You see here he creates a philosophical argument for a theological question. But those verses about Esau and pharaoh, they both sinned. Esau traded the promises of God for fleshly desires and pharaoh opposed Gods people. Both were predestined in their roles but both actually made their own choices. Which actually refutes Calvin's philosophy.

We'll just have to disagree on some of this stuff, and that's okay. I think Scripture is clear that no one will choose Christ on their own. To quote Spurgeon:

"I believe the doctrine of election, because I am quite certain that, if God had not chosen me, I should never had chosen Him; and I am sure He chose me before I was born, or else He never would have chosen me afterwards; and He must have elected me for reasons unknown to me, for I never could find in myself why He should have looked upon me with special love. So I am forced to accept that great biblical doctrine."

Yukon Cornelius said:

---

You see here he creates a philosophical argument for a theological question. But those verses about Esau and pharaoh, they both sinned. Esau traded the promises of God for fleshly desires and pharaoh opposed Gods people. Both were predestined in their roles but both actually made their own choices. Which actually refutes Calvin's philosophy.

---

And I don't disagree with any of that other than it refutes Calvin's philosophy.

Mostly Peaceful said:

---

We'll just have to disagree on some of this stuff, and that's okay. I think Scripture is clear that no one will choose Christ on their own. To quote Spurgeon:

"I believe the doctrine of election, because I am quite certain that, if God had not chosen me, I should never had chosen Him; and I am sure He chose me before I was born, or else He never would have chosen me afterwards; and He must have elected me for reasons unknown to me, for I never could find in myself why He should have looked upon me with special love. So I am forced to accept that great biblical doctrine."

---

His premise is concluding not everyone is called because not everyone is saved. It can be true He required being called by God to saved. But from that he's separating from scripture and concluding God calls some. God calls all. Some accept that calling. Some reject that calling.

It refutes it because those verses are explaining the exact opposite of Calvinism. It explains how God predestined both Esau and pharaoh's life circumstances. Esau was to serve the younger. Pharaoh was raised to the position of power. However it doesn't say God forces their choices. When we read their stories we see Esau traded tbe eternal promises of God to fulfill a fleshly desire. Pharaoh abused Gods people. Both men's positions were orchestrated by God but their choices were their own. Which included their consequences. This is direct opposition of Calvinism. This is the simple reading and understanding of these verses by Paul. Calvinism is in conflict here.


We see the opposite play out with Joseph and Esther. Both of their lives were clearly orchestrated by God but they each made their own choice.

Look at these unbelievably beautiful and inspiring words:

"Then Mordecai told them to reply to Esther, "Do not think to yourself that in the king's palace you will escape any more than all the other Jews. For if you keep silent at this time, relief and deliverance will rise for the Jews from another place, but you and your father's house will perish. And who knows whether you have not come to the kingdom for such a time as this?" "Go, gather all the Jews to be found in Susa, and hold a fast on my behalf, and do not eat or drink for three days, night or day. I and my young women will also fast as you do. Then I will go to the king, though it is against the law, and if I perish, I perish.""
Esther 4:13-14, 16 ESV


We see Mordecai correctly realized Esther's life circumstances have a divine purpose. Curated by God. However it is up to Esther to CHOOSE what to do and he includes a warning if she chooses wrong. And she willingly chooses to lay her life down for her people if it must be so.

This is the awesomeness of Scripture and the Truth that our lives have meaning and purpose but we have the choice on whom we serve.

And a side note. Ascribing to any doctrine named after anyone other than Jesus should give people pause.

The biggest problem with Calvins view of Romans 9 is it ignores Genesis 33 completely.

Jacob and Esau reconcile and we have zero reason to believe that Esau was condemned by God.

However, we do know that the Edomites (ancestors of Esau) have multiple battles with David and Solomon and they show up immediately in verse 4.

That should be the more natural reading of Romans 9.

Aggrad08 said:

---

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

Regarding the second, I get it. I guess another possibility emerges from a strictly Christian viewpoint. God existed from the beginning, and Christ is God. Existence was created through Christ. The decisions of Adam and Eve led to the deaths of men. Christ has an eternal human nature, including the ability to suffer and die. Since existence was created through Christ, suffering and death was baked into the fabric of reality from the start. So the death and suffering that exists prior to man could still be due to man, but only because Christ is both man and God and also fabric of existence

---

I get what you are saying here, but it feels pretty forced. It basically involves a causal paradox and I hate that like I hate almost every time travel movie and at the end of the day, it's not like god didn't play his own role in making an imperfect creation that was going to fall and corrupt part two of the trinity. Fundamentally I don't really think time travel backwards exists, nor backwards causation.

It also makes god, at least the jesus part of the god trinity as fundamentally imperfect and flawed. But you bring up an argument I hadn't heard before. I'd never heard of jesus being regarded as fully man before the incarnation. The second person of the trinity, the Son, the word, being eternal in christian dogma is nothing new. But I always understood the being fully man, as something he subjected himself to, "made himself lower than the angels" ect. And from then on was fully man and fully god.

It doesn't really even make sense to me to call the 2nd person of the trinity, or the word or whatever fully-or even a little bit, "man" when it existed as a nameless non-corporeal third of part of one omni-person. Without the incarnation the word of god has no body and isn't named yeshua. Unless we are calling "man" something pretty different than what I'm imagining.

---

Depends on how you look at it and no need for causality problems. Here's a very barebones version. God creates man with free will, knowing that man will sometimes chose to reject Him. This is by design, as God can't be maximally loving unless He is able to love beings that actively hate him. God knows that men will suffer for this, but that suffering is also somewhat His own fault for giving men a choice. So God being loving, just, and fair, decides to suffer as well. So the Logos, from before creation ever happens, is destined to be incarnated, suffer, and die. So suffering and death becomes an integral part of the Logos, and indeed is the lynchpin that keeps the whole set up from making God a narcissistic monster. Now creation is created through the Logos and can be done no other way, as the Logos is the interface between God and man, spiritual and physical, temporal and eternal, holy and banal. So creation is molded in the image of the Logos who has suffering, pain and death as a fundmental part of his nature. So suffering, pain, and death becomes a fundamental part of creation.

So it's not that man's choice ruins creation. Man was almost certain to fall before creation ever happened, and God took steps to share in man's misery and give man a path to redemption also before creation ever happened. This is how that works out. It's not that Christ is flawed or human before the incarnation, only that his essential qualities did not change by being incarnated.

I won't contest the bit of paradox, but you can't really avoid that when you believe that someone was both fully man and fully God. Fully eternal with finite lifespan. Paradox and contradiction is baked into the game. It's also a still a bit human-centric, but again that's hard to avoid when you think about God creating man specially, and the Logos being both God and man.

I think you have some misconceptions of calvinism. I haven't read anything that says Calvin believed God forces peoples choices.

Also, calvinism isn't doctrine. It's a brand of theology. Calvin was a Christian just like Augustine, Luther, Arminius, Wesley, Edwards, you and me. None of us are batting 1.000 in our theology. The differences in interpretation of secondary issues is a good thing. It causes us, or at least should cause us, to dig deep into the Word.

Not when it leads to schism as almost every one on that list did. Heresy to the point of breaking communion is in no way a good thing.

Of course heretical interpretation is bad. I'm not aware of heresy amongst any in that group.

Heresy in the scriptures just means sect. The Pharisees were a heresy vs the Sadducees. In Christian usage, something is a heresy when it leads to a break in communion, a schism. Several of those are heresies since the various groups are not in communion with each other.

Zobel said:

---

Not when it leads to schism as almost every one on that list did. Heresy to the point of breaking communion is in no way a good thing.

---

The Body of Christ isn't held together by man. None of those events impact Christ' control of the Church. And yes, the Reformation was in fact a good thing.

https://www.google.com/search?q=john+calvin+on+double+predestination&client=safari&sca_esv=579032623&channel=iphone_bm&source=hp&ei=IVhEZZ7ZFoHPkPIPxOmPuAY&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZURmMXsCCSdqnbUEtosd8y7aTE_VoSae&oq=john+calvin+on+doubl&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IhRqb2huIGNhbHZpbiBvbiBkb3VibCoCCAAyBRAAGIAESImAAVAAWPVocAB4AJABAJgBmwGgAbUPqgEEMTMuN7gBAcgBAPgBAcICERAuGIAEGLEDGIMBGMcBGNEDwgILEAAYgAQYsQMYgwHCAgsQLhiABBixAxiDAcICCxAuGIoFGLEDGIMBwgIFEC4YgATCAgsQLhiABBjHARjRA8ICCBAAGIAEGLEDwgIIEC4YgAQY5QTCAg4QLhiABBixAxiDARjUAsICCBAuGIAEGLEDwgIUEC4YgAQYsQMYgwEYyQMYxwEY0QPCAgsQABiKBRixAxiDAcICDhAuGIoFGLEDGIMBGNQCwgILEC4YgwEYsQMYgATCAgsQLhiABBixAxjUAsICCxAuGNQCGLEDGIAEwgIEEAAYA8ICCBAuGIAEGNQCwgILEC4YgAQYxwEYrwHCAgYQABgWGB7CAggQABiKBRiGAw&sclient=gws-wiz#ip=1

Mostly Peaceful said:

---

I think you have some misconceptions of calvinism. I haven't read anything that says Calvin believed God forces peoples choices.

Also, calvinism isn't doctrine. It's a brand of theology. Calvin was a Christian just like Augustine, Luther, Arminius, Wesley, Edwards, you and me. None of us are batting 1.000 in our theology. The differences in interpretation of secondary issues is a good thing. It causes us, or at least should cause us, to dig deep into the Word.

---

No doubt no one's theology is 100%. I often remind myself Jesus told His disciples He would die In a few days and they couldn't fathom he was literal because of bad theology they held. If I seem heavy handed against Calvinism or reformed theology it's because I have seen and experienced first hand the damage it causes. It's not Biblical and it's gaining in popularity.

I don't doubt you haven't seen any literature describing the process as forced but it is what it is if one's regeneration only takes place once the Holy Spirt does it to you while you are totally depraved and have no capacity for sin recognition and repentance.

I've said my peace here and will leave it
with one final plea. Reformed theology is incredibly incredibly dangerous that creates room within churches for segregation and abuses.

Christ says the world will know us because we are One. Heresies are not good, because they create a tear in the body of Christ. They give lie to the witness we have as Christians. Unity comes through Christ, precisely in communion. That's why we call it that. There is one bread, one cup because there is one Lord, one faith, one baptism.

St Paul says that heresies are necessary so we can know who is approved of. That also means so we can know who is not approved of. But the heresy itself, while necessary, is not good. There is no excuse or goodness in centuries of schism.

Zobel said:

---

Christ says the world will know us because we are One. Heresies are not good, because they create a tear in the body of Christ. They give lie to the witness we have as Christians. Unity comes through Christ, precisely in communion. That's why we call it that. There is one bread, one cup because there is one Lord, one faith, one baptism.

St Paul says that heresies are necessary so we can know who is approved of. That also means so we can know who is not approved of. But the heresy itself, while necessary, is not good. There is no excuse or goodness in centuries of schism.

---

If truth exists, then it is a guarantee heresies will follow and we see that from the beginning of the church. In fact many epistles address this. But you are confusing the church with the Church. The Bride of Christ, the actual Church, is not impacted by heresies. It will continue building in the midst of heresy and false teaching. I'm not saying heresy is good, but I'm saying God works all things according to the counsel of His will. You think heresies are breaking communion between Christ and true believers? That's a strange take.

I think that communion is the time when the church becomes the church qua church. That's what St Paul teaches, we are one body because we partake of one loaf, and "when you come together as church" is in the Eucharist. In fact when St Paul speaks of heresy, he does so in the context of the Eucharist. Church means assembly. The actual church is the one that assembles and participates in Christ in communion. A church that never assembles is an unscriptural idea and a flat contradiction. When people break communion, they stop assembling, so yes. They are no longer the same church, and there is only one Church, because there is only one Body of Christ with Him at the head. Is Christ divided? St Paul appeals in the name of Christ that there be no divisions.

Schism is never good.

This is a complete derailment but it begs the question with so many doctrines and so many denominations how do we restore that unity.

I think it begins with reconciliation between Rome and the East. That comes down to papal supremacy, and through that, the filioque. Everything else is details. If Rome and the East are in communion, with a common symbol of faith, there is no way to justify continued schism for anyone in my mind.

But in all likelihood the genie is out of the bottle in the west and there's no going back. One schism produced uncountable fractures… and even the reformation near instantly fractured apart itself.

Feels a lot like ancient Israel with their splitting up in a way.

Well, the north was openly worshipping idols… so… hopefully not that bad.

Hmm. One group does remove "no graven images" from their reciting of the 10 commandments oddly enough.

Zobel said:

---

I think that communion is the time when the church becomes the church qua church. That's what St Paul teaches, we are one body because we partake of one loaf, and "when you come together as church" is in the Eucharist. In fact when St Paul speaks of heresy, he does so in the context of the Eucharist. Church means assembly. The actual church is the one that assembles and participates in Christ in communion. A church that never assembles is an unscriptural idea and a flat contradiction. When people break communion, they stop assembling, so yes. They are no longer the same church, and there is only one Church, because there is only one Body of Christ with Him at the head. Is Christ divided? St Paul appeals in the name of Christ that there be no divisions.

Schism is never good.

---

Again, so what?
If it's addressed directly in scripture, then I'm pretty sure God is aware of it. No one is saying it's good, it's just expected. Christ and his Bride are not going to be derailed by man. It's stated plainly.

John 6:3739 (ESV): 37 All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. 38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. 39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day.

Yukon Cornelius said:

---

This is a complete derailment but it begs the question with so many doctrines and so many denominations how do we restore that unity.

---

We? We don't. God does. There is one Gospel. Those that adhere to it are the actual Church, Body of Christ. That's never changed.

Except that's not what the scriptures say.

No one said the church will be derailed by man. But men will leave the church. That's what schism is.

dermdoc said:

---

https://www.google.com/search?q=john+calvin+on+double+predestination&client=safari&sca_esv=579032623&channel=iphone_bm&source=hp&ei=IVhEZZ7ZFoHPkPIPxOmPuAY&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZURmMXsCCSdqnbUEtosd8y7aTE_VoSae&oq=john+calvin+on+doubl&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IhRqb2huIGNhbHZpbiBvbiBkb3VibCoCCAAyBRAAGIAESImAAVAAWPVocAB4AJABAJgBmwGgAbUPqgEEMTMuN7gBAcgBAPgBAcICERAuGIAEGLEDGIMBGMcBGNEDwgILEAAYgAQYsQMYgwHCAgsQLhiABBixAxiDAcICCxAuGIoFGLEDGIMBwgIFEC4YgATCAgsQLhiABBjHARjRA8ICCBAAGIAEGLEDwgIIEC4YgAQY5QTCAg4QLhiABBixAxiDARjUAsICCBAuGIAEGLEDwgIUEC4YgAQYsQMYgwEYyQMYxwEY0QPCAgsQABiKBRixAxiDAcICDhAuGIoFGLEDGIMBGNQCwgILEC4YgwEYsQMYgATCAgsQLhiABBixAxjUAsICCxAuGNQCGLEDGIAEwgIEEAAYA8ICCBAuGIAEGNQCwgILEC4YgAQYxwEYrwHCAgYQABgWGB7CAggQABiKBRiGAw&sclient=gws-wiz#ip=1

---

Thank you. This is a troubling concept for sure, especially when phrased as "condemned to destruction." Calvin didn't teach this with a smile. It made him very uncomfortable as well. Just prior to your quote he uses "foreordained" and "predestined" to life or death. Even though the end result is the same, I think he most commonly used those terms because they are a little easier to deal with.

I don't think this excludes human responsibility though. Calvin seems to indicate the reprobate willingly reject Christ, not that they are forced to do so. It's hyper-calvinism (I think) that says God is the cause of unbelief. Calvin even believed in unlimited atonement which I imagine would ruffle the feathers of some calvinists today.

Zobel said:

---

Heresy in the scriptures just means sect. The Pharisees were a heresy vs the Sadducees. In Christian usage, something is a heresy when it leads to a break in communion, a schism. Several of those are heresies since the various groups are not in communion with each other.

---

I see. Thank you for the explanation. I'll step away from this area of the conversation so as to keep from making more of a fool of myself.

Calvinism is considered a heresy by Catholics, I believe Orthodox, and here is a link to the Bereans.

http://www.bcbsr.com/topics/calvinism_heresy.html

dermdoc said:

---

Calvinism is considered a heresy by Catholics, I believe Orthodox, and here is a link to the Bereans.

http://www.bcbsr.com/topics/calvinism_heresy.html

---

What isn't accursed by Rome...not that they should be the ones throwing stones right now...

Bob_Ag said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Calvinism is considered a heresy by Catholics, I believe Orthodox, and here is a link to the Bereans.

http://www.bcbsr.com/topics/calvinism_heresy.html

---

What isn't accursed by Rome...not that they should be the ones throwing stones right now...

---

Did you read the link?

dermdoc said:

---

How do you interpret

This is good and pleases God our Savior, who wants all people to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth.

1 Timothy 2 3-4.

---

Did any Calvinists on here address this verse and their interpretation of it?

dermdoc said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

How do you interpret

This is good and pleases God our Savior, who wants all people to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth.

1 Timothy 2 3-4.

---

Did any Calvinists on here address this verse and their interpretation of it?

---

To be clear, I don't consider myself a calvinist. I just think they're being grossly misrepresented. That link gives a fair assessment in some areas, but not others. Calvinists have no problem with 1 Timothy 2:3-4. They firmly believe God wants all people to be saved.

Mostly Peaceful said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

How do you interpret

This is good and pleases God our Savior, who wants all people to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth.

1 Timothy 2 3-4.

---

Did any Calvinists on here address this verse and their interpretation of it?

---

To be clear, I don't consider myself a calvinist. I just think they're being grossly misrepresented. That link gives a fair assessment in some areas, but not others. Calvinists have no problem with 1 Timothy 2:3-4. They firmly believe God wants all people to be saved.

---

Then explain Calvin's quote about God choosing some for eternal destruction? How can you believe God desires all to be saved with that statement?

I think most modern day Calvinists have zero idea of what Calvinism really entails theologically.

And I think that is what you are describing. Calvinists vs actual true Calvinism.

I am extremely happy most do not adhere to strict interpretation of Calvinism.

And I am not in any way bashing Calvinists.

Just disagree with Calvinism.

And agree with everything in my link.

dermdoc said:

---

Mostly Peaceful said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

How do you interpret

This is good and pleases God our Savior, who wants all people to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth.

1 Timothy 2 3-4.

---

Did any Calvinists on here address this verse and their interpretation of it?

---

To be clear, I don't consider myself a calvinist. I just think they're being grossly misrepresented. That link gives a fair assessment in some areas, but not others. Calvinists have no problem with 1 Timothy 2:3-4. They firmly believe God wants all people to be saved.

---

Then explain Calvin's quote about God choosing some for eternal destruction? How can you believe God desires all to be saved with that statement?

I think most modern day Calvinists have zero idea of what Calvinism really entails theologically.

And I think that is what you are describing. Calvinists bs actual true Calvinism.

I am extremely happy most do not adhere to strict interpretation of Calvinism.

---

You are assuming that God predestining some to life and some to death, which is what Calvin believed, means that the non-elect are condemned against their will. That is not correct.

"It is the will of God that we should seek the salvation of all men without exception, as Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world."

"Though Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world, and is offered through God's benignity indiscriminately to all, yet all do not receive him."

These are Calvin quotes.

dermdoc said:

---

Mostly Peaceful said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

How do you interpret

This is good and pleases God our Savior, who wants all people to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth.

1 Timothy 2 3-4.

---

Did any Calvinists on here address this verse and their interpretation of it?

---

To be clear, I don't consider myself a calvinist. I just think they're being grossly misrepresented. That link gives a fair assessment in some areas, but not others. Calvinists have no problem with 1 Timothy 2:3-4. They firmly believe God wants all people to be saved.

---

Then explain Calvin's quote about God choosing some for eternal destruction? How can you believe God desires all to be saved with that statement?

I think most modern day Calvinists have zero idea of what Calvinism really entails theologically.

And I think that is what you are describing. Calvinists vs actual true Calvinism.

I am extremely happy most do not adhere to strict interpretation of Calvinism.

And I am not in any way bashing Calvinists.

Just disagree with Calvinism.

---

Derm, that's not Calvinism. All men are destined for destruction. All men are sinners and all are under the wrath of God. But here is the key point...by their own volition and will. This is what Calvin was careful to make to clear, but you are looking over that. Man is guilty all on his own account due to hereditary sin. God is not forcing them to be sinners.

God does desire all to be saved, but as we've discussed several times now, he opposes the proud.

Let's use a clear illustration from the Bible.
Judas, the perditious man, was chosen by Christ to be a disciple (meaning he did not have a choice to not be a disciple). He fulfilled prophecy and Jesus foreknew his betrayal as is clearly stated in John's Gospel. There was no way that Judas was not going to be the one to betray Christ, it was predestined, and that is not an arguable fact. It is as true as the second coming of Christ. However, at the very same time, he was held responsible by God for his actions and his will.

Explain that? We live in a world where God is absolutely sovereign over all things, but man is held responsible for his sins. God is eternal and infinite in nature which is a characteristic we can't even comprehend accurately, but we try to force God into temporal frame of mind. Why do you think Paul busts out into a doxology praising God for his unknowable ways in Romans 11? "For who has known the mind of the Lord or who has been his counselor?". No one. So let us humble ourselves and realize we can't fully understand an eternal and absolutely sovereign deity who created all things.