In Calvinism where is the love

[Theo1689]

Yes your response was nonsense . Maybe you will read Calvin below and correct your misunderstanding on what Calvin taught and believed about double predestination.

Why are you so obsessed with "Calvin"?

Again I ask: whence does it happen that Adam's fall irremediably involved so many peoples, together with their infant offspring, in eternal death unless because it so pleased God? Here their tongues, otherwise so loquacious, must become mute. The decree is dreadful indeed, I confess.

"Dreadful" does NOT mean, "horrible".
And "dreadful" does not mean, "false".

 

[preacher4truth]

Where is the love? So judgemental. Matthew 7:1

Isn't that from the one who made an attack and mock thread against Calvinists, amongst the many and incessant attack Calvinist threads?

 

[Reformedguy]

Isn't that from the one who made an attack and mock thread against Calvinists, amongst the many and incessant attack Calvinist threads?

The loving Provisionist way

 

[preacher4truth]

Why are you so obsessed with "Calvin"?



"Dreadful" does NOT mean, "horrible".
And "dreadful" does not mean, "false".

Well, his responses are certainly dreadful, which is why I skip over them for the most part.

 

[fltom]

I did address what was written, it was in these things called "quotation marks." You didn't see that? Or, since I hit the target, the proof is being witnessed in the complaining?

Lastly, there were no false motives attributed, what was stated is the truth of the matter; it shows a loathing of the God of Scripture, or at the least a loathing of the true God of Scripture we present, or there would have been no need for your comment otherwise. Right? Right!

Biblically speaking, I'll continue to use the discernment I've been given to make accurate conclusions.

No you did not

you just misrepresented me and indulged in ad hominem

and it is not loathing of the God of scripture but your distortions of him

 

[Theo1689]

you just misrepresented me and indulged in ad hominem

Yet you have no problem misrepresenting Paul, Calvin, and A.T. Robertson, simply because they aren't around to correct your misinterpretations of them.

Double standards much?

 

[preacher4truth]

No you did not <sic>

"Did too!"

I quoted you, and you're making false accusations.

Bottom line you LOATHE the God of Scripture we present in ALL His Glory.

you <sic> just misrepresented me and indulged in ad hominem <sic>

You're indulging in false accusations. I quoted you, in these things called "quotation marks." You're denying this, correct?

and <sic> it is not loathing of the God of scripture but your distortions of him <sic>

Where are "my" distortions of Him? Everyone here knows Tom that you among the others of your ilk are merely the complainers against God represented in Romans 9:19-21.

 

[Howie]

Obviously you do not understand Calvinism teaches divine meticulous determinism of all things apart from any foreknowledge of what man might do

and that is violence to the will he himself determined


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,b nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.
II. 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.
III. By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life, and others foreordained to everlasting death.


Westminster Assembly, The Westminster Confession of Faith: Edinburgh Edition (Philadelphia: William S. Young, 1851), 26–27.

Yawwwwwwwwwwwwn ...

 

[Theophilus]

Another false claim by this poster.

Try reading with understanding this time .

Again I ask: whence does it happen that Adam's fall irremediably involved so many peoples, together with their infant offspring, in eternal death unless because it so pleased God? Here their tongues, otherwise so loquacious, must become mute. The decree is dreadful indeed, I confess. (latin. "Decretum quidem horribile, fateor."

See the word horrible right after dreadful ?

 

[Theo1689]

Try reading with understanding this time .

Thank you for the insult.
Where is the love in anti-Calvinism?

Again I ask: whence does it happen that Adam's fall irremediably involved so many peoples, together with their infant offspring, in eternal death unless because it so pleased God? Here their tongues, otherwise so loquacious, must become mute. The decree is dreadful indeed, I confess. (latin. "Decretum quidem horribile, fateor."

"Dreadful" does NOT mean "horrible".
"Dreadful" does NOT mean "false".

See the word horrible right after dreadful ?

No, actually.... I don't.
I see the LATIN word, "horribile" (how many "i"s do you count in that word?)
See the word, "latin" at the beginning of the parenthetical comment?
Now lose the boorish attitude, okay?

 

[Josheb]

Obviously you do not understand.....

I don't trade posts with those who make the conversation personal and do so derisively. Fix that if you wish to continue. I understand Calvinism just fine. So, stow that cr@p.

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,b nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.
II. 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.
III. By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life, and others foreordained to everlasting death.


Westminster Assembly, The Westminster Confession of Faith: Edinburgh Edition (Philadelphia: William S. Young, 1851), 26–27.

You just contradicted yourself. The WCF states God foreordained and predestined BUT it ALSO states He did so without causing violence to the will of the creature or the contingencies of secondary causes. That is not meticulous determinism. That's a very dynamic world full of volitional creatures and causes other than God. In other words, Human will is asserted and affirmed in the WCF. So too are causes other than God. Sometimes Calvinists miss this or don't understand it. On those occasions I do with them what you should be doing with this op: correcting the errors. It's not okay for Calvinists to misrepresent or otherwise misunderstand Calvin any more that it is for Arminians to do so.

Which brings me to the more op-relevant reply to your post.....




More importantly though, is the attempt to hijack this op from your fellow synergist. This op isn't about determinism. This op is about the claim there is no love in Calvinism, and the use of Calvin never stating the phrase, "God is love" in a treatise on reform to prove an absence of love when the fact is Calvin wrote about God's love quite substantively and on many occasions wrote about God's love for all, even if one of his later followers, Pink, thought differently.

Stay on topic.

 

[Theophilus]

I don't trade posts with those who make the conversation personal and do so derisively. Fix that if you wish to continue. I understand Calvinism just fine. So, stow that cr@p.


You just contradicted yourself. The WCF states God foreordained and predestined BUT it ALSO states He did so without causing violence to the will of the creature or the contingencies of secondary causes. That is not meticulous determinism. That's a very dynamic world full of volitional creatures and causes other than God. In other words, Human will is asserted and affirmed in the WCF. So too are causes other than God. Sometimes Calvinists miss this or don't understand it. On those occasions I do with them what you should be doing with this op: correcting the errors. It's not okay for Calvinists to misrepresent or otherwise misunderstand Calvin any more that it is for Arminians to do so.

Which brings me to the more op-relevant reply to your post.....




More importantly though, is the attempt to hijack this op from your fellow synergist. This op isn't about determinism. This op is about the claim there is no love in Calvinism, and the use of Calvin never stating the phrase, "God is love" in a treatise on reform to prove an absence of love when the fact is Calvin wrote about God's love quite substantively and on many occasions wrote about God's love for all, even if one of his later followers, Pink, thought differently.

Stay on topic.

I started the thread so you are off topic . The fact is Calvin left it out of the institutes. I’m not concerned with his other writings . Try and stay on topic with the institutes . And you made the conversation personal .

 

[fltom]

I don't trade posts with those who make the conversation personal and do so derisively. Fix that if you wish to continue. I understand Calvinism just fine. So, stow that cr@p.


You just contradicted yourself. The WCF states God foreordained and predestined BUT it ALSO states He did so without causing violence to the will of the creature or the contingencies of secondary causes. That is not meticulous determinism. That's a very dynamic world full of volitional creatures and causes other than God. In other words, Human will is asserted and affirmed in the WCF. So too are causes other than God. Sometimes Calvinists miss this or don't understand it. On those occasions I do with them what you should be doing with this op: correcting the errors. It's not okay for Calvinists to misrepresent or otherwise misunderstand Calvin any more that it is for Arminians to do so.

Which brings me to the more op-relevant reply to your post.....




More importantly though, is the attempt to hijack this op from your fellow synergist. This op isn't about determinism. This op is about the claim there is no love in Calvinism, and the use of Calvin never stating the phrase, "God is love" in a treatise on reform to prove an absence of love when the fact is Calvin wrote about God's love quite substantively and on many occasions wrote about God's love for all, even if one of his later followers, Pink, thought differently.

Stay on topic.

You miss the point

there is no violence to the will because God determined the will

…God is the only being who is ultimately self-determining, and is himself ultimately the disposer of all things, including all choices — however many or diverse other intervening causes are. On this definition, no human being has free will, at any time. Neither before or after the fall, or in heaven, are creatures ultimately self-determining. Abeginners guide to free will John Piper

as Calvin notes

If God merely foresaw human events, and did not also arrange and dispose of them at his pleasure, there might be room for agitating the question, how far his foreknowledge amounts to necessity; but since he foresees the things which are to happen, simply because he has decreed that they are so to happen, it is vain to debate about prescience, while it is clear that all events take place by his sovereign appointment.
(John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 23, Paragraph 6)

 

[Theophilus]

You miss the point

there is no violence to the will because God determined the will

…God is the only being who is ultimately self-determining, and is himself ultimately the disposer of all things, including all choices — however many or diverse other intervening causes are. On this definition, no human being has free will, at any time. Neither before or after the fall, or in heaven, are creatures ultimately self-determining. Abeginners guide to free will John Piper

as Calvin notes

If God merely foresaw human events, and did not also arrange and dispose of them at his pleasure, there might be room for agitating the question, how far his foreknowledge amounts to necessity; but since he foresees the things which are to happen, simply because he has decreed that they are so to happen, it is vain to debate about prescience, while it is clear that all events take place by his sovereign appointment.
(John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 23, Paragraph 6)

Exactly

 

[Josheb]

No double predestination is a fact in Calvinism taught by Calvin no matter how much you deny those facts . He called it a horrific doctrine .

Still waiting on you to acknowledge Calvin did in fact write about God's love, His love for all humanity, and the availability of the gospel to all. This op makes statements that are wrong. They need to be corrected, and it's best if they are corrected by the one who made them. The proof, not just the evidence, has been provided.

There's more to be addressed but it's best addressed after the statements about Calvin have been corrected.

Gill held views that were different than Calvin. Either that or Gill's statements in "The Sovereignty of God," and "The Love of God," warrant additional input from Gill. I'm content for now to acknowledge Gill saw things differently. The problem is that criticisms against Gill are not necessarily applicable to Calvin and on all such occasions it is wrong to make such an application (as was done in this op). If you want to rag on Calvinism using Gill then understand Gill's Calvinism is different.

????????

What? How can that be???

Calvinism is not monolithic. Or more accurately, monergism is not monolithic. Monergism is no more monolithic that synergism. Augustine, Luther, Calvin, and Gill had different points of view, but they all agreed God is the sole causal agent in His salvation of the creature who cannot save himself. The synergists also have a great deal of diversity. It ranges from the heretical Pelagian position humanity is not so compromised by sin that he is a causal agent in his own salvation, through the Traditionalist, Augustinian and Reformed Arminian, and Welsey. Synergism isn't monolithic, either.

So one of the other mistakes made in this op is the use of Gill when Gill is not wholly representative. That, however, is nowhere near as egregious an error as the gross misrepresentations of Calvin contained in this op.

One step at a time.

The proof Calvin wrote plentifully about God's love, God's love of the human race, and the availability of the gospel to all has been provided. Please acknowledge errors to these effects were made in this op and have now been corrected.

 

[fltom]

Exactly

Yes

Calvinism is determinism either hard or soft but it is all determinism

Compatibilism is a form of determinism and it should be noted that this position is no less deterministic than hard determinism. It simply means that God's predetermination and meticulous providence is "compatible" with voluntary choice. Our choices are not coerced ...i.e. we do not choose against what we want or desire, yet we never make choices contrary to God's sovereign decree. What God determines will always come to pass (Eph 1:11)... In light of Scripture, (according to compatibilism), human choices are exercised voluntarily but the desires and circumstances that bring about these choices about occur through divine determinism. For example, God is said to specifically ordain the crucifixion of His Son, and yet evil men voluntarily crucify Him (see Acts 2:23 & 4:27-28). This voluntary of evil act is not free from God's decree, but it is voluntary, according to these Texts. Or when Joseph's brothers sold him into slavery in Egypt, Joseph later recounted that what his brothers intended for evil, God intended for good (Gen 50:20). God determines and ordains that these events will take place (that Joseph will be sold into slavery), yet the brothers voluntarily make the evil choice that beings it to pass, which means the sin is imputed to Joseph's brothers for the wicked act, and God remains blameless. In both of these cases, it could be said that God ordains sin, sinlessly. Nothing occurs apart from His sovereign good pleasure. We should be clear that NEITHER compatibilism nor hard determinism affirms that any man has a free will. Those who believe man has a free will are not compatibilists, but should, rather, be called "inconsistent". Our choices are our choices because they are voluntary, not coerced. We do not make choices contrary to our desires or natures, nor separately from God's meticulous providence. Furthermore, compatibilism is directly contrary to libertarian free will. Therefore voluntary choice is not the freedom to choose otherwise, that is, a choice without any influence, prior prejudice, inclination, or disposition. Voluntary does mean, however, the ability to choose what we want or desire most according to our disposition and inclinations. The former view (libertarianism) is known as contrary choice, the latter free agency. (the fallen will is never free from the bondage of our corrupt nature, and and not free, in any sense, from God's eternal decree.) The reason I emphasize this is that compatibilists are often misrepresented by hard determinists at this point. They are somehow confused with inconsistent Calvinists. When compatibilists use such phrases as "compatibilistic freedom", they are, more often than not, using it to mean 'voluntary' choice, but are not referring to freedom FROM God's decree or absolute sovereignty (an impossible supposition). Compatibilistic Determinism - Monergism Compatibilistic Determinism | Monergism Recently I received two questions which were similar in nature:Question #1) Do compatibilists believe in free will, that is, do they believe we are free from www.monergism.com

Nothing that exists or occurs falls outside God’s ordaining will. Nothing, including no evil person or thing or event or deed. God’s foreordination is the ultimate reason why everything comes about, including the existence of all evil persons and things and the occurrence of any evil acts or events. And so it is not inappropriate to take God to be the creator, the sender, the permitter, and sometimes even the instigator of evil… Nothing — no evil thing or person or event or deed — falls outside God’s ordaining will. Nothing arises, exists, or endures independently of God’s will. So when even the worst of evils befall us, they do not ultimately come from anywhere other than God’s hand. b Talbot, "All the Good That Is Ours in Christ", in Suffering and the Sovereignty of God, ed. John Piper and Justin Taylor, Quote may be found All the Good That Is Ours in Christ “Never shall I forget those moments that murdered my God and my soul and turned my dreams to ashes.” Nobel Peace Prize winner Elie Wiesel wrote these words in light of his horrific experience at Auschwitz. He questioned where God was during his unjust suffering. Many of us wonder the same. www.desiringgod.org

 

[Josheb]

You miss the point

there is no violence to the will because God determined the will

ROTFLMBO!

That is not what the WCF teaches. In point of fact the WCF teaches sin had a much more deterministic effect on the human will than did sin.




And I again remind you: this op is about the claim there is no love in Calvinism because Calvin never used "God is love" in his Institutes when he did in fact write plentifully about God's love often and diversely, including clear statements God loves the human race and has made the gospel available to all. This op is not about any other matter.

Stick to the op.

Titus 3:9-11
But avoid foolish controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels about the law, for they are unprofitable and worthless. As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him, knowing that such a person is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned.


Don't be that guy. Address the op. AND.... IF you've ever read Calvin's Institutes and commentaries then start your contribution to this op by coming alongside your synergist brother and tell him some false claims were made about Calvin in this op and he does not do the cause of synergism any good when he bears false witness.

I won't ask you to stay on topic again.

 

[Josheb]

Yes your response was nonsense................

Thank you for your tim.

 

[Reformedguy]

Yes

Calvinism is determinism either hard or soft but it is all determinism

Compatibilism is a form of determinism and it should be noted that this position is no less deterministic than hard determinism. It simply means that God's predetermination and meticulous providence is "compatible" with voluntary choice. Our choices are not coerced ...i.e. we do not choose against what we want or desire, yet we never make choices contrary to God's sovereign decree. What God determines will always come to pass (Eph 1:11)... In light of Scripture, (according to compatibilism), human choices are exercised voluntarily but the desires and circumstances that bring about these choices about occur through divine determinism. For example, God is said to specifically ordain the crucifixion of His Son, and yet evil men voluntarily crucify Him (see Acts 2:23 & 4:27-28). This voluntary of evil act is not free from God's decree, but it is voluntary, according to these Texts. Or when Joseph's brothers sold him into slavery in Egypt, Joseph later recounted that what his brothers intended for evil, God intended for good (Gen 50:20). God determines and ordains that these events will take place (that Joseph will be sold into slavery), yet the brothers voluntarily make the evil choice that beings it to pass, which means the sin is imputed to Joseph's brothers for the wicked act, and God remains blameless. In both of these cases, it could be said that God ordains sin, sinlessly. Nothing occurs apart from His sovereign good pleasure. We should be clear that NEITHER compatibilism nor hard determinism affirms that any man has a free will. Those who believe man has a free will are not compatibilists, but should, rather, be called "inconsistent". Our choices are our choices because they are voluntary, not coerced. We do not make choices contrary to our desires or natures, nor separately from God's meticulous providence. Furthermore, compatibilism is directly contrary to libertarian free will. Therefore voluntary choice is not the freedom to choose otherwise, that is, a choice without any influence, prior prejudice, inclination, or disposition. Voluntary does mean, however, the ability to choose what we want or desire most according to our disposition and inclinations. The former view (libertarianism) is known as contrary choice, the latter free agency. (the fallen will is never free from the bondage of our corrupt nature, and and not free, in any sense, from God's eternal decree.) The reason I emphasize this is that compatibilists are often misrepresented by hard determinists at this point. They are somehow confused with inconsistent Calvinists. When compatibilists use such phrases as "compatibilistic freedom", they are, more often than not, using it to mean 'voluntary' choice, but are not referring to freedom FROM God's decree or absolute sovereignty (an impossible supposition). Compatibilistic Determinism - Monergism Compatibilistic Determinism | Monergism Recently I received two questions which were similar in nature:Question #1) Do compatibilists believe in free will, that is, do they believe we are free from www.monergism.com

Nothing that exists or occurs falls outside God’s ordaining will. Nothing, including no evil person or thing or event or deed. God’s foreordination is the ultimate reason why everything comes about, including the existence of all evil persons and things and the occurrence of any evil acts or events. And so it is not inappropriate to take God to be the creator, the sender, the permitter, and sometimes even the instigator of evil… Nothing — no evil thing or person or event or deed — falls outside God’s ordaining will. Nothing arises, exists, or endures independently of God’s will. So when even the worst of evils befall us, they do not ultimately come from anywhere other than God’s hand. b Talbot, "All the Good That Is Ours in Christ", in Suffering and the Sovereignty of God, ed. John Piper and Justin Taylor, Quote may be found All the Good That Is Ours in Christ “Never shall I forget those moments that murdered my God and my soul and turned my dreams to ashes.” Nobel Peace Prize winner Elie Wiesel wrote these words in light of his horrific experience at Auschwitz. He questioned where God was during his unjust suffering. Many of us wonder the same. www.desiringgod.org

Preach it! ?

 

[fltom]

ROTFLMBO!

That is not what the WCF teaches. In point of fact the WCF teaches sin had a much more deterministic effect on the human will than did sin.

oh yes it is


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.
II. 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.
III. By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life, and others foreordained to everlasting death.

Westminster Assembly, The Westminster Confession of Faith: Edinburgh Edition (Philadelphia: William S. Young, 1851), 26–27.

see also

Compatibilism is a form of determinism and it should be noted that this position is no less deterministic than hard determinism. It simply means that God's predetermination and meticulous providence is "compatible" with voluntary choice. Our choices are not coerced ...i.e. we do not choose against what we want or desire, yet we never make choices contrary to God's sovereign decree. What God determines will always come to pass (Eph 1:11)... In light of Scripture, (according to compatibilism), human choices are exercised voluntarily but the desires and circumstances that bring about these choices about occur through divine determinism. For example, God is said to specifically ordain the crucifixion of His Son, and yet evil men voluntarily crucify Him (see Acts 2:23 & 4:27-28). This voluntary of evil act is not free from God's decree, but it is voluntary, according to these Texts. Or when Joseph's brothers sold him into slavery in Egypt, Joseph later recounted that what his brothers intended for evil, God intended for good (Gen 50:20). God determines and ordains that these events will take place (that Joseph will be sold into slavery), yet the brothers voluntarily make the evil choice that beings it to pass, which means the sin is imputed to Joseph's brothers for the wicked act, and God remains blameless. In both of these cases, it could be said that God ordains sin, sinlessly. Nothing occurs apart from His sovereign good pleasure. We should be clear that NEITHER compatibilism nor hard determinism affirms that any man has a free will. Those who believe man has a free will are not compatibilists, but should, rather, be called "inconsistent". Our choices are our choices because they are voluntary, not coerced. We do not make choices contrary to our desires or natures, nor separately from God's meticulous providence. Furthermore, compatibilism is directly contrary to libertarian free will. Therefore voluntary choice is not the freedom to choose otherwise, that is, a choice without any influence, prior prejudice, inclination, or disposition. Voluntary does mean, however, the ability to choose what we want or desire most according to our disposition and inclinations. The former view (libertarianism) is known as contrary choice, the latter free agency. (the fallen will is never free from the bondage of our corrupt nature, and and not free, in any sense, from God's eternal decree.) The reason I emphasize this is that compatibilists are often misrepresented by hard determinists at this point. They are somehow confused with inconsistent Calvinists. When compatibilists use such phrases as "compatibilistic freedom", they are, more often than not, using it to mean 'voluntary' choice, but are not referring to freedom FROM God's decree or absolute sovereignty (an impossible supposition). Compatibilistic Determinism - Monergism Compatibilistic Determinism | Monergism​ Recently I received two questions which were similar in nature:Question #1) Do compatibilists believe in free will, that is, do they believe we are free from www.monergism.com

Nothing that exists or occurs falls outside God’s ordaining will. Nothing, including no evil person or thing or event or deed. God’s foreordination is the ultimate reason why everything comes about, including the existence of all evil persons and things and the occurrence of any evil acts or events. And so it is not inappropriate to take God to be the creator, the sender, the permitter, and sometimes even the instigator of evil… Nothing — no evil thing or person or event or deed — falls outside God’s ordaining will. Nothing arises, exists, or endures independently of God’s will. So when even the worst of evils befall us, they do not ultimately come from anywhere other than God’s hand. b Talbot, "All the Good That Is Ours in Christ", in Suffering and the Sovereignty of God, ed. John Piper and Justin Taylor,