the fall of Adam he decreed what should take place concerning the whole human race and every individual, was fixed and determined...God chose out of the condemned race of Adam those whom he pleased and reprobated whom he willed.” (John Calvin, "The Eternal Predestination of God," 8:5)

"...how foolish and frail is the support of divine justice afforded by the suggestion that evils come to be, not by His will but by His permission...It is a quite frivolous refuge to say that God otiosely permits them, when Scripture shows Him not only willing, but the author of them...Who does not tremble at these judgments with which God works in the hearts of even the wicked whatever He will, rewarding them nonetheless according to desert? Again it is quite clear from the evidence of Scripture that God works in the hearts of men to incline their wills just as he will, whether to good for His mercy's sake, or to evil according to their merits. " (John Calvin, "The Eternal Predestination of God," 10:11)

If predestination, as Calvin said, means that God "determined with himself whatever he wished to happen with regard to every man," then this must include Adam and Eve, and, hence, the fall.

If these are the views that you espouse, then I don't see any reason for you to object to my characterization of Calvinism this way. If you do not hold such unscriptural views, then you might want to disassociate from the likes of Mr. Calvin as quickly as possible.

God bless you and your husband.

In Jesus,
Steve Gregg


Hey Steve Gregg,
Thanks for your very prompt answer. I assumed that you had done your homework (so to speak), when I wrote originally, however, I didn't know that you lectured on Calvinism. John and I are looking forward to downloading those lectures. You're also correct in saying that supra- and infralapsarianism are hotly debated in reformed circles, and the latter theory has the prominence in most churches. My husband and I adhere to the doctrine of predestination and election, as it is scriptural, but predestination as being conformed to the image of Christ: look at Romans 8:29, as John is telling me here in the background. John also says that people make the mistake of saying that we are predestined to heaven or hell, but when the Scripture talks of predestination, it is that we are predestined to something, as in Ro. 8:29, or Eph. 2:10. I admit to having trouble with Calvin's statement "it was His pleasure to doom to destruction." Yet, like it or not, some are doomed to destruction. God said that he hated Esau, and Esau was rejected (Romans 9:6-13). The Lord has done and said many things, not pleasing to our way of thinking. But we have to take those things and trust him anyway. However, I cannot agree that God ordained sin, as much as I like R.C.Sproul. Yet, was God surprised by sin?

Anyway, thank you, again. You've given us much to study and ponder (and pray about). It's better to be a consistent Christian, than a consistent Calvinist.

In Jesus,
K—



Hi K—,

It is a mistake to read Romans 8:29 and Ephesians 1 as if God has predestined some to be believers and he has predestined others to be unbelievers. As you said, those passages speak only of the destiny God has in mind for those who believe. Believing is their free choice; what God does to reward believers is God's choice. The same is true about unbelievers: their unbelief is their own choice; the consequences they suffer for their unbelief belong to God (Isa.66:3-4).

God's choice of Jacob and His rejection of Esau (Romans 9:6-13) is not relevant to the subject of God choosing men to be saved or not, since there is no suggestion that either Jacob's or Esau's personal salvation were under consideration in Romans 9. In each generation after Abraham, God selected one man to be the one through whom God would fulfill the promise made to Abraham (i.e., to bring the Messiah into the world). Isaac was chosen at the expense of Ishmael, in the second generation. Jacob was selected at Esau's expense, in the third generation. That's all that Paul is pointing out in Romans 9.

This is clearly seen when we look back at the two Old Testament passages that Paul quotes about Jacob and Esau (Gen.25:23/ Mal.1:2-3)—both passages are talking about the destinies of the respective nations, Israel (Jacob) and Edom (Esau). The personal salvation of the individuals, Jacob or Esau, is not even in view. That isn't Paul's topic. It is clear that a person might be in the ancestry of Jesus without being personally saved, and that a person might not be privileged to be in the ancestry of Jesus, but might be saved nonetheless (Job comes to mind—who was probably an Edomite, of Esau).

"Love" and "hate" are terms which, in scripture, may easily be misunderstood. They mean "preferred" and "did not prefer," respectively. God didn't hate Esau any more than Jacob "hated" Leah (Gen.29:30-31 KJV) or than Jesus commands us to "hate" our parents or our children (Luke 14:26).

"Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated," simply means, "I have favored the nation of Jacob (Isreal), in ways that I have not favored the nation of Esau (Edom)." The context in Malachi makes this clear.

In Romans 9, Paul is not discussing God's choice of some people to be believers and of others to be unbelievers—in other words, he is not discussing the Calvinist concept of election at all. Paul is talking about God's dealings with the nation of Israel and showing how God's plan for Israel has not been thwarted nor have His promises failed, simply because most Jews are not saved. He is developing the doctrine of the remnant, and showing that promises made to Abraham and his seed do not necessarily apply to everyone who is descended biologically from Abraham.

Romans 9:10-13 is the only passage in the Bible that speaks of "unconditional election" (no other passages about election suggest that it is unconditional), and yet this passage isn't teaching the Calvinist doctrine at all. It is saying that God reserved the right to select, for His own sovereign reasons, and without respect to the actions of the individual men, which man of Abraham's descendants would carry the torch of the promises in his generation. But since this choice had nothing to do with eternal destinies, and only with the fulfillment of God's earthly purposes for Israel, it hardly serves the Calvinist as support for his ideas about God's unconditional election of men for salvation.

God's choice to save one man, and not another, is always conditional upon one's honoring God by doing right, upon repentance, upon faith and upon humility. The ability of fallen men to choose these things is everywhere presupposed and commanded in scripture, and (contra Calvin) these things are plainly referred to as conditions for receiving God's favor (salvation).

See the following scriptures:

a) God's favor conditioned upon doing right in the sight of God

Genesis 4:6
And the LORD said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen? If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted?

1 Samuel 2:30
"...them that honour me I will honour, and they that despise me shall be lightly esteemed."

Acts 10:34-35
Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: but in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.


b) Salvation conditioned upon repentance

Acts 3:19
"Repent, therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out..."


c) Salvation conditioned upon faith

Acts 10:43
"whoever believes in Him will receive remission of sins."

Romans 4:4-5
Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

Romans 11:20-23
Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear: For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee. Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off. And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be grafted in: for God is able to graft them in again.

Galatians 2:16
"we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified..."


d) God's favor conditioned upon humility

James 4:6/ 1 Peter 5:5
"God resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble."


The Calvinist may say that these apparent "conditions" are not conditions at all, but are "evidences" of God's electing grace already at work in the lives of the parties who have these qualities. The only problem with this suggestion is that nothing in scripture supports it, and unregenerate people are commanded to meet these conditions and are punished if they fail to do so. In other words, these things are everywhere treated as conditions to be met by the sinner. If acknowledging this spoils some cherished doctrine of ours, we can react in one of two ways:

1) we can suppress the truth of these scriptures "for the higher good" of saving our doctrines, or

2) we can change our doctrine to agree with the scriptures.

In my spiritual journey, as a Bible teacher for over 35 years, I have always chosen the latter course. It is painful, at times, but rewarding! "You shall know the truth, and the truth will make you free."

Blessings upon you both, in Jesus' name,

Steve Gregg

[Guest]

Steve,
So in what way are the representation of calvinists view of God's nature and character like Allah of Islam?

[_Steve]

In Islam, whatever happens is viewed as "the will of Allah." Allah is pictured as the direct ordainer and controller of all events. This resembles the view of Calvinism, that God has ordained all that comes to pass, including sin.

My reading of the Bible sees man as being given a more significant role in his own choice of actions, creating a situation where God considers certain choices to be commendable, and others blameworthy. Bad things can occur which God would have preferred to see happen otherwise (Luke 7:30/ Ezek.33:11/ 2 Pet.3:9/ Matt.23:37; etc.).

God is still the sovereign Ruler of the universe, which means that He retains the prerogatives of control and punishment, when He chooses to impose such, but He is not the puppet-master who determines every action of creatures created in His own image. This is analogous, in scripture, to the sovereignty of a father over his children. He has the power and the right to both control his children's behavior, and to punish bad behavior, but he can not (and would not) force his children to love him or embrace in their hearts what is good in his sight. He leaves some discretionary choices to his children, but retains the right to limit outcomes and to penalize bad choices.

Thus the God described in Calvinism is, in this respect, more like Allah than he is like Yahweh.

[Guest]

In Islam, whatever happens is viewed as "the will of Allah." Allah is pictured as the direct ordainer and controller of all events. This resembles the view of Calvinism, that God has ordained all that comes to pass, including sin ... Thus the God described in Calvinism is, in this respect, more like Allah than he is like Yahweh.

That is a sobering thought, Steve. But it is so true!!

If we are not "able" to "respond," then we are not "response-able," for our sin. How then can God hold us accountable for our actions? If we are not "able" to give an "account," then we can't be accountable for our sin. What a paradox thousands of Calvinists face throughout the world.