|
|
Post by civic on Nov 22, 2022 11:22:03 GMT -8
The Famous Calvinist John Piper who gets it from the WCF says the following about evil taken from desiring god website : "Ephesians 1:11 goes even further by declaring that God in Christ “works all things according to the counsel of his will.” Here the Greek word for “works” is energeø, which indicates that God not merely carries all of the universe’s objects and events to their appointed ends but that he actually brings about all things in accordance with his will. In other words, it isn’t just that God manages to turn the evil aspects of our world to good for those who love him; it is rather that he himself brings about these evil aspects for his glory (see Exodus 9:13-16; John 9:3) and his people’s good (see Hebrews 12:3-11; James 1:2-4). This includes — as incredible and as unacceptable as it may currently seem — God’s having even brought about the Nazis’ brutality at Birkenau and Auschwitz as well as the terrible killings of Dennis Rader and even the sexual abuse of a young child: “The LORD has made everything for its own purpose, even the wicked for the day of evil” (Proverbs 16:4, NASB). “When times are good, be happy; but when times are bad, consider: God has made the one as well as the other” (Ecclesiastes 7:14, NIV)." www.desiringgod.org/message...ds-gracious-hand-in-the-hurts-others-do-to-usCalvin below: “We also note that we should consider the creation of the world so that we may realize that everything is subject to God and ruled by his will and that when the world has done what it may, nothing happens other than what God decrees.” Acts: Calvin, The Crossway Classic Commentaries, p.66 “First, the eternal predestination of God, by which before the fall of Adam He decreed what should take place concerning the whole human race and every individual, was fixed and determined.” (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, p.121 “When he uses the term permission, he means that the will of God is the supreme and primary cause of everything, because nothing happens without his order of permission.” The Institutes of Christian Religion, Book I, Ch. 16, Sect. 8 “For myself, I take another principle: Whatever things are done wrongly and unjustly by man, these very things are the right and just works of God. This may seem paradoxical at first sight to some....” Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, p.169 “Indeed, the ungodly pride themselves on being competent to effect their wishes. But the facts show in the end that by them, unconsciously and unwillingly, what was divinely ordained is implemented.” Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, p.173, “Does God work in the hearts of men, directing their plans and moving their wills this way and that, so that they do nothing but what He has ordained?” Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, p.174 hope this helps !!! |
|
|
|
Post by civic on Nov 22, 2022 11:30:19 GMT -8
calvin below:
“But it is quite frivolous refuge to say that God otiosely permits them, when Scripture shows Him not only willing but the author of them.” Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God page 176
“But the objection is not yet resolved, that if all things are done by the will of God, and men contrive nothing except by His will and ordination, then God is the author of all evils.” Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, p.179
God is the AUTHOR !
Did you read that ?
|
|
|
|
Post by makesends on Nov 22, 2022 17:34:50 GMT -8
calvin below: “But it is quite frivolous refuge to say that God otiosely permits them, when Scripture shows Him not only willing but the author of them.” Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God page 176 “But the objection is not yet resolved, that if all things are done by the will of God, and men contrive nothing except by His will and ordination, then God is the author of all evils.” Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, p.179 God is the AUTHOR ! Did you read that ? Realizing that Calvin is not my authority, I still can't help but think people consider him in any negative light they can. (I've seen it done to me often enough!) They take what he said, that no doubt he could have said it better, or been more plain what he was getting at, they take a sentence or two out of context, so that the reader MUST see what the one who quoted it wanted the reader to see. I've seen that done to MacArthur, to Piper, to Sproul, even to James White. Also, I wonder how much the meaning of words has changed since he wrote that. Does 'author of them' mean merely the one who began all things, and therefore can be seen to intend that they happen? Are we sure he means that God is what we normally attribute to Satan, as the Author of Sin? Just saying... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2022 13:32:18 GMT -8
The Famous Calvinist John Piper who gets it from the WCF says the following about evil taken from desiring god website : "Ephesians 1:11 goes even further by declaring that God in Christ “works all things according to the counsel of his will.” Here the Greek word for “works” is energeø, which indicates that God not merely carries all of the universe’s objects and events to their appointed ends but that he actually brings about all things in accordance with his will. In other words, it isn’t just that God manages to turn the evil aspects of our world to good for those who love him; it is rather that he himself brings about these evil aspects for his glory (see Exodus 9:13-16; John 9:3) and his people’s good (see Hebrews 12:3-11; James 1:2-4). This includes — as incredible and as unacceptable as it may currently seem — God’s having even brought about the Nazis’ brutality at Birkenau and Auschwitz as well as the terrible killings of Dennis Rader and even the sexual abuse of a young child: “The LORD has made everything for its own purpose, even the wicked for the day of evil” (Proverbs 16:4, NASB). “When times are good, be happy; but when times are bad, consider: God has made the one as well as the other” (Ecclesiastes 7:14, NIV)." www.desiringgod.org/message...ds-gracious-hand-in-the-hurts-others-do-to-usCalvin below: “We also note that we should consider the creation of the world so that we may realize that everything is subject to God and ruled by his will and that when the world has done what it may, nothing happens other than what God decrees.” Acts: Calvin, The Crossway Classic Commentaries, p.66 “First, the eternal predestination of God, by which before the fall of Adam He decreed what should take place concerning the whole human race and every individual, was fixed and determined.” (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, p.121 “When he uses the term permission, he means that the will of God is the supreme and primary cause of everything, because nothing happens without his order of permission.” The Institutes of Christian Religion, Book I, Ch. 16, Sect. 8 “For myself, I take another principle: Whatever things are done wrongly and unjustly by man, these very things are the right and just works of God. This may seem paradoxical at first sight to some....” Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, p.169 “Indeed, the ungodly pride themselves on being competent to effect their wishes. But the facts show in the end that by them, unconsciously and unwillingly, what was divinely ordained is implemented.” Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, p.173, “Does God work in the hearts of men, directing their plans and moving their wills this way and that, so that they do nothing but what He has ordained?” Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, p.174 hope this helps !!! Couple of thoughts: 1) I, an ardent monergist, think Piper took liberties with the text of Ephesians 1:11 and may well have made the text harder to understand. I have more questions of Piper, not less. He needs to explain himself more and that itself is a problem for any commentator because commentary is supposed to place the emphasis on Christ, not the commentator (which is why I no longer use commentary Bible much). 2) I see Calvin being quoted in snips and pieces and I wonder if he's being quote minded for some unstated reason or purpose. The quoting is particularly curious because Calvin wrote a commentary specifically on the book of Ephesians. Why wasn't Calvin's commentary on verse 11 quoted?!?!? What was the motive in avoiding the most relevant Calvin source and deliberately choosing other sources (in snippets)? 3) Why do otherwise intelligent and earnest Cals and Arms make these easily avoidable mistakes? 4) Here' what Calvin himself said on this specific verse, Ephesians 1:11... 11. Through whom also we have obtained an inheritance. Hitherto he has spoken generally of all the elect; he now begins to take notice of separate classes. When he says, WE have obtained, he speaks of himself and of the Jews, or, perhaps more correctly, of all who were the first fruits of Christianity; and afterwards he comes to the Ephesians. It tended not a little to confirm the faith of the Ephesian converts, that he associated them with himself and the other believers, who might be said to be the first-born in the church. As if he had said, "The condition of all godly persons is the same with yours; for we who were first called by God owe our acceptance to his eternal election." Thus, he shews, that, from first to last, all have obtained salvation by free grace, because they have been freely adopted according to eternal election.
Who worketh all things. The circumlocution employed in describing the Supreme Being deserves attention. He speaks of Him as the sole agent, and as doing everything according to His own will, so as to leave nothing to be done by man. In no respect, therefore, are men admitted to share in this praise, as if they brought anything of their own. God looks at nothing out of himself to move him to elect them, for the counsel of his own will is the only and actual cause of their election. This may enable us to refute the error, or rather the madness, of those who, whenever they are unable to discover the reason of God's works, exclaim loudly against his design. Now that's just a snippet of the Calvin commentary. What Calvin wrote about verse 11 fits with what he said about verses 10 and 12 and everything else he said about the larger passage, but we can already see Calvin's view of the specified text was somewhat different than the way Piper uses it. 5) Calvin did view the passage as evidence God is, " the sole agent, and as doing everything according to His own will, so as to leave nothing to be done by man," but he limited his application of divine work specifically to the matter of salvation and not larger issues of good and evil, as Piper did. To the degree that Piper over-reached he a) didn't represent the specific text well and b) did not represent Calvin well, either. 6) I have often stated the single greatest problem in the Cal v Arm debates are the Cals do not always get Calvin correct and Arms do not always get Arminius correct. In other words, the first, biggest, most frequently occurring problem is ourselves. The second biggest problem is one side misrepresenting the other side. BOTH conditions end up creating strawmen arguments. Both problems are easily addressed simply by checking in with Calvin and Arminius to see if what their followers said is an accurate reflection of those men's teachings. I timed it. It took me 14 seconds to find Calvin's commentary on Ephesians. Just saying. 7) The link in the second paragraph doesn't work. The article was apparently deleted. 8) Is there a specific point of comment or inquiry to be discussed? I didn't see it if it's there. Help me out. What, specifically, are we supposed to be discussing relevant to this op? . |
|
|
|
Post by makesends on Nov 23, 2022 19:08:58 GMT -8
The Famous Calvinist John Piper who gets it from the WCF says the following about evil taken from desiring god website : "Ephesians 1:11 goes even further by declaring that God in Christ “works all things according to the counsel of his will.” Here the Greek word for “works” is energeø, which indicates that God not merely carries all of the universe’s objects and events to their appointed ends but that he actually brings about all things in accordance with his will. In other words, it isn’t just that God manages to turn the evil aspects of our world to good for those who love him; it is rather that he himself brings about these evil aspects for his glory (see Exodus 9:13-16; John 9:3) and his people’s good (see Hebrews 12:3-11; James 1:2-4). This includes — as incredible and as unacceptable as it may currently seem — God’s having even brought about the Nazis’ brutality at Birkenau and Auschwitz as well as the terrible killings of Dennis Rader and even the sexual abuse of a young child: “The LORD has made everything for its own purpose, even the wicked for the day of evil” (Proverbs 16:4, NASB). “When times are good, be happy; but when times are bad, consider: God has made the one as well as the other” (Ecclesiastes 7:14, NIV)." www.desiringgod.org/message...ds-gracious-hand-in-the-hurts-others-do-to-usCalvin below: “We also note that we should consider the creation of the world so that we may realize that everything is subject to God and ruled by his will and that when the world has done what it may, nothing happens other than what God decrees.” Acts: Calvin, The Crossway Classic Commentaries, p.66 “First, the eternal predestination of God, by which before the fall of Adam He decreed what should take place concerning the whole human race and every individual, was fixed and determined.” (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, p.121 “When he uses the term permission, he means that the will of God is the supreme and primary cause of everything, because nothing happens without his order of permission.” The Institutes of Christian Religion, Book I, Ch. 16, Sect. 8 “For myself, I take another principle: Whatever things are done wrongly and unjustly by man, these very things are the right and just works of God. This may seem paradoxical at first sight to some....” Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, p.169 “Indeed, the ungodly pride themselves on being competent to effect their wishes. But the facts show in the end that by them, unconsciously and unwillingly, what was divinely ordained is implemented.” Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, p.173, “Does God work in the hearts of men, directing their plans and moving their wills this way and that, so that they do nothing but what He has ordained?” Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, p.174 hope this helps !!! Couple of thoughts: 1) I, an ardent monergist, think Piper took liberties with the text of Ephesians 1:11 and may well have made the text harder to understand. I have more questions of Piper, not less. He needs to explain himself more and that itself is a problem for any commentator because commentary is supposed to place the emphasis on Christ, not the commentator (which is why I no longer use commentary Bible much). 2) I see Calvin being quoted in snips and pieces and I wonder if he's being quote minded for some unstated reason or purpose. The quoting is particularly curious because Calvin wrote a commentary specifically on the book of Ephesians. Why wasn't Calvin's commentary on verse 11 quoted?!?!? What was the motive in avoiding the most relevant Calvin source and deliberately choosing other sources (in snippets)? 3) Why do otherwise intelligent and earnest Cals and Arms make these easily avoidable mistakes? 4) Here' what Calvin himself said on this specific verse, Ephesians 1:11... 11. Through whom also we have obtained an inheritance. Hitherto he has spoken generally of all the elect; he now begins to take notice of separate classes. When he says, WE have obtained, he speaks of himself and of the Jews, or, perhaps more correctly, of all who were the first fruits of Christianity; and afterwards he comes to the Ephesians. It tended not a little to confirm the faith of the Ephesian converts, that he associated them with himself and the other believers, who might be said to be the first-born in the church. As if he had said, "The condition of all godly persons is the same with yours; for we who were first called by God owe our acceptance to his eternal election." Thus, he shews, that, from first to last, all have obtained salvation by free grace, because they have been freely adopted according to eternal election.
Who worketh all things. The circumlocution employed in describing the Supreme Being deserves attention. He speaks of Him as the sole agent, and as doing everything according to His own will, so as to leave nothing to be done by man. In no respect, therefore, are men admitted to share in this praise, as if they brought anything of their own. God looks at nothing out of himself to move him to elect them, for the counsel of his own will is the only and actual cause of their election. This may enable us to refute the error, or rather the madness, of those who, whenever they are unable to discover the reason of God's works, exclaim loudly against his design. Now that's just a snippet of the Calvin commentary. What Calvin wrote about verse 11 fits with what he said about verses 10 and 12 and everything else he said about the larger passage, but we can already see Calvin's view of the specified text was somewhat different than the way Piper uses it. 5) Calvin did view the passage as evidence God is, " the sole agent, and as doing everything according to His own will, so as to leave nothing to be done by man," but he limited his application of divine work specifically to the matter of salvation and not larger issues of good and evil, as Piper did. To the degree that Piper over-reached he a) didn't represent the specific text well and b) did not represent Calvin well, either. 6) I have often stated the single greatest problem in the Cal v Arm debates are the Cals do not always get Calvin correct and Arms do not always get Arminius correct. In other words, the first, biggest, most frequently occurring problem is ourselves. The second biggest problem is one side misrepresenting the other side. BOTH conditions end up creating strawmen arguments. Both problems are easily addressed simply by checking in with Calvin and Arminius to see if what their followers said is an accurate reflection of those men's teachings. I timed it. It took me 14 seconds to find Calvin's commentary on Ephesians. Just saying. 7) The link on iin the second paragraph doesn't work. The article was apparently deleted. 8) Is there a specific point of comment or inquiry to be discussed? I didn't see it if it's there. Help me out. What, specifically, are we supposed to be discussing relevant to this op? You say: "6) I have often stated the single greatest problem in the Cal v Arm debates are the Cals do not always get Calvin correct and Arms do not always get Arminius correct. In other words, the first, biggest, most frequently occurring problem is ourselves. The second biggest problem is one side misrepresenting the other side."
Understanding that you are an ardent Calvinist, I find it peculiar nonetheless, that you seem, unlike myself, to think that Calvin is the sole (main?) authority on what is (or what should be) modern Calvinism. Admittedly I could be misapprehending your mind there. I'm not sure you meant to imply here what it looks like to me, so correct me please: 1. When Calvinists, (again, as I read you here), don't know and/or misrepresent Calvin, does that mean they misrepresent Calvinism? 2. When the Arms misrepresent Calvinism, is it because they don't know and/or misuse Calvin? I find myself agreeing with Calvin on almost every point, though I would not have stated several things how he did. But I've never studied him. Almost all of what I know about him, I heard from someone else. I don't support Calvinism for its own sake (though I have often defended it for the sake of its reputation when opponents misrepresent it), but for the sake of the Gospel. What am I getting wrong here? On another site, I think it was, I recently told someone to assume that I am not a Calvinist nor Reformed, so that we can get to the meat of the argument, what Scripture says. Is there anything wrong with this? To me the debate isn't really Calvinism vs Arminianism, but one use of Scripture vs another use of Scripture, and one worldview vs another worldview. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 24, 2022 7:36:10 GMT -8
Couple of thoughts: 1) I, an ardent monergist, think Piper took liberties with the text of Ephesians 1:11 and may well have made the text harder to understand. I have more questions of Piper, not less. He needs to explain himself more and that itself is a problem for any commentator because commentary is supposed to place the emphasis on Christ, not the commentator (which is why I no longer use commentary Bible much). 2) I see Calvin being quoted in snips and pieces and I wonder if he's being quote minded for some unstated reason or purpose. The quoting is particularly curious because Calvin wrote a commentary specifically on the book of Ephesians. Why wasn't Calvin's commentary on verse 11 quoted?!?!? What was the motive in avoiding the most relevant Calvin source and deliberately choosing other sources (in snippets)? 3) Why do otherwise intelligent and earnest Cals and Arms make these easily avoidable mistakes? 4) Here' what Calvin himself said on this specific verse, Ephesians 1:11... 11. Through whom also we have obtained an inheritance. Hitherto he has spoken generally of all the elect; he now begins to take notice of separate classes. When he says, WE have obtained, he speaks of himself and of the Jews, or, perhaps more correctly, of all who were the first fruits of Christianity; and afterwards he comes to the Ephesians. It tended not a little to confirm the faith of the Ephesian converts, that he associated them with himself and the other believers, who might be said to be the first-born in the church. As if he had said, "The condition of all godly persons is the same with yours; for we who were first called by God owe our acceptance to his eternal election." Thus, he shews, that, from first to last, all have obtained salvation by free grace, because they have been freely adopted according to eternal election.
Who worketh all things. The circumlocution employed in describing the Supreme Being deserves attention. He speaks of Him as the sole agent, and as doing everything according to His own will, so as to leave nothing to be done by man. In no respect, therefore, are men admitted to share in this praise, as if they brought anything of their own. God looks at nothing out of himself to move him to elect them, for the counsel of his own will is the only and actual cause of their election. This may enable us to refute the error, or rather the madness, of those who, whenever they are unable to discover the reason of God's works, exclaim loudly against his design. Now that's just a snippet of the Calvin commentary. What Calvin wrote about verse 11 fits with what he said about verses 10 and 12 and everything else he said about the larger passage, but we can already see Calvin's view of the specified text was somewhat different than the way Piper uses it. 5) Calvin did view the passage as evidence God is, " the sole agent, and as doing everything according to His own will, so as to leave nothing to be done by man," but he limited his application of divine work specifically to the matter of salvation and not larger issues of good and evil, as Piper did. To the degree that Piper over-reached he a) didn't represent the specific text well and b) did not represent Calvin well, either. 6) I have often stated the single greatest problem in the Cal v Arm debates are the Cals do not always get Calvin correct and Arms do not always get Arminius correct. In other words, the first, biggest, most frequently occurring problem is ourselves. The second biggest problem is one side misrepresenting the other side. BOTH conditions end up creating strawmen arguments. Both problems are easily addressed simply by checking in with Calvin and Arminius to see if what their followers said is an accurate reflection of those men's teachings. I timed it. It took me 14 seconds to find Calvin's commentary on Ephesians. Just saying. 7) The link in the second paragraph doesn't work. The article was apparently deleted. 8) Is there a specific point of comment or inquiry to be discussed? I didn't see it if it's there. Help me out. What, specifically, are we supposed to be discussing relevant to this op? You say: "6) I have often stated the single greatest problem in the Cal v Arm debates are the Cals do not always get Calvin correct and Arms do not always get Arminius correct. In other words, the first, biggest, most frequently occurring problem is ourselves. The second biggest problem is one side misrepresenting the other side."
Understanding that you are an ardent Calvinist, I find it peculiar nonetheless, that you seem, unlike myself, to think that Calvin is the sole (main?) authority on what is (or what should be) modern Calvinism. Admittedly I could be misapprehending your mind there. I'm not sure you meant to imply here what it looks like to me, so correct me please: 1. When Calvinists, (again, as I read you here), don't know and/or misrepresent Calvin, does that mean they misrepresent Calvinism? 2. When the Arms misrepresent Calvinism, is it because they don't know and/or misuse Calvin? I find myself agreeing with Calvin on almost every point, though I would not have stated several things how he did. But I've never studied him. Almost all of what I know about him, I heard from someone else. I don't support Calvinism for its own sake (though I have often defended it for the sake of its reputation when opponents misrepresent it), but for the sake of the Gospel. What am I getting wrong here? On another site, I think it was, I recently told someone to assume that I am not a Calvinist nor Reformed, so that we can get to the meat of the argument, what Scripture says. Is there anything wrong with this? To me the debate isn't really Calvinism vs Arminianism, but one use of Scripture vs another use of Scripture, and one worldview vs another worldview. Good morning, everyone, and happy Thanksgiving to those of you in Canada and the US. I did not say I am an ardent Calvinist. I said I am an ardent monergist. There's a difference. Monergism is not monolithic. Neither is synergism. Luther preceded Calvin. Augustine preceded Luther. The WCF wasn't written 100 years after Calvin's death. Calvinism is not determinism (although many people on both sides think otherwise). Similar conditions exist within synergism; Pelagius' views were much, much different than Arminius' and Wesley's views significantly different than Arminius' in some places. Autonomy is not Arminianism (even though many people on both sides think otherwise). I do not think Calvin is the sole authority on monergism. I do, however, think any opening post couching itself in the soteriology bearing Calvin's name should do soin a manner consistent with what the man actually taught. I hold a similar standard for preachers and teachers. If my Pastor teaches " Calvinism teaches X ," and Calvin did not actually teach that position then an explanation regarding how that particular point of view departed from Calvin and still remains Calvinism. S/he might be teaching Augustinian soteriology, or Lutheran soteriology, or for all we know he might even be teaching an Arminian or traditional Baptist soteriology because they tend to adhere to the T and P of TULIP. The uninformed do know the difference and may think what was posted, or what was preached is correct - a correct reflection of Calvinism - when it isn't. The same is true when expositing on a particular verse. This op opens with comments from Piper on a specific verse and what Piper believes Calvinism teaches about that verse. Given Calvin's commentary, I can imagine John Calvin reading Piper's statements, or the opening lines of this op, and thinking. " That's not what I taught about Ephesians 1:11!" What Piper means to say is, " My monergism teaches, '"Ephesians 1:11 goes even further by declaring that God in Christ “works all things according to the counsel of his will........'" The fact is Calvin isn't actually mentioned by Piper in the quotes provided. The author of the op has personal difficulty with Calvinism (ask him. he'll share them with you). As a consequence of those difficulties confirmation biases creep in. My support respectful support of monergism is one of the reasons I was invited to join BAM. Piper's a Calvinist, but he's a much different Calvinist than Charles Spurgeon, James White or N. T. Wright  . Piper is not representative of all monergists. That's why the WCF is a better reflection of monergism (or Calvinism) than Piper. I'll answer your questions individually in another post. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 24, 2022 8:25:35 GMT -8
Couple of thoughts: 1) I, an ardent monergist, think Piper took liberties with the text of Ephesians 1:11 and may well have made the text harder to understand. I have more questions of Piper, not less. He needs to explain himself more and that itself is a problem for any commentator because commentary is supposed to place the emphasis on Christ, not the commentator (which is why I no longer use commentary Bible much). 2) I see Calvin being quoted in snips and pieces and I wonder if he's being quote minded for some unstated reason or purpose. The quoting is particularly curious because Calvin wrote a commentary specifically on the book of Ephesians. Why wasn't Calvin's commentary on verse 11 quoted?!?!? What was the motive in avoiding the most relevant Calvin source and deliberately choosing other sources (in snippets)? 3) Why do otherwise intelligent and earnest Cals and Arms make these easily avoidable mistakes? 4) Here' what Calvin himself said on this specific verse, Ephesians 1:11... 11. Through whom also we have obtained an inheritance. Hitherto he has spoken generally of all the elect; he now begins to take notice of separate classes. When he says, WE have obtained, he speaks of himself and of the Jews, or, perhaps more correctly, of all who were the first fruits of Christianity; and afterwards he comes to the Ephesians. It tended not a little to confirm the faith of the Ephesian converts, that he associated them with himself and the other believers, who might be said to be the first-born in the church. As if he had said, "The condition of all godly persons is the same with yours; for we who were first called by God owe our acceptance to his eternal election." Thus, he shews, that, from first to last, all have obtained salvation by free grace, because they have been freely adopted according to eternal election.
Who worketh all things. The circumlocution employed in describing the Supreme Being deserves attention. He speaks of Him as the sole agent, and as doing everything according to His own will, so as to leave nothing to be done by man. In no respect, therefore, are men admitted to share in this praise, as if they brought anything of their own. God looks at nothing out of himself to move him to elect them, for the counsel of his own will is the only and actual cause of their election. This may enable us to refute the error, or rather the madness, of those who, whenever they are unable to discover the reason of God's works, exclaim loudly against his design. Now that's just a snippet of the Calvin commentary. What Calvin wrote about verse 11 fits with what he said about verses 10 and 12 and everything else he said about the larger passage, but we can already see Calvin's view of the specified text was somewhat different than the way Piper uses it. 5) Calvin did view the passage as evidence God is, " the sole agent, and as doing everything according to His own will, so as to leave nothing to be done by man," but he limited his application of divine work specifically to the matter of salvation and not larger issues of good and evil, as Piper did. To the degree that Piper over-reached he a) didn't represent the specific text well and b) did not represent Calvin well, either. 6) I have often stated the single greatest problem in the Cal v Arm debates are the Cals do not always get Calvin correct and Arms do not always get Arminius correct. In other words, the first, biggest, most frequently occurring problem is ourselves. The second biggest problem is one side misrepresenting the other side. BOTH conditions end up creating strawmen arguments. Both problems are easily addressed simply by checking in with Calvin and Arminius to see if what their followers said is an accurate reflection of those men's teachings. I timed it. It took me 14 seconds to find Calvin's commentary on Ephesians. Just saying. 7) The link in the second paragraph doesn't work. The article was apparently deleted. 8) Is there a specific point of comment or inquiry to be discussed? I didn't see it if it's there. Help me out. What, specifically, are we supposed to be discussing relevant to this op? ..............I'm not sure you meant to imply here what it looks like to me, so correct me please: 1. When Calvinists, (again, as I read you here), don't know and/or misrepresent Calvin, does that mean they misrepresent Calvinism? Not necessarily but more often than it should occur that is the case. I just proved such an example. One of the biggest misrepresentations of Calvinism, and it happens by both Cals and Arms, is the belief Calvinism is strict determinism. Calvin never taught that. It's just wrong. We hear/read about this whenever we read epithets like, " robot theology," or "God being a " Puppeteer." With less provocation but no less error we read claims of Calvin, Calvinism, and Calvinist denying free will. The first two are complete hogwash and the last is true of only those self-styled Calvinists who hold to determinism. They're not actually Calvinists. They are determinists posting under the guise of Calvinism. Calvin wrote quite a lot on the human will and he often used the phrase "free will," affirmatively. He held it exists but is corrupted by sin. The WCF asserts and affirms human volitional agency ("volitional agency" is a much better, more accurate understanding of hos sin-corrupted human will works in relationship to God's almighty sovereignty). Yep. Many an occasion I have read Arms rag on Cals and responded by quoting Calvin or the WCF to irrefutably evidence and prove their view of Calvinism is not correct. Ad hominiem is the common response. It I'll bet that's not true.  Calvin believed pedobaptism was salvific and he attributed his own salvation to his infant baptism. That is a part of Calvinist soteriology, for example, that has been discarded from the theology bearing his name. We've modified that view to say pedobaptism is a covenant sign, not salvific. Then I encourage you to do so. His works are available online for free and can be read at your leisure. Much of it available in e-reader format for a dollar (or a few). Think about what a person would know of your views if they're only source were second-hand and third-hand source many of whom were opposed to your views. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 24, 2022 8:40:27 GMT -8
Couple of thoughts: 1) I, an ardent monergist, think Piper took liberties with the text of Ephesians 1:11 and may well have made the text harder to understand. I have more questions of Piper, not less. He needs to explain himself more and that itself is a problem for any commentator because commentary is supposed to place the emphasis on Christ, not the commentator (which is why I no longer use commentary Bible much). 2) I see Calvin being quoted in snips and pieces and I wonder if he's being quote minded for some unstated reason or purpose. The quoting is particularly curious because Calvin wrote a commentary specifically on the book of Ephesians. Why wasn't Calvin's commentary on verse 11 quoted?!?!? What was the motive in avoiding the most relevant Calvin source and deliberately choosing other sources (in snippets)? 3) Why do otherwise intelligent and earnest Cals and Arms make these easily avoidable mistakes? 4) Here' what Calvin himself said on this specific verse, Ephesians 1:11... 11. Through whom also we have obtained an inheritance. Hitherto he has spoken generally of all the elect; he now begins to take notice of separate classes. When he says, WE have obtained, he speaks of himself and of the Jews, or, perhaps more correctly, of all who were the first fruits of Christianity; and afterwards he comes to the Ephesians. It tended not a little to confirm the faith of the Ephesian converts, that he associated them with himself and the other believers, who might be said to be the first-born in the church. As if he had said, "The condition of all godly persons is the same with yours; for we who were first called by God owe our acceptance to his eternal election." Thus, he shews, that, from first to last, all have obtained salvation by free grace, because they have been freely adopted according to eternal election.
Who worketh all things. The circumlocution employed in describing the Supreme Being deserves attention. He speaks of Him as the sole agent, and as doing everything according to His own will, so as to leave nothing to be done by man. In no respect, therefore, are men admitted to share in this praise, as if they brought anything of their own. God looks at nothing out of himself to move him to elect them, for the counsel of his own will is the only and actual cause of their election. This may enable us to refute the error, or rather the madness, of those who, whenever they are unable to discover the reason of God's works, exclaim loudly against his design. Now that's just a snippet of the Calvin commentary. What Calvin wrote about verse 11 fits with what he said about verses 10 and 12 and everything else he said about the larger passage, but we can already see Calvin's view of the specified text was somewhat different than the way Piper uses it. 5) Calvin did view the passage as evidence God is, " the sole agent, and as doing everything according to His own will, so as to leave nothing to be done by man," but he limited his application of divine work specifically to the matter of salvation and not larger issues of good and evil, as Piper did. To the degree that Piper over-reached he a) didn't represent the specific text well and b) did not represent Calvin well, either. 6) I have often stated the single greatest problem in the Cal v Arm debates are the Cals do not always get Calvin correct and Arms do not always get Arminius correct. In other words, the first, biggest, most frequently occurring problem is ourselves. The second biggest problem is one side misrepresenting the other side. BOTH conditions end up creating strawmen arguments. Both problems are easily addressed simply by checking in with Calvin and Arminius to see if what their followers said is an accurate reflection of those men's teachings. I timed it. It took me 14 seconds to find Calvin's commentary on Ephesians. Just saying. 7) The link in the second paragraph doesn't work. The article was apparently deleted. 8) Is there a specific point of comment or inquiry to be discussed? I didn't see it if it's there. Help me out. What, specifically, are we supposed to be discussing relevant to this op? ...................I don't support Calvinism for its own sake (though I have often defended it for the sake of its reputation when opponents misrepresent it), but for the sake of the Gospel. What am I getting wrong here? I'm not sure you're getting anything wrong beside relying on second- and third-hand biased sources. This idea our various doctrines are opposed to the gospel is quite often a red herring. The Cal v Arm debate would not exist if scripture were explicit in all areas. The reasons these debates persist is because we are making a conscious effort to understand more and our biases get in the way. They get in the way when we read the Bible, they get in the way if we read the original post-canonical doctrinal sources (ECFs, Augustine, Luther, Erasmus, Calvin, Arminius, etc.), and the get in the way when we read biased second- and third-hand sources. Learning and understanding require work, and that is dependent upon prayer and the Holy Spirit. That's why I am monergist, not Calvinist . One advantage to having familiarity with the original sources is the ability to recognize straw men when they happen. Recognizing what simply diversity within the overarching pale is another. Piper is the latter, but he may be being used for the former (the op is unclear). I completely agree! I think, if you are looking for it and discerning correctly, you will find the synergist arguments are built entirely on an inferential reading of scripture. I, a monergist, can actually point directly to clear unambiguous statements in scripture explicitly declaring, " God did X," and in many of those places the scriptures just as explicitly state God did what His did based solely on His will and/or His purpose. On many occasions these things were decided long before the humans involved were even born. But there's not a single explicit statement in the entire Bible declaring the sinfully dead and enslaved sinner's will did anything salvific. They ALWAYS infer it. And if you ask them to pretend they are not Arm or Cal and ask them for a clear unambiguous explicit statement in scripture the likely response will be ad hominem. Rare is the synergist who will be forthcoming with an unqualified, " There are no such explicit statements." Try it sometime. See what happens. It comes down to what the Bible actually states in comparison to what parties make it say. What they say it says is not always what it actually states. Start with what is actually stated and then whatever inferences are warranted build on the clear unambiguous, explicit statements. |
|
|
|
Post by leatherneck0311 on Feb 9, 2023 22:29:22 GMT -8
[quote author="@josheb" On another site, I think it was, I recently told someone to assume that I am not a Calvinist nor Reformed, so that we can get to the meat of the argument, what Scripture says. Is there anything wrong with this?
To me the debate isn't really Calvinism vs Arminianism, but one use of Scripture vs another use of Scripture, and one worldview vs another worldview.[/quote]I completely agree!
I think, if you are looking for it and discerning correctly, you will find the synergist arguments are built entirely on an inferential reading of scripture. I, a monergist, can actually point directly to clear unambiguous statements in scripture explicitly declaring, "God did X," and in many of those places the scriptures just as explicitly state God did what His did based solely on His will and/or His purpose. On many occasions these things were decided long before the humans involved were even born.
But there's not a single explicit statement in the entire Bible declaring the sinfully dead and enslaved sinner's will did anything salvific. They ALWAYS infer it.
And if you ask them to pretend they are not Arm or Cal and ask them for a clear unambiguous explicit statement in scripture the likely response will be ad hominem. Rare is the synergist who will be forthcoming with an unqualified, "There are no such explicit statements." Try it sometime. See what happens.
It comes down to what the Bible actually states in comparison to what parties make it say. What they say it says is not always what it actually states. Start with what is actually stated and then whatever inferences are warranted build on the clear unambiguous, explicit statements. [/quote]
How much more explicit would Paul have had to be when the jailer asked him what must he do to be saved, and Paul responded believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved ? The jailer was given 2 choices believe and be saved or don’t believe and be lost. You may put this as an inference but in reality it isn’t.
|
|
|
|
Post by praiseyeshua on Feb 12, 2023 8:39:12 GMT -8
How much more explicit would Paul have had to be when the jailer asked him what must he do to be saved, and Paul responded believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved ? The jailer was given 2 choices believe and be saved or don’t believe and be lost. You may put this as an inference but in reality it isn’t. The Bible doesn't record all the details associated with all events. It is certain that once a person sincerely believes and confesses that belief, Salvation is assured. That doesn't mean that he jailer didn't take other actions associated with salvation. Paul simple told him what HE needed. |
|
|
|
Post by praiseyeshua on Feb 12, 2023 10:49:40 GMT -8
I must admit, I've had problems with Piper for decades. I have no problem stating that believe he has caused extraordinary harm to many people. His defense of Calvinism is extraordinarily reckless.
When pressed to deal with conflicts in his theology, he simply uses the ole "we have a finite mind"..... defense. While out the "other side of his mouth" he claims extensive knowledge from the infinite "mind of Christ".....
I would love for him to be consistent. However, there maybe very little chance of that happening.
|
|
|
|
Post by leatherneck0311 on Feb 12, 2023 18:15:13 GMT -8
How much more explicit would Paul have had to be when the jailer asked him what must he do to be saved, and Paul responded believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved ? The jailer was given 2 choices believe and be saved or don’t believe and be lost. You may put this as an inference but in reality it isn’t. The Bible doesn't record all the details associated with all events. It is certain that once a person sincerely believes and confesses that belief, Salvation is assured. That doesn't mean that he jailer didn't take other actions associated with salvation. Paul simple told him what HE needed. . The only action Paul told the jailer he had to do was believe on the Lord Jesus Christ to be saved, and adding anything to be saved other than believing would be adding to what God requires for salvation. |
|
|
|
Post by praiseyeshua on Feb 12, 2023 19:23:34 GMT -8
The Bible doesn't record all the details associated with all events. It is certain that once a person sincerely believes and confesses that belief, Salvation is assured. That doesn't mean that he jailer didn't take other actions associated with salvation. Paul simple told him what HE needed. . The only action Paul told the jailer he had to do was believe on the Lord Jesus Christ to be saved, and adding anything to be saved other than believing would be adding to what God requires for salvation. Jesus said a man must repent. I believe Jesus. Paul was a servant of Jesus Christ. They do not contradict each other. A man must believe, confess and repent. |
|
|
|
Post by leatherneck0311 on Feb 12, 2023 21:19:37 GMT -8
. The only action Paul told the jailer he had to do was believe on the Lord Jesus Christ to be saved, and adding anything to be saved other than believing would be adding to what God requires for salvation. Jesus said a man must repent. I believe Jesus. Paul was a servant of Jesus Christ. They do not contradict each other. A man must believe, confess and repent. I agree ; however, if a person does not believe they will never repent. |
|
|
|
Post by praiseyeshua on Feb 13, 2023 5:25:18 GMT -8
Jesus said a man must repent. I believe Jesus. Paul was a servant of Jesus Christ. They do not contradict each other. A man must believe, confess and repent. I agree ; however, if a person does not believe they will never repent. Agreed. |
|
. Piper is not representative of all monergists. That's why the WCF is a better reflection of monergism (or Calvinism) than Piper. 
