Writing a book on free will

[FutureAndAHope]

What did Calvin teach about the human ability to respond to God's call and the human ability to respond to God's word, to choose to follow God or not?

What did Augustine teach?
What did Luther teach?
What did Arminius teach?

If you know then please post brief, succinct answers to each of those questions. All four of those questions can be answered in one to four sentences.

I have not had the time to read all of these people. I have stuck to the writings of the Early Church who knew the Apostle's teachings. I only have a limited amount of time in a day. If you desire could you fill me in on what they said?

 

[FutureAndAHope]

Why? Is the book open for discussion, and will you answer questions about the book and address comments and criticisms? If any one point of the book proves to be incorrect, will you change the book accordingly? How about if there prove to be multiple areas where the book should be amended or corrected; what then?

If your point proves true then I will amend it.

 

[FutureAndAHope]

@FutureAndAHope,

That book states, "No matter the will of man, no matter his effort or deeds, he will neither be saved nor damned based upon them, but rather assigned a destiny by God, he will be forced to accept his fate."

Do you believe a person can work his or her way to salvation?

See this post for a basic view https://christcentered.community.forum/threads/writing-a-book-on-free-will.1538/page-2#post-63740

 

[FutureAndAHope]

@FutureAndAHope,

That book states, "John Calvin stated it the following way in his work The Institutes of the Christian Religion: he [God] arranges all things by his sovereign counsel, in such a way that individuals are born, who are doomed from the womb to certain death, and are to glorify him by their destruction." Your book does not provide the context in which or explanation for that quote.


Do you know why Calvin wrote that?

Do you think it important to inform your readers how Calvin arrived at that position?

Do you think it acceptable to tell others that's what Calvin taught without also providing the context and explanation?

Is this book for sale, or do you intend to publish it for sale?

The fact is that one statement sums up why I am writing this book, it is a wicked thing to assign to God. I have been around Calvinism enough to know why he said that.

 

[FutureAndAHope]

@FutureAndAHope
more to consider

According to libertarians, the power of contrary choice means that it is always within the ability of the human will to believe or reject the gospel. If we have the natural capacity to believe or reject the gospel freely (in the libertarian sense) why is there the need for the Holy Spirit in salvation at all, especially when the gospel is preached? If you ask a libertarian whether he could come to faith in Christ apart from any work of the Spirit, like all Christians, they must answer ‘no’. In other words, even to a libertarian, it is not “within the [natural moral] ability of the human will to believe or reject the gospel.”

If you look at what Jesus said:

Joh 14:15-16 "If you love Me, keep My commandments. And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper,

The Holy Spirit is given after we take steps toward God's revelations to us. The word of God is Spirit and life. The Holy Spirit reveals God's word and will. How we respond, determines if God grants the Holy Spirit.

Joh 14:22-24 Judas (not Iscariot) said to Him, "Lord, how is it that You will manifest Yourself to us, and not to the world?" Jesus answered and said to him, "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him. He who does not love Me does not keep My words; and the word which you hear is not Mine but the Father's who sent Me.

Causeless Choice: John 3:19 says that those who reject the gospel do so because the love darkness and hate the light. A libertarian, on the other hand, to be consistent, must assert that one rejected Christ, not necessarily because he hated him, or on the other hand did not chose Him because he had affection for Him, but rather only because he chose to, which is contrary to everything we know of Scripture. We all know that the will ultimately chooses from the desires and affections of the person. Quoting the Old Testament prophet Isaiah, Jesus rebukes the Pharisees for the error of choosing without intent by saying, “THIS PEOPLE HONORS ME WITH THEIR LIPS, BUT THEIR HEART IS FAR AWAY FROM ME.” This reveals that it is impossible to honor Jesus with a faith that does not also honor Him from the heart. This is not very different from the kind of faith libertarians are describing.

If you look at my other post, you will see what I believe "loves the darkness and hate the light means" https://christcentered.community.forum/threads/writing-a-book-on-free-will.1538/page-2#post-63740

The Belief in Libertarian Free Will Destroys Moral Responsibility: Consider the opposite that if criminals just chose to commit a crime but had no intent or motives for it at all then the lawyer would be forced to plead insanity for his client before the court. If the choice to commit a crime were not based and caused ultimately on a reason, desire or motive then he would have to be absolved from guilt because he would not be responsible for it. If one chose to murder someone simply because he chose to it would be a sign of sickness not responsibility. Libertarian free will, therefore, destroys responsibility. Moral responsibility exists, not in spite of, but because our choices have reasons, motives, intent. Only the determinist, therefore, upholds moral responsibility. Can we be held responsible for doing something we do not want to do?

Not really. We don't just have the choice of the cross to consider. But our daily choices. These determine if God grants us life or not.

Rom 2:6-8 who "WILL RENDER TO EACH ONE ACCORDING TO HIS DEEDS": eternal life to those who by patient continuance in doing good seek for glory, honor, and immortality; but to those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness—indignation and wrath,

Scripture Incompatible with Libertarian Free Will: There is simply no passage in Scripture where our wills are seen to be independent of God’s plan and our desires (libertarian freedom). The position is a philosophical construct. A failure to demonstrate a biblical basis for this belief again means that libertarian should be abandoned. In fact the Scripture shows just the opposite. God clearly says that it was He who foreordained the crucifixion but he also holds those who did it responsible (Acts 2:23; 4:27-28). Judas’ betrayal was said to be according to Scripture (Acts 1:16; John 17:12), but God does not hold him any less responsible for it.

Rom 1:21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.

I believe each vessel of wrath, Judas, those who crucified Christ, had previously built a nature opposed to Christ. Judas through his theft. God had previously endured them with much long-suffering.

Rom 9:22 What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction,

They were then assigned by God the task of betrayal.

There will be no libertarian freedom on the new earth because we will be compelled to choose good because that is what we will want by nature. Libertarians often call anyone’s life where we cannot chose otherwise either robotic or one where we cannot be held responsible for our choices. If true then this would have to apply to God and our future glory as well. Is God a robot because He cannot choose to be unholy?

Maybe we build that nature here through our choices.

The Libertarian makes his philosophy of the will central to his interpretation while compatibilists and hard determinists make the covenant grace of God in Christ central. To make libertarian free will the philosophical glasses through which one looks at the whole of Scripture (when the Text says nothing about such a belief) is a radical departure from honest biblical interpretation, by any standard. But the bias is so ingrained, it appears, that libertarian free will is simply accepted by many because they say it is 'obvious'. But our preference or feeling is not the basis of how we determine Scriptural truth, especially in such critical matters.

There is nothing in Arminian theology to prevent God from only creating those whom he foreknows would respond to the gospel. Since this obviously is not the case, where does that leave the love of God as defined by the Arminian and set in defamatory contrast to Calvinism? In the end God knows everything (is omniscient) and therefore, even in the libertarian scheme, prior to even creating the universe God knows the choices all persons will make before creating them, so why did He go ahead and create them?

I beg to differ, God does not foreknow in the Arminian sense. The LORD although fully in control of what happens in creation, does not force his will on their moral choices. So God both, does not know how wicked a person will be until they live.

Gen 6:5-7 Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And the LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. So the LORD said, "I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man and beast, creeping thing and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them."

Libertarianism dismantles the biblical doctrine of salvation by grace alone. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ purchased in our redemption, to the libertarian, is never sufficient in itself. This grace is conditional and only when faith is contributed to the mix is it considered sufficient. Faith is seen as something that arises separately from Christ’s work rather than as a result of it. So to a libertarian, we could not properly thank God for our faith since it is the only thing that is alone self-generated. While all men have grace, so they say, grace is not what makes men to differ from one another. If something other than grace sets apart the elect from the non-elect then it is not grace alone (or Jesus alone) that saves. John W. Hendryx

But the Bible does not present the idea of grace alone, we still have to work out our salvation with fear and trembling. We are justified by grace and saved not because of our perfect deeds. But faith without works is dead. Jesus even said our response to His word determines if we receive the Holy Spirit. God is very gracious and extends us much grace, but there is an element of our response and action being important.

Joh 14:15-16 "If you love Me, keep My commandments. And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper,

 

[jeremiah1five]

Hi all,

As a believer in free will, I am writing a book on the case for free will (compared to Calvinism). I am looking for people to read it and give feedback or suggestions. The draft (not final) book can be found at https://www.everybodymattersministry.com/downloads/predestination.pdf

If you have time have a read.

Free will in man is an illusion.
There is only One free and Sovereign will: Yahweh.

 

[fastfredy0]

Rom 2:6-8 who "WILL RENDER TO EACH ONE ACCORDING TO HIS DEEDS": eternal life to those who by patient continuance in doing good seek for glory, honor, and immortality; but to those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness—indignation and wrath,

Agreed ... but this statement does not address the Cause (the FREE in free will) and the Cause in the crux of your message. There are ample verses saying if we do A or B then the outcome will be X or Y.

Aside: Sorry for constantly being critical... but I assume that's what you want; a contrary view point.

We have choices to make throughout life, it is never just one choice. Through these choices, we build a nature, one leaning toward sin, or one willing to respond to God and our conscience.

I agree that our 'depraved nature' is adjusted over time. I say God adjusts it and you say one can change himself. This is dualism; that there is another power other than God that can change things. This contradicts the Law of Causality. Consider:
Causality is a connection of phenomena through which one thing (the cause) under certain conditions gives rise to, causes something else (the effect). The first cause must be from a source that is eternal. God is the only eternal entity [and thus his being is causeless] and thus the ‘first cause’ of all things. Thus, the God is the cause of the human will, thus man’s will is not free; rather, it is designed by God. Author Unknown

When one who supports the idea of Freewill or self-determinism is asked “why you did something he has no answer”. He will resort to a non-answer like “because I wanted to”. When asked why he wanted to he responses “because I choice to want to”; when asked why he choice to want to, he responses “because I wanted to choice to want to” … and on and on the circular reason goes. It contradicts the Law of Causality. Author Unknown

“God’s will is, and rightly ought to be, the cause of all things that are. For if it has any cause, something must precede it.” John Calvin
Acts 17:28 For in Him we live and move and exist [that is, in Him we actually have our being], AMP

 

[fastfredy0]

Joh 14:15-16 "If you love Me, keep My commandments. And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper,

The Holy Spirit is given after we take steps toward God's revelations to us. The word of God is Spirit and life. The Holy Spirit reveals God's word and will. How we respond, determines if God grants the Holy Spirit.

Again, the verse does not address the crux of our discussion; "what is the cause (the Free in Free Will) of people doing what we want to do (the WILL in Free Will). You assume it is man self-determining his fate (dualism).

Premise 1: 1 Cor. 2:14 But the natural [unbelieving] man does not accept the things [the teachings and revelations] of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness [absurd and illogical] to him; and he is incapable of understanding them, because they are spiritually discerned and appreciated, [and he is unqualified to judge spiritual matters].
Conclusion: The natural [unbelieving] man cannot come to God because the CAUSE of coming to God is the Spirit.
Here we have cause and effect which is the crux of the matter in regards to Free Will.

Example of verse addressing the CAUSE (the Free part of Free Will) ....
Matthew 11:23 And you, Capernaum, are you to be lifted up to heaven? You shall be brought down to Hades [the region of the dead]! For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have continued until today. 24 But I tell you, it shall be more endurable for the land of Sodom on the day of judgment than for you. 25 At that time Jesus began to say, I thank You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth [and I acknowledge openly and joyfully to Your honor], that You have hidden these things from the wise and clever and learned, and revealed them to babies [to the childish, untaught, and unskilled]. ... Christ taking about people going to hell and going on to say that God "hidden" and "revealed information from various groups of people
Romans 9:18 So then, He has mercy on whom He wills (chooses), and He hardens [the heart of] whom He wills. Again.... cause and effect ... the Free part of Free will

 

[Josheb]

I have not had the time to read all of these people.

Then you are unqualified to critique Calvin and Calvinism. Arminius, the most notable and prominent synergist in Christian history was Augustinian. He subscribed to what we now call "Total Depravity," (TD) or the doctrine teaching sinful humanity does not and cannot respond to God salvifically in its own power. In other words, the inability to do so is not just Calvinist. Even though the label was coined in Calvinist thought, most of Christendom has taught that view almost from the beginning of the Church. That lack of knowledge is disqualifying. The completely opposite view: that sinful man is NOT compromised by sin so severely that he cannot respond salvifically to God is called Pelagianism. You should read up on the debate between Augustine and Pelagius and how Pelagius' views were argued, prayerfully considered, and determined to be heretical. You should also read about the history of the Pelagian point of view preceding and following Pelagius' life because nowadays it is called Provisionism but a lot of Christians have never heard that label, have no idea who Pelagius was or what he taught, or that their views are different from what has been taught in Christianity by both monergists and synergists for centuries.

James 3:1
Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, knowing that as such we will incur a stricter judgment.

A person takes on a potentially terrible burden when he presumes to teach others what to think and how to think without having done his/her research. That's how heresies get perpetuated.

Do you know who Jacobus Arminius was? Do you know what he believed and what he taught? Article 7 of Disputation 11 proves Arminius and Arminianism are Augustinian.

I have stuck to the writings of the Early Church who knew the Apostle's teachings.

It is good that you consult the ECFs/ However, it is my (informed) opinion you have not done a very good job of representing them, any more than these many ops of your demonstrate a correct understanding of Calvinism. One of the chief problems when reading the ECFs is that there was a huge diversity of thought and opinion on various matters and few if any doctrines had been established. It took 400 years for the early Church to establish its doctrines and that includes some of the most important doctrines in Christianity, like Christology and soteriology. Many of them were anti-Semitic. None of them were Dispensational (they occasionally used the term "oikonomia," but never as modern-day Dispensationalists do so).

I only have a limited amount of time in a day. If you desire could you fill me in on what they said?

If you read the link to Disputation 11 you'll see Arminius was a TDer. This is the Arminianism & Calvinism board. TD is one of the few positions shared by the two soteriologies.


I am curious about something you posted. A small portion of Calvin's "Institutes of the Christian Religion" was quoted. From where did you get that quote? Was that quote taken from another website or book not written by John Calvin? If so, then how do you know the quote is accurate and/or representative of Calvin's views? Have you ever read the "Institutes..." for yourself? Do you understand what an enormous problem it is for you to post in this forum if the answer is no? If that book has not been read then you come into a forum heavily populated by well-educated, well-read Calvinists and presume to tell them about Calvin - while possessing an unwillingness to learn from them because before you even enter the forum you think they are all wrong. Calvin was Catholic. Calvin was not Protestant like you or me. That's an important distinction. Calvin originally wrote the "Institutes..." in an effort to reform the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) from within. The original version was only three "chapters" or "books" long. Calvin repeatedly edited it and added to it over the course of most of his life. It was never a fixed or static work. It's likely he would have added more to it had he lived longer. Perhaps not. About halfway through his Protestant life he began to examine, exegete, and comment on the books of the Bible. He was older, more mature as a man, and practiced as a theologian by that time. As a consequence, his commentaries are MUCH more informative about his theology than "The Institutes..." By the time his commentaries were written he'd been cast out of the RCC and realized the Protestant Reformation was changing the Church and the schism was likely irreparable. The problem is it takes a long time to read all his commentaries thoroughly. In reailty, the problem is you say you have limited time. Not enough time to do due diligence and research what you write before telling others how and what to think, but enough time to do so without the research. Blessedly, Calvin's (and others') commentaries can be found for free within a few mouse clicks at any Bible website, like Bible Hub. If you click on that link I just provided, you'll see the word "Comment" in the middle of the screen near the top. While in any book of the Bible that word can be clicked on to show a number of commentaries written by a very diverse group of Christian writers, including Calvin. I've chosen Romans 8 on this occasion. You can see the list of commentaries. Click on "Calvin" and it takes you to Calvin's commentary. You'll be surprised to discover what Calvin wrote. He is one of the most prodigious and exacting writers in all of Christian history - even if you do not agree with him.

From where did you get that quote? Was it directly from Calvin, or from second-hand or third-hand source?

 

[Josheb]

If your point proves true then I will amend it.

Scripture tells us the mind of flesh is hostile to God and it cannot please God. Scripture also tells us righteous works of the sinful flesh are filthy rags to God. The story of the tower of Babel tells us it is hubris to think we can build anything sufficient to reach God. Logic tells us the finite can never reach the infinite. My point is proven true by both scripture and logic.

See this post for a basic view https://christcentered.community.forum/threads/writing-a-book-on-free-will.1538/page-2#post-63740

That post does not answer my question. The word "work" is nowhere found in that post and what you have done there is exegetically flawed. You've taken a verse written by a regenerate believer, written to regenerate believers, mostly about regenerate believers and applied it to unregenerate non-believers in a manner not supported by the text itself. Romans 2:6-8 juxtaposes the Christian to whom Paul was writing against those "those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness—indignation and wrath." There's no third group of people in that passage. There's no group of unregenerate non-believers who work their way to salvation in that passage.

My question was not answered.

This is important because the opportunity to post a one-word answer arose and you chose to delay, obfuscate, and avoid the answer and effectively move the conversation forward. A single, simple, immediate, direct and unqualified "Yes," or "No," would have sufficed and been much more effective, so I am going to ask the question again. I will clarify it so you better understand what I am asking.


Do you believe an unregenerate person can work his or her way to salvation?


Keep in mind all the unregenerate, sinful person has is his flesh.

 

[Josheb]

The fact is that one statement sums up why I am writing this book, it is a wicked thing to assign to God.

The problem is Calvinism does not assign to God what you say Calvinism assigns to God and you have not made your case either way. That fact is God can do whatever He chooses and that includes make trash. It's not up to you or me to judge God if or when He does. God can make many people for many things and it's not up to any of us to judge Him or His works. Those who delusionally imagine they can judge God should He make a person solely for that person's destruction are probably going to be judged wrathfully in a manner that doesn't end well because they've broken the first commandment of the decalogue and the greatest of all the commands by elevating themselves above God.

And if that's not in your book then it needs to be amended accordingly.

Jeremiah 18:5-12
Then the word of the LORD came to me saying, "Can I not, O house of Israel, deal with you as this potter does?" declares the LORD. "Behold, like the clay in the potter's hand, so are you in My hand, O house of Israel. "At one moment I might speak concerning a nation or concerning a kingdom to uproot, to pull down, or to destroy it; if that nation against which I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent concerning the calamity I planned to bring on it. "Or at another moment I might speak concerning a nation or concerning a kingdom to build up or to plant it; if it does evil in My sight by not obeying My voice, then I will think better of the good with which I had promised to bless it. "So now then, speak to the men of Judah and against the inhabitants of Jerusalem saying, 'Thus says the LORD, "Behold, I am fashioning calamity against you and devising a plan against you. Oh turn back, each of you from his evil way, and reform your ways and your deeds."' "But they will say, 'It's hopeless! For we are going to follow our own plans, and each of us will act according to the stubbornness of his evil heart.'

Romans 9:14-24 ESV
What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills. You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory — even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?

Calvinism does not teach the kind of determinism you wrongly thinking it does, but even if it did there is abundant scriptural basis for doing so. The Potter can form the clay any way He likes for any purpose He chooses, and the clay cannot protest.

Calvinism is criticized, but the reality is there's an issue with God underlying these ops.

Isaiah 45:9
Woe to the one who quarrels with his Maker— A piece of pottery among the other earthenware pottery pieces! Will the clay say to the potter, ‘What are you doing?’ Or the thing you are making say, ‘He has no hands’?

Calvin's commentary on this matter is HERE.

I have been around Calvinism enough to know why he said that.

That is nowhere evident in these posts. A number of errors have been made demonstrating an irrefutable lack of knowledge and understanding - and an entrenched prejudice preventing any facts or truth from permeating the biases.

I do not know what "been around Calvinism" means but you have the opportunity right here and right now to "be around Calvinism" and prove your case and the effort is lacking. I cannot even get a simple, immediate, direct answer to the question, salvifically speaking, Can and unregenerate sinful person work his way to God?


.

 

[Arial]

The fact is that one statement sums up why I am writing this book, it is a wicked thing to assign to God. I have been around Calvinism enough to know why he said that.

Do you think that really qualifies you to write a book on the subject? And how can you know why Calvin said something by being around Calvinists centuries later? Is your reaction of one statement made by one man, hundreds of years ago, removed from all its context, an emotional reactionary one devoid of knowledge? Is the knowledge you do not possess, and cannot possess, when one starts with a bitter anger that blocks all reason on the subject, what you should have in order to write a book on the subject?

Or is it just an exercise in venting those emotions and reactions, spreading it abroad, and bent on destruction?

 

[Arial]

Hi all,

As a believer in free will, I am writing a book on the case for free will (compared to Calvinism). I am looking for people to read it and give feedback or suggestions. The draft (not final) book can be found at https://www.everybodymattersministry.com/downloads/predestination.pdf

If you have time have a read.

I read up to half way through page 3 so far. Maybe when I have more time I will read more, and maybe if I have time I will at some point pull quotes from your book and show the weakness and falseness in them. But you are not off to a good start. First of all you use a definition of predestination that is wrong. So the entire premise is off. And second of all I suggest you take a deep dive into critical thinking. So far you have used nothing but logical fallacies, assumptions, speculations, proof texts (meaning they come from a confirmation bias, and there is no effort to expound on them from within their context, and no effort made to make sure they contradict nothing else in the Bible). You jump to conclusions from isolated comments etc.

 

[Josheb]

I read up to half way through page 3 so far. Maybe when I have more time I will read more, and maybe if I have time I will at some point pull quotes from your book and show the weakness and falseness in them. But you are not off to a good start. First of all you use a definition of predestination that is wrong. So the entire premise is off. And second of all I suggest you take a deep dive into critical thinking. So far you have used nothing but logical fallacies, assumptions, speculations, proof texts (meaning they come from a confirmation bias, and there is no effort to expound on them from within their context, and no effort made to make sure they contradict nothing else in the Bible). You jump to conclusions from isolated comments etc.

^^^^^What she said^^^^^

Seriously, @FutureAndAHope, both that book and these ops on Calvinism are woefully flawed in many diverse ways. We're not trying to be unkind. If Calvinism is going to be criticized, then let it be criticized justly and accurately.



To prove my point, I will post a valid criticism of Calvin's views, one with which I think most Calvinists here in CCAM will agree. Calvin attributed his salvation to his infant baptism. He was Roman Catholic and in the Catholic Church baptism is a Sacrament that is considered salvific. One of the greatest debates that ensued during the Reformation was that over the sacramental and salvific nature of infant baptism. Huge, often violent, debates ensued over this. It is why Anabaptists came into being. As the Reformation aged the developing denominations took various views and developed varying doctrines and practices. The aforementioned Anabaptists rejected infant baptism. The Presbyterians kept the ritual but removed its inherent salvific power. Calvin taught it was salvific. I reject that position, and I do so wholesale and unequivocally.

And I attend a conservative, evangelical Presbyterian congregation .

Most, if not all, of the Calvinists here will agree with what I just said (and I invite them to do so @FutureAndAHope can witness the agreement). We Calvinists rejected the salvific nature of pedobaptism long ago. Calvinism does not accept, believe, and teach everything Calvin believed and taught about salvation. John Calvin died in 1564. The Westminster Confession (WCF) was written a century later. I linked us to it earlier. The WCF upholds the practice of infant baptism as a ritual of promise but does not assert the ritual saves anyone. In other words, Calvinism grew and changed as the many competing views within Calvinism were examined using scripture as their measure.

Just as I can post points of disagreement with Calvin, I can do the same with the WCF. Most of us Cals can. That's possible because Calvinism is not monolithic, any more than Arminianism or Pelagianism is monolithic. There is, in fact, a fair amount of diversity within Calvinism but all of us hold to a core set of positions or doctrines that begin with the overarching belief it is God and God alone who saves, and He does so without any regard for the faculties of the sinner being saved from sin that would otherwise destroy the sinner.

If the Calvinists here reading this portion of the post will "Like" the post then you can see we do not mind criticism or disagreement. We simply want it to be valid, veracious, and based on relevant facts, not red herrings and straw men.



No one believes God is responsible for humanity's sin. No one. Not even Calvinists. That entire op is based on a red herring.

If your point proves true then I will amend it.

I am waiting. If you mean what you say, then you will post something in that thread acknowledging God being responsible for Man's sin is not something anyone - including Calvinists - believe. Amend that thread accordingly.


Run a poll if you like. This forum has a board specifically for that purpose. Never mind; I just set up the poll HERE on your behalf and cast the first vote . Let's find out how many Calvinists believe God is responsible for Man's sin. I'll post a link to the poll in the other thread, too.

 

[Arial]

The Westminster Confession (WCF) was written a century later.

Yes. A product of the Scottish Reformation.
@FutureAndAHope I agree with @Joshebs post #54 in what he is saying about Calvin, Calvinism on the issue of infant baptism. There are other places where those who identify with Calvinism or Reformation theology differ within the ranks. Some aren't truly monergistic. Some are dispensationalists, some hold to Covenant theology rather than D'ist. Some are fatalist or determinists. Some are not.

 

[FutureAndAHope]

From where did you get that quote? Was it directly from Calvin, or from second-hand or third-hand source?

I have the Institutes of the Christian Religion in my reference library. I have read a little of it but not much. The quote I used came from a debate between prominent church leaders. I then found it in my reference library and cut and pasted it. Because it sums up the crux of the matter.

 

[FutureAndAHope]

Do you believe an unregenerate person can work his or her way to salvation?

No. This is what I believe:

How is one saved? I believe through an attitude of repentance. One will not even come to the cross if they have no desire for repentance if their deeds are evil. Jesus showed the difference between a person whose deeds were evil and one who when seeing God’s law was trying to do right. We see the person lacking repentance here:

Joh 3:19-20 And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed.

And one who is trying to do right.

Joh 3:21 But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God."

Paul mentioned even as an unregenerate man he “delighted in the law”, but had no power to obey it.

Rom 7:14-23 For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin. For what I am doing, I do not understand. For what I will to do, that I do not practice; but what I hate, that I do. If, then, I do what I will not to do, I agree with the law that it is good. But now, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me. For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells; for to will is present with me, but how to perform what is good I do not find. For the good that I will to do, I do not do; but the evil I will not to do, that I practice. Now if I do what I will not to do, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me. I find then a law, that evil is present with me, the one who wills to do good. For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man. But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.

The cross gives power over sin by giving us the Holy Spirit, and forgiveness if we fall. But God will not give the Holy Spirit to the lawless one, for even with the Spirit he will not keep it.

Joh 14:22-24 Judas (not Iscariot) said to Him, "Lord, how is it that You will manifest Yourself to us, and not to the world?" Jesus answered and said to him, "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him. He who does not love Me does not keep My words; and the word which you hear is not Mine but the Father's who sent Me.

Even after salvation, one must maintain an attitude of obeying God. For it is through patience and continuance in doing good that we possess our souls.

Rom 2:6-11 who "WILL RENDER TO EACH ONE ACCORDING TO HIS DEEDS": eternal life to those who by patient continuance in doing good seek for glory, honor, and immortality; but to those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness—indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish, on every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek; but glory, honor, and peace to everyone who works what is good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For there is no partiality with God.

For even the Christian if they bear weeds can fall away according to Hebrews.

Heb 6:7-8 For the earth which drinks in the rain that often comes upon it, and bears herbs useful for those by whom it is cultivated, receives blessing from God; but if it bears thorns and briers, it is rejected and near to being cursed, whose end is to be burned.

We see it is an attitude of repentance, not our past works, that leads to salvation. In the passage of The Thief on the cross.

Luk 23:39-43 Then one of the criminals who were hanged blasphemed Him, saying, "If You are the Christ, save Yourself and us." But the other, answering, rebuked him, saying, "Do you not even fear God, seeing you are under the same condemnation? And we indeed justly, for we receive the due reward of our deeds; but this Man has done nothing wrong." Then he said to Jesus, "Lord, remember me when You come into Your kingdom." And Jesus said to him, "Assuredly, I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise."

One man only cared about himself, the other was remorseful saying “Do you not even fear God”, it was this act of genuine repentance before God that resulted in life.

This is why Jesus told His disciples to keep His commandments, it was preparing them to have an attitude of repentance, which would be realized in the need for the cross. It was not that you do 10 good deeds then are saved, but rather maintaining an attitude of going God’s way results in revelation.

John 14:15 "If you love Me, keep My commandments. And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever—

 

[FutureAndAHope]

First of all you use a definition of predestination that is wrong. So the entire premise is off.

What is wrong with it? Please correct my error.

 

[Arial]

What is wrong with it? Please correct my error.

---predestination is a. the act of God foreordaining every event from eternity, b.the doctrine or belief, esp associated with Calvin, that the final salvation of some of humankind is foreordained from eternity by God", and a."God foreordained everything that would happen b. God predestines certain souls to salvation and esp. Calvinism, others to damnation," (Collins 2023)

Predestination in the doctrines of grace in Calvinism is not dealing with every event from eternity. It is dealing with Him predestining that those He chooses unto salvation will come to Christ. This is what He foreordains. The definition has conflated and confused two things. And your definition repeats itself, saying the same thing twice.

If you are writing a book on the subject, instead of going to a dictionary for a definition, which is above and beyond lazy and ill prepared to write a book, (any professor worth his salt and had your best interests at heart would say the same) one should get their information from the source. Study what the various Protestant creeds of the Reformation had to say about it. The ECF may provide some useful information but they were not all in agreement.

 

[fastfredy0]

Predestination in the doctrines of grace in Calvinism is not dealing with every event from eternity. It is dealing with Him predestining that those He chooses unto salvation will come to Christ. This is what He foreordains.

“Election” is the selection of some for eternal life, the positive side of predestination; whereas reprobation is the lack of selection for eternal life. Foreordination (God’s Decree) is God’s will with respect to all matters that occur, whether that be the fate of individual human persons or the falling of a rock. “Predestination”, as sub-division of foreordination, refers to God’s plan of individual for eternal life or eternal death.
That's the definitions I use; my 2 cents worth.