Why Do Calvinists Think They Have Superior Theology?

[FSSL]

Most of the people I know who hold to the position of free will believe that God, though all-knowing and all-powerful, believe that God in his sovereignty has ALLOWED man to make the decision on their salvation, but already knows what their choice will be individually. He, like we, knows that all will not accept, and he knows who will...yet, he doesn't impose his choice over theirs. Semantics and a matter of timing...but, that's what they believe. Blanket statements like yours are a bloviating fool's way of describing this and are the whole reason many believe Calvinists to be arrogant. At times, I have to say I agree.

I have run into a bunch of arrogant Hylesites and BJrs who reject Calvinism.

Semantics are important. Your explanation above does not help me believe that you believe God is always Sovereign and omniscient.

God hardened Pharaoh. God raised Pharaoh up to to reject Him. God did not act because He knew what Pharaoh would do. He made Pharaoh a vessel of descruction and Pharaoh happily destroyed himself.

 

[FSSL]

Yes, many do indeed harden their heart...

Did God harden them?

 

[Rockson]

Careful. Someone might pull out Exodus 35:29 and the like, while ignoring that a "freewill offering" just means it wasn't mandatory, and it has nothing to do with the autonomy of the human will.

Good grief Ransom. If you ask school children what does the reading of Genesis tell us of Adam and Eve they'd say for one thing they had a free will to choose between good and evil.

I like what Jesus stated about receiving the Kingdom like a child. Lk 18:17

 

[Dr. Huk-N-Duck]

Good grief Ransom. If you ask school children what does the reading of Genesis tell us of Adam and Eve they'd say for one thing they had a free will to choose between good and evil.

Interesting analogy. I never quite put it in that perspective before.

 

[Ransom]

Good grief Ransom. If you ask school children what does the reading of Genesis tell us of Adam and Eve they'd say for one thing they had a free will to choose between good and evil.

Of course. They were unfallen, and hence free to choose both good and evil. After the Fall, they and their descendants were still free to choose evil, but not the good.

Something tells me your childish friends can't draw the distinction between the normative and a special case. The Bible is an adult book, so I get my theology from adults.

 

[Baptist Renegade]

That's the most idiotic question I've ever heard....and coming from you...you otta be 'shamed of yourself, dude! LOL

Typical logic of a "Funny-Mental-ist!"

When you do not have the slightest clue how to answer the question, ridicule and shame the one who asked!

Are you sure you are FREEEEEEEEEEEE?

 

[FSSL]

We defend the idea that God is Sovereign, man is hostile to God and fundamentalists get all squishy.

... and THEN "what about Adam and Eve?" Don't these people understand that they were not born sinners. They eventually brought sin into this world.

 

[ALAYMAN]

We defend the idea that God is Sovereign, man is hostile to God and fundamentalists get all squishy.

... and THEN "what about Adam and Eve?" Don't these people understand that they were not born sinners. They eventually brought sin into this world.

Fundamentalists are certainly not universally Calvinists, not now nor historically, so it should come as no surprise that there’s pushback against your definition of sovereignty.

 

[The Real Holy Mole]

We defend the idea that God is Sovereign, man is hostile to God and fundamentalists get all squishy.

... and THEN "what about Adam and Eve?" Don't these people understand that they were not born sinners. They eventually brought sin into this world.

We learn from Captain Obvious that every "bone-fide Calvinist" indeed believes that Adam and Eve had a choice, yet pre-fallen nature aside, we have established a precedent from the beginning of scripture that man's choice(freewill) and God's sovereignty can exist at the same place, at the same time.

...unless Adam and Eve did not have a choice but no "bone-fide Calvinist" believes that .....or do they

I think the question is more pertinent than you will credit it for.

 

[Ransom]

we have established a precedent from the beginning of scripture that man's choice(freewill) and God's sovereignty can exist at the same place, at the same time.

Which is beside the point. Calvinists (not hyper-Calvinists) are compatibilists, so we already agree on this.

 

[FSSL]

Fundamentalists are certainly not universally Calvinists, not now nor historically, so it should come as no surprise that there’s pushback against your definition of sovereignty.

The Baptists were primarily Calvinists. This is where Calvinism has been a theological tenent. (See the confessions of faith)

Fundamentalists, historically were usually 3-4 point Calvinists with some strong Arminians. It was a non-issue among the Fundamentalists. Robert Sumner skirmished about it in the early 1970s causing fundamentalists to become more polarized against Calvinism. The Sword Conferences certainly polarized against Calvinism.

The Geneneral Association of Regular Baptists were the stronghold for Calvinism all the way through the early 1980s.

 

[FSSL]

"My definition of Sovereignty"

Really? I quote Colossians 1.17 (He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. )
and you deny that it supports the theology of God's Sovereignty?

You have not read any of the links you provided.

 

[FSSL]

We learn from Captain Obvious that every "bone-fide Calvinist" indeed believes that Adam and Eve had a choice, yet pre-fallen nature aside, we have established a precedent from the beginning of scripture that man's choice(freewill) and God's sovereignty can exist at the same place, at the same time.

...unless Adam and Eve did not have a choice but no "bone-fide Calvinist" believes that .....or do they

I think the question is more pertinent than you will credit it for.

"Yet pre-falllen nature aside..."

Its not an aside. It IS the reason we are born as hostiles to God. There is no freewill that continues.

Another example of how fundies today lack theology. We now have one denying original sin (or at least the implications of it).

 

[ALAYMAN]

The Baptists were primarily Calvinists. This is where Calvinism has been a theological tenent. (See the confessions of faith)

Fundamentalists, historically were usually 3-4 point Calvinists with some strong Arminians. It was a non-issue among the Fundamentalists. Robert Sumner skirmished about it in the early 1970s causing fundamentalists to become more polarized against Calvinism. The Sword Conferences certainly polarized against Calvinism.

The Geneneral Association of Regular Baptists were the stronghold for Calvinism all the way through the early 1980s.

You said fundamentalist, not Baptists.

 

[AverageJoe]

I will do that if you insist, but why can't you tell me yourself what you mean when you write "free will"?

When people refuse to define their own terms (or pretend they need my help to do it), and instead hem and haw about it as you've just been doing, I wonder why they want to remain ambiguous..

Spoiler

A few examples, off the top of my head:

1. "Free will," as in a "freewill offering," meaning it is voluntary rather than mandatory.
2. "Free will" meaning acting under one's own volition--doing what one wants rather than being "programmed."2
3. "Free will" meaning an autonomous will, equally capable (for example) of accepting Christ or rejecting him.

Let's say they go with a mix between 2 and 3, but probably closer to three. This isn't necessarily my position...I'm just stating their position...And, you ought to know by now I'm not ambiguous about anything. I have no need to be....so, I'm beginning to wonder if you're not a relative of the PREVARICATING FSSL. LOL

 

[AverageJoe]

So when the Bible describes a man as "dead," "blind," "lost," "imprisoned," and so forth because of sin, what does that mean for the man?

(And no, I'm not going to answer for you.)

I love how Calvinists like to take a thing like dead (physically) and apply it to the spirit. Still, "I Am the Lord thy God, I CHANGE NOT....oops! Also, Let us make man in our image.....Did God make man in his image and likeness or not, Scott? Three part being, having a will. If man doesn't make the choice himself (and again, I'm not necessarily of the opinion held by free will, nor of Calvinists...as stated several times here, and ELSEWHERE, I end up stating their position most because they're the most maligned, and FSSL's continued implications are proof of this)...Oh, by the way, why in the world would I want you to answer for me? I'm perfectly capable of speaking for myself.

 

[AverageJoe]

I have run into a bunch of arrogant Hylesites and BJrs who reject Calvinism.

Semantics are important. Your explanation above does not help me believe that you believe God is always Sovereign and omniscient.

God hardened Pharaoh. God raised Pharaoh up to to reject Him. God did not act because He knew what Pharaoh would do. He made Pharaoh a vessel of descruction and Pharaoh happily destroyed himself.

Operative words "God did not act"....yet, it's okay for Calvinists to believe he acts to force a decision he's already made onto his creation. Okay...I see....LOL And, by the way, I've run into a bunch of arrogant HAC'ers and BJrs who are on the side of Calvin....So, the knife cuts both ways...what's your point?

 

[ALAYMAN]

"My definition of Sovereignty"

Really? I quote Colossians 1.17 (He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. )
and you deny that it supports the theology of God's Sovereignty?

You are on a roll, I asked you how that passage regarding God’s sovereignty dealt specifically with man’s will.

You have not read any of the links you provided.

See, it’s statements like this where you go off the rails for productive conversation. Why would you say I have not read the links? You once again are factually wrong about that. Your next move is, by implication of course, to say that I don’t understand the links. And I may or may not understand what I have read regarding commentaries on Col 1:17, but you have to demonstrate from my own words and the commentaries how that passage deaIs with man's will. You can’t just declare I don’t understand by fiat, well, you can, but your reasoning /argument are shown to be all hat no cattle when you argue that way.

 

[Rockson]

Of course. They were unfallen, and hence free to choose both good and evil. After the Fall, they and their descendants were still free to choose evil, but not the good.

I think you need to step back and reassess your position. So you have the decedents of Adam and Eve born after the fall and you say they were free to choose evil but not the good......and born in that state you claim they are WITHOUT EXCUSE.

They WOULD HAVE an excuse. They were born that way if you're holding to they could not choose the good. They did nothing to put themselves in the position you say they'd be in. It was their parents Adam and Eve which did, so how can you say they would not have an excuse? Consider this is where Calvinism really falls apart.

The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. Ezek 18:20

Why won't the son bear the guilt of the father? Obviously for one reason....IT would not be just. It would not be right and it would not be fair. So who are we to say what is right, just and fair? We don't even have to ask that question. God himself has told us it's unjust for the offspring to bear the guilt of the parents.

Look at what Calvinism does though. It actually puts the sinners Adam and Eve's offspring even in a place where they are condemned at no fault of their own, and with nothing they themselves had did which was evil. And yet we're told they're still without excuse.

 

[ALAYMAN]

I think you need to step back and reassess your position. So you have the decedents of Adam and Eve born after the fall and you say they were free to choose evil but not the good......and born in that state you claim they are WITHOUT EXCUSE.

They WOULD HAVE an excuse. They were born that way if you're holding to they could not choose the good. They did nothing to put themselves in the position you say they'd be in. It was their parents Adam and Eve which did, so how can you say they would not have an excuse? Consider this is where Calvinism really falls apart.

The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. Ezek 18:20

Why won't the son bear the guilt of the father? Obviously for one reason....IT would not be just. It would not be right and it would not be fair. So who are we to say what is right, just and fair? We don't even have to ask that question. God himself has told us it's unjust for the offspring to bear the guilt of the parents.

Look at what Calvinism does though. It actually puts the sinners Adam and Eve's offspring even in a place where they are condemned at no fault of their own, and with nothing they themselves had did which was evil. And yet we're told they're still without excuse.

Are you suggesting that a person born after Adam is innocent until they commit an act of sin? In other words, are you denying the doctrine of original sin?