Are you fully convinced that Calvinism is biblical?

[Michael Doyle]

I was always very confused at the lack of continuity when I struggled with the semi pelagian soteriology (unknown to me at the time of course) of my first church. It was by being instructed in the tenets of Reformed theology, name covenantal theology, that the pieces all came together. Now, even in the midst of this truth, there are still mysterious elements of the doctrines which lie in the hidden will of the Creator and yet I am convinced that all that can be known is for our benefit and mostly for God`s glory. When one attempts to back you down to explain the hidden will of God to disprove your position, that is merely a desperate attempt to deny the truths revealed in scripture because it destroys the "me-centered" and highlights the glorious "God-centered."

 

[Dao]

I have a question about Adam's free will and how it compares to God's Will. How did Adam have a free will to accept or reject God? What influence did God have on Adam's will?

 

[reformedminister]

I came to embrace Reformed Theology over a period of time. I sincerely believe that Calvinism is nothing more than Biblical Theology. However, I will be the first to tell you that I don't understand the infinite Wisdom of God neither will I claim to understand all the mysteries of the Bible. I just know it is true!

 

[Scott1]

For me, the doctrines of grace began with good biblical systematic teaching in the PCA.

I I had long leaned that way but had never really heard it put together in context, from the pulpit or in any other place. The context of all of Scripture was key.

It began with quickly accepting that there were more Scriptures leaning "Calvinist" than Arminian, something like a preponderance of evidence. So, I thought it more reasonable to believe the preponderance of Scriptures, even if it was something like a 51/49 split (51% of Scriptures seemed to support "Calvinism" with 49% seeming to support "Arminianism."

Within a couple years, I began to understand the context of some of the Scriptures that seemed to support Arminianism and found that "all" often meant "all of us believers" and words like "world" often connoted the Gentile world, unbelievers outside of the covenant community of Israel.

As I resolved most of those Scriptures, one by one, it became a clear and convincing case for "Calvinism" because of both the biblical coherence of all of Scripture and the immediate context of the particular Scriptures themselves.

It remained something like this, "clear and convincing" for many years.

Then, about 3 1/2 years ago, it all came together. Jesus told Nicodemus he must be born again- and that with man, that was impossible... it was like the wind that comes and goes as it pleases and man cannot control it at all. God so loving "the whole world" was all sorts of people in the world- especially Jew and Gentile.

II Peter 3:9, one of the most difficult verses, that appeared to support God sending His Son for everyone who might choose Him (Arminianism) suddenly became clear! The "us" was the elect, the one's God had chosen, none of them will perish, they will all persevere to the end because God gives it to them to do so, wants it and will ensure it.

With that, the case became "beyond reasonable doubt."

Now, I realize much of this comes with accepting that God is sovereign and man is limited as His creature. God is not, nor cannot be limited by His Creatures in any way and man cannot fully understand God's ways. It's not even possible for man to contain the infinite, omniscent, ominipotent, omnipresent understanding of His Creator.

That's why, this side of the veil at least, there will always be some mystery in this.

 

[Skyler]

Do I understand it? No.

Does that mean I have doubts? No.

I read it in the Bible; that's enough for me. I don't have to fully understand it to believe it.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Here is the Reformed understanding of Free Will.

Westminster Confession
Chapter IX
Of Free Will
I. God has endued the will of man with that natural liberty, that is neither forced, nor, by any absolute necessity of nature, determined good, or evil.

II. Man, in his state of innocence, had freedom, and power to will and to do that which was good and well pleasing to God; but yet, mutably, so that he might fall from it.

III. Man, by his fall into a state of sin, has wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation: so as, a natural man, being altogether averse from that good, and dead in sin, is not able, by his own strength, to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto.

IV. When God converts a sinner, and translates him into the state of grace, He frees him from his natural bondage under sin; and, by His grace alone, enables him freely to will and to do that which is spiritually good; yet so, as that by reason of his remaining corruption, he does not perfectly, or only, will that which is good, but does also will that which is evil.

V. The will of man is made perfectly and immutably free to do good alone in the state of glory only.

Adam was created good and free but mutable. God did not force him to sin. Adam had complete free will. We lost that freedom to will good in the Fall. In Christ we regain that freedom, and in heaven, we will be permenantly secure in that freedom, freely choosing good. You need to understand your limitations as a finite human being. God does not tell us the answer as to why Adam as a good and righteous creature chose to sin. He simply tells us that he did. Where God has not spoken we dare not speak either.

Here is a Reformed understanding of how God ordains all things, yet he is not the sinner. He is the first cause through his decree, but he works through secondary causes, and it's to these secondary causes (i.e. the will and desires of men) that the guilt of sin falls.

Westminster Confession
Chapter V
Of Providence
I. God the great Creator of all things does uphold, direct, dispose, and govern all creatures, actions, and things, from the greatest even to the least, by His most wise and holy providence, according to His infallible foreknowledge, and the free and immutable counsel of His own will, to the praise of the glory of His wisdom, power, justice, goodness, and mercy.

II. Although, in relation to the foreknowledge and decree of God, the first Cause, all things come to pass immutably, and infallibly; yet, by the same providence, He orders them to fall out, according to the nature of second causes, either necessarily, freely, or contingently.

III. God, in His ordinary providence, makes use of means, yet is free to work without, above, and against them, at His pleasure.

IV. The almighty power, unsearchable wisdom, and infinite goodness of God so far manifest themselves in His providence, that it extends itself even to the first fall, and all other sins of angels and men; and that not by a bare permission, but such as has joined with it a most wise and powerful bounding, and otherwise ordering, and governing of them, in a manifold dispensation, to His own holy ends; yet so, as the sinfulness thereof proceeds only from the creature, and not from God, who, being most holy and righteous, neither is nor can be the author or approver of sin.

V. The most wise, righteous, and gracious God does oftentimes leave, for a season, His own children to manifold temptations, and the corruption of their own hearts, to chastise them for their former sins, or to discover unto them the hidden strength of corruption and deceitfulness of their hearts, that they may be humbled; and, to raise them to a more close and constant dependence for their support upon Himself, and to make them more watchful against all future occasions of sin, and for sundry other just and holy ends.

VI. As for those wicked and ungodly men whom God, as a righteous Judge, for former sins, does blind and harden, from them He not only withholds His grace whereby they might have been enlightened in their understandings, and wrought upon in their hearts; but sometimes also withdraws the gifts which they had, and exposes them to such objects as their corruption makes occasion of sin; and, withal, gives them over to their own lusts, the temptations of the world, and the power of Satan, whereby it comes to pass that they harden themselves, even under those means which God uses for the softening of others.

VII. As the providence of God does, in general, reach to all creatures; so, after a most special manner, it takes care of His Church, and disposes all things to the good thereof.

There will always be a tension in our undertanding of free will and God's sovereignty because we are finite creatures. The main issue is, how do you understand grace? Is grace a total resurrection and transformation of your will and affections? Or is grace just a steroid to strengthen what good you already possess? That's where Arminianism falls apart and descends into self-righteousness.


Oh, and for the record, I am a convinced Calvinist and have no doubts anymore. Any other theological scheme undermines grace and falls apart due to self-righteousness in some way. But I still do have some unanswered questions.

 

[apaleífo̱]

Thanks, PuritanSailor, for the quotes -- that's exactly the way I understood the Doctrines of Grace but I couldn't find my sources and felt quite disturbed.

 

[Peairtach]

Do you have any doubts about Calvinism. I've had doubts, although they're dwindling away as I read the Bible more. But I still have some questions that need to be answered. Like, how did Adam sin? If sinner's are fully responsible for their sin, but God ordained that Adam would sin, then how does God escape the accusation that He is responsible for all the evil in this world. When Calvinists use the illustration that God is in a boat and instead of everyone swimming to God, they're all swimming away from Him. If He had not predestined Adam's sin, then no one would be swimming away from Him in the first place. I think the problem is it all goes back to Adam. We could all make the argument that sinners act upon the desires of their heart, and that God does not have to make sinners more sinful than they already are, and that God is restraining the vast majority of evil in this world, but if He ordained that Adam would sin, and Adam did not have a free will, then in the final analysis it all goes back to this.

Unless I get a meaningful answer to this problem, I will still have doubts about Calvinism. But I'm not an arminian. Just a calvinist who still has doubts.

Adam's will was truly free in that it was in no way bound by sin. Also although Adam was righteous, he had not been confirmed in righteousness, so he also had the capability of sinning. If God forced Adam to sin, He would be guilty of sin, but He didn't. Everything was arranged so that Adam wouldn't sin. Adam didn't even have to do anything in order to avoid the Fall. He had to do precisely nothing in order to avoid the Fall, just continue his life without eating from the Tree.

So Adam's sin comes under the rubric of all sin. How can God be completely sovereign and Man completely responsible? The two things dovetail beautifully, but it's difficult to see or understand the join.

In fact if God was not sovereignly maintaining and governing Man's will, and all other things, from moment to moment, it's difficult to see how Man could be responsible, but all Man's actions would be determined by chance or fate, as secular philosophers posit.

The deeper Q is not, "How can Man be responsible when God is sovereign?" but, "How can Man be responsible if God is not sovereign?"

The other Q is the one of original sin. How can the guilt of Adam's sin be imputed to those who didn't commit it? It is mirrored by "How can Christ's righteousness be imputed to those who didn't commit it?"

It is related to the organic nature of humanity: there is no similar scheme for the angels which appear to have been created individually.

God was willing to confirm the whole race of Man in righteousness on the basis of one Man's successful probation. The stakes were high. If Adam had succeeded it would have meant that each human being born would not have had to undergo an individual probation. On the other hand if Adam failed, he failed on behalf of everyone too.

Is this a good scheme? We're not told that Adam was offered an alternative e.g. individual probation. If we say that individual probation would have been a better way, or a better than Adam could have been found to carry out the federal probation, we are questioning God's wisdom, goodness, and all His other attributes.

Theoretically God could have offered/prescribed individual probation. But He didn't.

 

[Notthemama1984]

what's the difference between God ordaining something, and God causing something.

God is the first cause of all things, and has ordained all things will work together for good, according to His primary will, even by His granting a secondary causal agency unto man, created in His image.

It is true that God is a se, but we have to determine what he caused and what was caused from his cause. God caused Adam to be created with a perfectly balanced free will that is void of outside influences (this is different than our free will that it tilted to the side of the flesh). It was then Adam who was tempted by Satan and Adam who decided freely to partake of the sin.

God did not cause this sin. He only caused the free will of Adam. Adam is solely responsible for his actions.

Now, God knew in advance that although Adam was created with this type of free will, that Satan would come and Adam would sin. It was at this point that God ordained that sin as a part of his ultimate plan.

 

[A.J.]

From the Heidelberg Catechism:

Lord’s Day 4

9. Is God, then, not unjust by requiring in His law what man cannot perform?

No, for God so created man that he could perform it;1 but man, through the instigation of the devil,2 by willful disobedience3 robbed himself and all his descendants of this power.

1Gen 1:31; 2 Gen 3:13; Jn 8:44; 1 Tim 2:13-14; 3 Gen 3:6; 4 Rom 5:12, 18-19

 

[TeachingTulip]

what's the difference between God ordaining something, and God causing something.

God is the first cause of all things, and has ordained all things will work together for good, according to His primary will, even by His granting a secondary causal agency unto man, created in His image.

It is true that God is a se, but we have to determine what he caused and what was caused from his cause.

Agreed. However, all that has been caused from His cause, was ordained. "Cause" entails "start/beginning." Decreed divine ordinances entail "sovereign governance" of all causes.

God caused Adam to be created with a perfectly balanced free will that is void of outside influences

According to what I have been taught, I do not think this is quite accurate, for Adam was created a mutable being; subject to sin.

(Only immutable God is "void of outside influences.")

"After God had made all other creatures, He created man, male and female, with reasonable and immortal souls, endued with knowledge, righteousness, and true holiness, after His own image; having the law of God written in their hearts, and power to fulfil it: and yet under a possiblity of transgressing, being left to the liberty of their own will, which was subject to change . . ." WCF: IV, II

(this is different than our free will that it tilted to the side of the flesh). It was then Adam who was tempted by Satan and Adam who decided freely to partake of the sin.

God did not cause this sin. He only caused the free will of Adam. Adam is solely responsible for his actions.

Agreed.

"The almighty power, unsearchable wisdom, and inifite goodness of God so far manifest themselves in His providence, that it extgendeth itself eve to the first fall, and all other sins of angels and men; and that not by a bare permission, but as such as hath joined with it a most wise and powerful bounding, and otherwise ordering, and governing of them, in a manifold dispensation, to His own holy ends; yet so, as the sinfulness thereof proceedeth only from the creature, and not from God, who being most holy and righteous, neither is nor can be the author or approver of sin." WCF: V, IV

Now, God knew in advance that although Adam was created with this type of free will, that Satan would come and Adam would sin. It was at this point that God ordained that sin as a part of his ultimate plan.

I hold to the Supralapsarian view that God's decrees (orders of governance) were issued before creation (cause). They are eternal in essence, and not divine reactions to either foreknowledge, events, or secondary causal actions.

"God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeabley ordain whatsover 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.

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." WCF: III, I & II

All things have been created (caused) by God, and ordained (governed) to meet His "own holy ends."

God created man; man caused sin; God decreed, and governed Adam's fall to bring glory to His name through all the promises and workings of His Son.

Christians can and should rest in the wisdom of God and His promises to bring good out of evil; working all things together Himself, for the good of those who love Him. (Genesis 50:20; Romans 8:28)

 

[Notthemama1984]

According to what I have been taught, I do not think this is quite accurate, for Adam was created a mutable being; subject to sin.

(Only immutable God is "void of outside influences.")

I think we still agree. I am not saying that Adam was not capable of sin. What I mean by no outward influence is that Adam was not bound to either to the flesh and thus causes him to walk after the flesh, nor was he bound to the spirit and thus caused him to walk after the spirit. He was perfectly balanced in that he had no preference between spirit and flesh. I believe that Romans 8:5 did not apply to pre-Fall Adam. He had a perfect free will where he could choose not to eat just as easy as it was to choose to eat.

RC Sproul talks about this more in Chosen by God. It is through this balanced free will that Adam could legitimately be our federal head. If you want me to look up some specific pages I can. Just let me know.


God is unchanging which implies not under the control of outward influences, but you do not have to be immutable to be void of influences. For example, I equally love to eat lasagna and chicken fettucini alfredo. They are both equally delicious ( and belly expanding might I add). One day I may choose lasagna and another the alfredo. Nothing is coercing me to choose one over the other. No outside influence is making the decision, but yet I change my mind. Thus I am not immutable, but I am not bound to outward influence.

On the other hand, if I had to choose between french vanilla coffee and hazelnut coffee, I will choose french vanilla 100% of the time. This is because I am allergic to hazelnut. Thus outward influence is forcing the decision.


As for supra vs. laps, I know the terms and I know the basic arguments for both, but I readily admit to that the topic is a weak link so anything I say would be mere speculation and thoughts off the top of my head. I bow out of that aspect of the discussion.

 

[TeachingTulip]

According to what I have been taught, I do not think this is quite accurate, for Adam was created a mutable being; subject to sin.

(Only immutable God is "void of outside influences.")

I think we still agree. I am not saying that Adam was not capable of sin. What I mean by no outward influence is that Adam was not bound to either to the flesh and thus causes him to walk after the flesh, nor was he bound to the spirit and thus caused him to walk after the spirit. He was perfectly balanced in that he had no preference between spirit and flesh. I believe that Romans 8:5 did not apply to pre-Fall Adam. He had a perfect free will where he could choose not to eat just as easy as it was to choose to eat.

In these regards, Adam was free, for his flesh was upright and his spirit was sanctified (holy), being in fellowship and communion with God.

However, God bound Adam to the Law. Adam was created to function according to God's commands (Word). Being created under the Law of the Covenant of Works, Adam was not volitionally "free" to disobey.

Man was created with a human will that was to morally submit to the sovereign will and word of God.

Of course, this is what the incarnated Christ exemplified perfectly. Jesus Christ came to do the will of the Father, and not His own human will.

Both Adam's were brought into this world under the Law; the first Adam failed to subject himself to the Law of God, and the last Adam (Jesus Christ) perfectly obeyed the Law of God; thereby performing the Covenant of Works which provided and established the basis for the better Covenant of Grace between God and men.

RC Sproul talks about this more in Chosen by God. It is through this balanced free will that Adam could legitimately be our federal head. If you want me to look up some specific pages I can. Just let me know.

Does Sproul make mention of any binding of the Law under the Covenant of Works in regard to Adam being our Federal Head?

 

[Michael]

Something that has not yet been brought up, and actually often left out of similar discussions, is the impact of Satan in Adam's Fall. I think all too often we tend to neglect the potency of his cunning, seduction, and influence. After all, through his lie the reprobate where thereafter known as his children.

 

[Notthemama1984]

According to what I have been taught, I do not think this is quite accurate, for Adam was created a mutable being; subject to sin.

(Only immutable God is "void of outside influences.")

I think we still agree. I am not saying that Adam was not capable of sin. What I mean by no outward influence is that Adam was not bound to either to the flesh and thus causes him to walk after the flesh, nor was he bound to the spirit and thus caused him to walk after the spirit. He was perfectly balanced in that he had no preference between spirit and flesh. I believe that Romans 8:5 did not apply to pre-Fall Adam. He had a perfect free will where he could choose not to eat just as easy as it was to choose to eat.

In these regards, Adam was free, for his flesh was upright and his spirit was sanctified (holy), being in fellowship and communion with God.

However, God bound Adam to the Law. Adam was created to function according to God's commands (Word). Being created under the Law of the Covenant of Works, Adam was not volitionally "free" to disobey.

Man was created with a human will that was to morally submit to the sovereign will and word of God.

Of course, this is what the incarnated Christ exemplified perfectly. Jesus Christ came to do the will of the Father, and not His own human will.

Both Adam's were brought into this world under the Law; the first Adam failed to subject himself to the Law of God, and the last Adam (Jesus Christ) perfectly obeyed the Law of God; thereby performing the Covenant of Works which provided and established the basis for the better Covenant of Grace between God and men.

RC Sproul talks about this more in Chosen by God. It is through this balanced free will that Adam could legitimately be our federal head. If you want me to look up some specific pages I can. Just let me know.

Does Sproul make mention of any binding of the Law under the Covenant of Works in regard to Adam being our Federal Head?

yes, Adam was bound to the Law. He was not free to sin, but his will was free to choose without any prejudice of his nature.

I can't say on the Sproul. I am about to headout for the evening with the wife. I will look later tonight and get back to you.

 

[jogri17]

not really... in all honesty when one is apart of a confessing community where these doctrines are believed and taught one becomes complacent and looses interest in just 5 points of doctriens and worry about the the more important things of living before the Face of God and being faithful in everything you do.

 

[Scott1]

not really... in all honesty when one is apart of a confessing community where these doctrines are believed and taught one becomes complacent and looses interest in just 5 points of doctriens and worry about the the more important things of living before the Face of God and being faithful in everything you do.

One way to look at this is these doctrines (the doctrines of grace, the "five points") is that they help us worship Him as He commanded, "in spirit and in truth."

As sinners and finite beings, we image ourselves to in some way to be responsible for our own salvation. We imagine ourselves to the final arbitrators of understanding, fairness and reason.

These doctrines, properly understood help us understand our total and utter dependence on God, and that affects the way we live every day.

I would say, if they do not affect how you are living and worshipping God, they are not being understood.

 

[jogri17]

not really... in all honesty when one is apart of a confessing community where these doctrines are believed and taught one becomes complacent and looses interest in just 5 points of doctriens and worry about the the more important things of living before the Face of God and being faithful in everything you do.

One way to look at this is these doctrines (the doctrines of grace, the "five points") is that they help us worship Him as He commanded, "in spirit and in truth."

As sinners and finite beings, we image ourselves to in some way to be responsible for our own salvation. We imagine ourselves to the final arbitrators of understanding, fairness and reason.

These doctrines, properly understood help us understand our total and utter dependence on God, and that affects the way we live every day.

I would say, if they do not affect how you are living and worshipping God, they are not being understood.

I of course agree with what you said and there is no doubt that without correct doctrine we have no real ultimate comfort yet one must confess that the so-callded five points of calvinism are the only things in the christian life and they should not be the center of it in the sense that while they are true we obey the bible not the confessions (someone who reads the confessions at the neglect of his bible in grave spiritual danger I believe). When I am tempted to steal a book from the library I do not need to remember the doctrine of total depravity... rather I just need to remember ''Thou shalt not steal''. When I am tempted to look upon p0rnography I do not need the wcf's exposition on marriage but I need the words of Jesus in Matthew 5. And there comes a risk of using systematic language too much that we loose the biblical language in reformed circles.

 

[Amazing Grace]

Adam, was created “very good” and made “upright,” but “subject to vanity”; and then God told him, “But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.” Not, “If you eat thereof, you will die,” but just exactly what God said. It was decreed eternally that Adam would eat and die. Yet, God was not in collusion with either Satan or Adam in this fall into sin. God for all practical purposes left Adam alone. Thereby He proved and demonstrated for all time the fundamental principle that man cannot stand without the grace of God continually, continuously, and momentarily sustaining him in all things he is and does.

It is a known and very just maxim of the schools, Effectus sequitur causam proximam: “An effect follows from, and is to be inscribed to, the last immediate cause that produced it.” Thus, for instance, if I hold a book or a stone in my hand, my holding it is the immediate cause of its not falling; but if I let it go, my letting it go is not the immediate cause of its falling: it is carried downwards by its own gravity, which is therefore the causa proxima effectus, the proper and immediate cause of its descent. It is true, if I had kept my hold of it, it would not have fallen, yet still the immediate, direct cause of its fall is its own weight, not my quitting my hold. The application of this to the providence of God, as concerned in sinful events, is easy. Without God, there could have been no creation; without creation, no creatures; without creatures, no sin. Yet is not sin chargeable on God: for, effectus sequitur causam proximam. ( Zanchius)

 

[Scott1]

not really... in all honesty when one is apart of a confessing community where these doctrines are believed and taught one becomes complacent and looses interest in just 5 points of doctriens and worry about the the more important things of living before the Face of God and being faithful in everything you do.

One way to look at this is these doctrines (the doctrines of grace, the "five points") is that they help us worship Him as He commanded, "in spirit and in truth."

As sinners and finite beings, we image ourselves to in some way to be responsible for our own salvation. We imagine ourselves to the final arbitrators of understanding, fairness and reason.

These doctrines, properly understood help us understand our total and utter dependence on God, and that affects the way we live every day.

I would say, if they do not affect how you are living and worshipping God, they are not being understood.

I of course agree with what you said and there is no doubt that without correct doctrine we have no real ultimate comfort yet one must confess that the so-callded five points of calvinism are the only things in the christian life and they should not be the center of it in the sense that while they are true we obey the bible not the confessions (someone who reads the confessions at the neglect of his bible in grave spiritual danger I believe). When I am tempted to steal a book from the library I do not need to remember the doctrine of total depravity... rather I just need to remember ''Thou shalt not steal''. When I am tempted to look upon p0rnography I do not need the wcf's exposition on marriage but I need the words of Jesus in Matthew 5. And there comes a risk of using systematic language too much that we loose the biblical language in reformed circles.

You're right.

But as one comes to understand the doctrines of grace, they will affect how you relate to God. You will pray differently, you will apprehend your sin differently, You will apprehend your God differently... and all in a way more like how God has revealed Himself.

As we think (believe) so we become, in one sense at least.

And remember what the Confessions claim to be. They do not claim to be infallible. They can be amended. But they do reflect what the church confesses as summary of biblical doctrine. The Westminster Standards are footnoted, every proposition and statement- every single one with Scripture proofs.

Often, when reading the Westminster Standards, the page has much more Scripture on it that Confession summary. So, when you are reading, studying them you are taking in much Scripture also.

And there is no need to pit the Scriptures against the Confessions. If one believes a statement or proposition of doctrine in them is not biblical, one needs to very specifically identify them- not rely on a generalized notion that they are incompatible.

 

[Brian Withnell]

So why no discussion on supra- and infra- lapsarianism?

 

[charliejunfan]

So why no discussion on supra- and infra- lapsarianism?

Although off topic,
I used to battle between infra and supra all day every day .

My position as of now is that God does not think in a linear manner like we do but rather circular so that there is no fight whether God's glory takes precedence over his justice or any of that.

I could be grossly misunderstanding the whole issue but in my opinion it is best to use supra to defend God's divine right of choice and infra to defend God's justice


There are mysteries in every system of theology the only difference is where you place them.
Calvinism is the most consistent and answers the most questions/ problems in my opinion.

 

[Dao]

(clipped) . . .God caused Adam to be created with a perfectly balanced free will that is void of outside influences (this is different than our free will that it tilted to the side of the flesh).

So God created Adam to roam free and take a chance of the future? I don't get it. Perhaps God waited for Adam to do what he gotta do and then, made plans afterwards. I don't get that either.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

(clipped) . . .God caused Adam to be created with a perfectly balanced free will that is void of outside influences (this is different than our free will that it tilted to the side of the flesh).

So God created Adam to roam free and take a chance of the future? I don't get it. Perhaps God waited for Adam to do what he gotta do and then, made plans afterwards. I don't get that either.

God ordained everything (first cause), including Adam's free will (secondary causes).

Guys I would encourage you all to read some good commentaries on the Confession's chapters on Free Will and Providence. Consider Shaw or AA Hodge for a start. They can help you sort through all these issues, and understand where we can speak about God's sovereignty and man's freedom, and where we must submit to the silence of God.

 

[Notthemama1984]

(clipped) . . .God caused Adam to be created with a perfectly balanced free will that is void of outside influences (this is different than our free will that it tilted to the side of the flesh).

So God created Adam to roam free and take a chance of the future? I don't get it. Perhaps God waited for Adam to do what he gotta do and then, made plans afterwards. I don't get that either.

Absolutley not. God was not taking a chance of the future by anymeans.

We are bound to the nature of the flesh and God is bound to His nature. Adam did not have God's nature, nor was his nature bound to the flesh and its desires. He was not inclined to choose one thing over another. This is what I mean by void of outward his influences. Adam's nature was not skewed.

 

[dudley]

I have no doubt that Calvinism is biblical. I am a Calvinist Protestant. Many claim to accept the authority of Scripture . . . but if the saints are still in the "dark," they aren't getting what they really need. If the Bible is the infallible rule of faith and life, and if the Bible teaches TULIP, then NOT to teach TULIP is to deny the authority of the Bible, the sufficiency of Christ,

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. . .
II Tim. 3: 16

The doctrines of God's grace -- TULIP -- are the only logical, Biblical explanation of how lost sinners become eternally secure saints. To ignore TULIP is not merely ignoring the clear, unequivocal teaching of Scripture; it is denying Hope to those who need it most, we, the depraved sinners, Man in his natural state is dead in trespasses and sins.

It is the ancient conviction of the Christian church that man -- being dead in trespasses and sins (Eph. 2:1, 5) -- cannot save himself. Yet how often man has tried to do something to bring about his own salvation! But Jesus said, "Apart from me you can do nothing" (John 15:5). It is for this reason that the Bible says that God alone is the author of man's conversion. Any man who hears the gospel is commanded by God to accept it. He is free to accept it. But -- and this is the whole trouble -- he is not able to accept it, because he does not have the holy desire or will to do so. "Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard its spots? Neither can you do good who are accustomed to doing evil" (Jer. 13:23).

Man's sinful nature and this alone, makes it impossible for him to do anything to bring about his own salvation. As Jesus once said, "With man this is impossible ..." (Matt. 19:26). It is impossible for those who are dead in sin to receive Jesus Christ as he is freely offered in the gospel. How thankful we ought to be, then, that Jesus went on to say, " ... but with God all things are possible."

I have discovered that the beauty of our Reformed Protestant faith teaches us that man's ability has suffered drastic change as a result of his fall into sin. He was originally both free and able to do the will of God. But "by his fall into a state of sin," he has "wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation: so as, a natural man, being altogether averse from that good, and dead in sin, is not able, by his own strength, to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto" (Westminster Confession of F, IX:3.

 

[Osage Bluestem]

I believe it's biblical, but evangelically speaking it is best just to tell people plainly that if they trust in Christ they will be saved.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

God causes actions as actions. The actions of moral agents become sinful when compared to the prohibitions of God. Sin is a moral relation. Sin is not an action in and of itself but a function of the will, the desire of the moral agent. God wills righteously what men do wickedly.

As Armourbearer (Rev.Winzer) has noted elsewhere (I don't have the link handy):

God is not the author of sin. God moves no man to sin. To suggest otherwise is to impugn the holiness of God. It suffices to explain the first sin that Adam, although upright, was mutable, which means he was able to sin; that the probation placed him in a situation where sin could be presented to him; and that his earthiness made him susceptible to desire that which was forbidden him. "Sin" is a moral relation, not a natural act; therefore the determination of the will was a moral consideration, not a natural consideration. Philosophical necessity might explain why men choose to act in one way over another but it cannot account for "moral" values. The theological answer -- mutability, probation, earthiness -- suffices to explain the first sin without impugning the holiness of God or having recourse to human speculation.

Moreover:

The moral nature of the action derives from the moral agent which performs it. Consider Charnock:

"God doth not will sin simply, for that were to approve it, but he wills it, in order to that good his wisdom will bring forth from it. He wills not sin for itself, but for the event."

The view that God causes actions as actions is profound and drove me to the books. It bears serious study and contemplation.

AMR

 

[Steve Curtis]

Augustine explored the possibility that it was Adam's love for Eve (a good thing) that caused him to eat the fruit (a bad thing). This is one way to understand what would influence him to sin. There was no internal sinful influence (as fallen man has) for he was not constituted with a sinful and depraved nature. Every decision (to sin or not) is correlated to a desire (good or bad). Bad desires derive from a sinful nature. Thus, Augustine attempted to connect the decision to sin with a present good desire. Not sure how convincing that is, but there it is. The role of Satan must be considered, as well, for his intent was clearly evil and thus Adam was confronted with an external agent that sought to intice him to sin. Again, precisely what Satan was appealing to is a deeper matter. Deeper still is the fall of Satan - for he had nothing external and (presumably) nothing internal to lead him to exalt himself. But that would be another discussion!

 

[MW]

Unless I get a meaningful answer to this problem, I will still have doubts about Calvinism. But I'm not an arminian. Just a calvinist who still has doubts.

This thread has progressed down a few avenues. I don't want to overlook some of the excellent responses you have received, but I believe there is a fundamental point which simply needs to be made. Your doubts, my doubts, and all our natural doubts about Calvinism are basically doubts about Christianity. You are asking questions of Christianity, not particularly Calvinism. Arminianism, Pelagianism, and even Fatalism will all have specific answers to your questions which differ from the answers provided by Calvinism; the problems you are wrestling with are problems every Christian must face and answer in some way or another. As far as I can see Calvinism provides biblical and coherent answers to these questions -- such answers which minister consolation and encouragement to my soul as I seek to follow Christ in this world. Will I continue to doubt? Of course I will. As long as I am in the body of this death, as long as I have senses which are influenced by a world that is under the wrath of God, of course I will doubt -- common sense teaches me to doubt. But we walk by faith and not by sight. We can expect to doubt Calvinism to the extent that we still doubt Christianity and wrestle with the problems of life. The Psalms teach us that the godly man's life in this world will include the element of complaint as well as of comfort.

I hope this puts your questions in broader perspective, even if it doesn't provide the kind of answer you may have been looking for. Blessings!