PDA

View Full Version : Depravity And "Mystery"



Scriptur
01-24-2010, 05:18 PM
Clearly, God's mercy as Calvin understood it was very limited. He majors upon God's justice; and there is no disputing that God would be just in damning the entire human race. The real question, however, which we will come to in its own time, is whether God who is love would neglect to make salvation available to anyone. We believe that the Bible clearly declares God's love for all mankind and His desire that all should be saved. It is in defense of God's love and character that we propose to test Calvinism against God's Word.

According to Calvin, salvation had nothing to do with whether or not a person believed the gospel. No one could believe unto salvation without God regenerating and then producing the faith to believe in those whom He had chosen. This conclusion followed logically from Calvin's extreme view of human depravity, which he laid out in his first writings:


The mind of man is so completely alienated from the righteousness of God that it
conceives, desires, and undertakes everything that is impious, perverse, base, impure,
and flagitious. His heart is so thoroughly infected by the poison of sin that it cannot
produce anything but what is corrupt; and if at any time men do anything apparently
good, yet the mind always remains involved in hypocrisy and deceit, and the heart
enslaved by its inward perversity. [Calvin, Institutes, III: xxi-xxii]


By Total Depravity Calvin means total inability: if left to themselves, all men not only do not seek God but are totally unable to seek Him, much less to believe in Jesus Christ to the saving of their souls. He then declares that as a consequence of this total inability on man's part (some Calvinists define inability not as incapacity but as unwillingness), God causes some men to believe just as He causes all to sin. We must then conclude that God, who is love, doesn't love all men enough to rescue them from eternal punishment but reserves His love for a select few called the elect. This evident lack of love Calvin attempted to explain away by pleading the mystery of God's good pleasure, eternal purpose or will.

Some Calvinists, embarrassed by this teaching, attempt to deny that Calvin taught that God decreed the damnation of the lost from whom He withheld the Irresistible Grace which He bestowed upon the elect. Instead, they say that He simply "leaves the nonelect in his just judgment to their own wickedness and obduracy." [Canons of Dort (Dordrecht, Holland, 1619), 1, 6]

Like Augustine, Calvin says it both ways. Obviously, however, to allow anyone whom God could rescue to go to hell (no matter how much they deserved it) is the same as consigning them to that fate, a consignment which Calvin called "reprobation." Nor is there any question that, through what Calvinists call Irresistible Grace, their God could save the entire human race if He desired to do so. Surely Infinite Love would not allow those loved to suffer eternal torment - yet God, according to Calvinism, is pleased to damn billions. Such teaching misrepresents the God of the Bible, as the following pages document from Scripture.

In the final analysis, no rationalization can explain away the bluntness of Calvin's language, that it is God's "pleasure to doom to destruction" those whom He "by his eternal providence . . . before their birth doomed to perpetual destruction . . . ." This sovereign consigning of some to bliss and others to torment was a display of God's power that would, according to Calvin's way of thinking, "promote our admiration of His glory." [Calvin, Institutes, III: xxi, 1]

Here is an astounding doctrine, but there is no question that Calvin taught it. God is glorified in predestinating some to salvation and others to damnation, though there is no difference in merit between the saved and lost. That God would leave anyone to eternal torment who could be rescued, however, would demean God, since to do so is repugnant to the conscience and compassion which God himself has placed within all mankind!

At the same time that he dogmatically pronounced this doctrine, Calvin himself admitted that it was repulsive to intelligent reason. As in Roman Catholicism, Calvin sought to escape the obvious contradictions in his system by pleading "mystery":


Paul . . . rising to the sublime mystery of predestination . . . . [Calvin, Institutes, III: xii, 5]

. . . how sinful it is to insist on knowing the causes of the divine will, since it is itself, and justly ought to be, the cause of all that exists . . . . Therefore, when it is asked why the Lord did so, we must answer, Because he pleased . . . . Of this no other cause can be adduced than reprobation, which is hidden in the secret counsel of God. [Calvin, Institutes, xxiii, 2,4]

Calvin claims to derive the teaching from the Bible that God, to His glory, predestined vast multitudes to eternal damnation without allowing them any choice. In fact, while he was still a Roman Catholic he had doubtless already come to such a conclusion from his immersion in the writings of Augustine and the official (and badly corrupted) Roman Catholic Bible, the Latin Vulgate.

Spurgeon, though a Calvinist (whom Calvinists love to quote in their support) who at times confirmed Limited Atonement, was unable to escape his God-given conscience. His evangelist's heart often betrayed itself in the statements expressing a compassion for the lost and a desire for their salvation-a compassion that contradicted the Calvinism he preached at other times. For example:


As it is my wish [and] your wish...so it is God's wish that all men should be saved...he is no less benevolent than we are. [C. H. Spurgeon, Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, Vol. 26: 49-52]


It is impossible to reconcile that statement with the doctrine of Limited Atonement, which Spurgeon at other times affirmed. It is irrational to say that God sincerely desires the salvation of all, yet sent His Son to die for only some. But this, as we shall see, is just one of the many contradictions in which Calvinism traps is adherents.

Just as it is impossible to reconcile Limited Atonement with a loving God, it is also impossible to reconcile Total Depravity with Unlimited Atonement.

rjl
02-03-2010, 08:00 AM
“Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” That is straight from the Bible....

As is:

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—

and:

For it was the Lord's doing to harden their hearts that they should come against Israel in battle, in order that they should be devoted to destruction and should receive no mercy but be destroyed, just as the Lord commanded Moses.

Compare those with this idea of God loving everyone equally which you are proposing. I am amking no argument, just presenting scripture.

Scriptur
02-03-2010, 04:45 PM
“Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” That is straight from the Bible....

As is:

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—

and:

For it was the Lord's doing to harden their hearts that they should come against Israel in battle, in order that they should be devoted to destruction and should receive no mercy but be destroyed, just as the Lord commanded Moses.

Compare those with this idea of God loving everyone equally which you are proposing. I am making no argument, just presenting scripture.
Your argument is false because you are assuming into Scripture that which is not there. God shows mercy upon whom He shows mercy, which is not to say some people receive no mercy at all whatsoever. Just know that the mercy is always sufficient for each person individually (not necessarily equal, but sufficient).

You have made a mistaken assumption assuming I believe God loves everyone equally as though He gives everyone 5 parts each. No! Recall the parable of the talents: if you don't use what God gives you, you have nobody to blame but yourself. God loves everyone, shows no partiality, wants none to perish, saves to the uttermost, and is the Savior of all men, whosoever is willing. Some people need more grace, some need less in order to receive Him, but His grace is always sufficient and loves all men to die on the cross for all. He provides sufficient grace to all men, whereas your god is impotent or unable to do so. That's how I know you worship the evil spirit and a false Christ.

Piper said the first active instance of hardening was the Pharaoh hardening his own heart first. The same goes for those who came against Israel. God provides the hardening, but people provide the sinning and obedience that God enables them to have by their own free will to which He then hardens because they resist His will.

Why don't you ask yourself why God hated Esau? Don't just shut your mind down at that point. God doesn't hate for no reason at all, for that would be evil. It's because He gave up his right as the firstborn affecting the nations of Israel and Esau. Before Esau was even born, God could foresee his free-will choices that He would make even though God provided all the grace and mercy needed to keep his birthright. Think about that!

rjl
02-04-2010, 05:55 AM
I made no argument, I only provided some passages of scripture and asked you for what your thought of them.

Interesting for you to refferrence Piper considering how much you disagree with him...

Let me address something simple, again without interpretation or argument, just scripture:
"Why don't you ask yourself why God hated Esau?" The scripture says:

"though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls— she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”"(ESV)

Scriptur
02-04-2010, 06:19 AM
I made no argument, I only provided some passages of scripture and asked you for what your thought of them.

Interesting for you to refferrence Piper considering how much you disagree with him...

Let me address something simple, again without interpretation or argument, just scripture:
"Why don't you ask yourself why God hated Esau?" The scripture says:

"though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls— she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”"(ESV)

I mentioned Piper for your benefit (he contradicts his own Calvinist beliefs), not mine. You are arguing for Calvinism since you respond with Calvinist attempts who try to use the same verses to make their case. You can't hide from that by misusing the Scriptures. The reason God hates Esau is because of what Esau did so election is based on faith, not works. Faith and works are contrasted, so Esau's faith was not right which God foresaw before he was even born. Pretty simple.

Are faith and works contrasted as opposites? "By grace are ye saved, through faith;...not of works" (Eph. 2.8-9); "But to him that worketh not, but believeth..." (Rom. 4.5). Christ repeatedly gave such invitations as "Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest" (Matt. 11.28), and "If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink" (John 7.37).

rjl
02-04-2010, 06:48 AM
I'm arguing for calvinism by tossing out Biblical quotations without commenting on them?

Where in Romans 9 does it say that God loved Jacob because of his faith? It doesn't, it says: "though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls" Handle that text please.

Scriptur
02-04-2010, 08:11 AM
I'm arguing for calvinism by tossing out Biblical quotations without commenting on them?
Yes. The Holy Spirit told me so and it is confirmed by your approach which is to cite verses that Calvinists go for to try to back their case but they misread those verses as I have tried to show you how they, you, read into the text that which is not there.


Where in Romans 9 does it say that God loved Jacob because of his faith? It doesn't, it says: "though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls" Handle that text please.
"Not because of works" but "him who calls". So ask, how does He call? He draws all men unto Himself, providing sufficient grace to all men, whosoever is willing. "Savior of all men, specially those who believe" (1 Tim. 4.10) not "Savior of all men who believe, specially those who believe" for that makes no sense redundantly.

rjl
02-04-2010, 09:05 AM
The Holy spirit told you so? Some disembodied voice? Or a feeling? Don't you know that scripture is sufficient to equip you for every good work (2 TImothy 3:16-17_, and therefore no other source of information should be sort. Perhaps you read the statement of faith on my profile page. Nonetheless when I was not giving any interpretation of the texts, but just citing them, how could you say I was arguing for something that you deem to be unbiblical?

And you're mishandling the text of Romans 9.

"though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad" it is in that context that you need to handle the point about him who calls.

Scriptur
02-04-2010, 11:15 AM
The Holy spirit told you so? Some disembodied voice? Or a feeling? Don't you know that scripture is sufficient to equip you for every good work (2 TImothy 3:16-17_, and therefore no other source of information should be sort. Perhaps you read the statement of faith on my profile page. Nonetheless when I was not giving any interpretation of the texts, but just citing them, how could you say I was arguing for something that you deem to be unbiblical?
Why don't you believe in the indwelling Holy Spirit? "But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him" (1 John 2.27). You see I am receiving information from the word of God and the Holy Spirit from the Father, but because you don't have the Spirit, you misread the Word.


And you're mishandling the text of Romans 9.

"though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad" it is in that context that you need to handle the point about him who calls.
This speaks of God's infinite foreknowledge. Now ask the question why He calls one person and not another? Surely you don't think God is a nonsensical God. Therefore, He predestinates by foreknowing our free-choice. We are not pawns on a chessboard. You're mishandling Romans 9.