# Are you fully convinced that Calvinism is biblical?



## iahm87 (Dec 10, 2009)

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.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Dec 10, 2009)

I don't have any doubts, but I do understand people who do. I had many doubts for some time. It is a process to learn all the doctrines of grace.


----------



## Simply_Nikki (Dec 10, 2009)

Sure, God could have just created Adam and Eve and ordained that they never sinned and we'd all live happily ever after in the Garden of Eden. However, I don't think we would have ever known the depth of God's love if he had not preordained the fall and his plan for redemption...


----------



## iahm87 (Dec 10, 2009)

Well I think I understand the doctrines of Grace. I just don't understand how God does not become responsible for Adam's sin, if he ordained it


----------



## awretchsavedbygrace (Dec 10, 2009)

iahm87 said:


> Well I think I understand the doctrines of Grace. I just don't understand how God does not become responsible for Adam's sin, if he ordained it



Humir, to quote James White, "there was no cosmic gun to Adam's back". Adam was not saying, "God, I want to be good, dont make me". Adam freely chose to sin and was not forced. We dont know exactly what filled Adam's heart at that moment, but we do know that he ate and sinned.


----------



## apaleífo̱ (Dec 10, 2009)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I always thought that it was a tenet of Calvinist thought -- or at least of certain branches of Calvinistic thought -- that Adam and Eve _did_ have free will and that it was only after the Fall that mankind was bereft of the ability to choose God with their own will alone.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Dec 10, 2009)

Humir,

Something that will help you out immensely is a good study on Covenant Theology. That will fill in so many wholes that are lacking in getting a better grip on the 5 points. Studying the Covenant of Works will and the federal headship of Adam will help you very much. It will also reveal the wonderful completed work of Christ in the Covenant of Grace.


----------



## iahm87 (Dec 10, 2009)

Well Adam was in right standing with God and had a pure heart, but God ordained that he would sin, so I don't know. What confuses me is that when Calvinist make the argument that God does not force sinners to sin, since they already have a sin nature, Arminians respond with God foreordaining Adam's sin.

I understand that God does not put a gun on Adam's head, but still, Adam would have sinned anyway by God's decree. And if God had not decreed Adam's sin, he would not have sinned (unless Adam had a free will).

This is a mystery to me. This is the reason I get defeated by Arminians when discussing Calvinism. I always win when discussing Romans 9, John 6, even the Arminian proof-texts, but not on this one. I don't fully understand this area.


----------



## apaleífo̱ (Dec 10, 2009)

But I thought that Adam _did_ have free will! Have I just been reading the wrong Calvinists, or something?


----------



## iahm87 (Dec 10, 2009)

Some calvinist might say that if Adam had free will, then God would not be absolutely sovereign. The sacrifice of Christ would be an afterthought of Adam's sin.

I will take that into consideration Martin. Even though I think my church is more dispensational (not sure, need to ask my Pastor)


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Dec 10, 2009)

Sometimes you need to just let God be God and remember Deuteronomy 29:29.



> (Deu 29:29) The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law.



I am not sure how an arminian can discuss Adam's fall and use it against Calvinism. Adam sinned by his own self will. He had chosen the wrong tree to eat from. He didn't partake from the tree of Life. Sure God preordained it. But God didn't cause it. We all sin in our Federal head. The amazing thing is that in the Second Adam we who are called in Christ are delivered from such. Christ fully fulfilled the law of works. The Heavens are all unclean before him. Only God could completely in wisdom and knowledge fulfill the law and Covenant of Works. He alone is the source and fulfiller. And it is glorifying to Him for us to come to some knowledge of it even though we will never fully comprehend it. We are made complete in our Federal Head Christ, the second Adam.


----------



## iahm87 (Dec 10, 2009)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Sometimes you need to just let God be God and remember Deuteronomy 29:29.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



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


----------



## apaleífo̱ (Dec 10, 2009)

Read this: Reformed Answers: Evil, Free-Will, Predestination

Adam did have free will, or at least a larger extent of it than fallen man does according to the tenets of orthodox Calvinism. This article also addresses whether Adam's possession of free will compromises God's sovereignty or not, which might prove helpful to you as well. I'll see if I can dig up more on this later.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Dec 10, 2009)

iahm87 said:


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



A lot. 



> (Jas 1:13) Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:
> 
> (Jas 1:14) But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
> 
> ...



It is bordering on blashemy.


----------



## iahm87 (Dec 10, 2009)

christabella_warren said:


> Read this: Reformed Answers: Evil, Free-Will, Predestination
> 
> Adam did have free will, or at least a larger extent of it than fallen man does according to the tenets of orthodox Calvinism. This article also addresses whether Adam's possession of free will compromises God's sovereignty or not, which might prove helpful to you as well. I'll see if I can dig up more on this later.



Ok now it's starting to make sense. Just a little bit


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Dec 10, 2009)

God will be glorified. He shows forth his goodness and holiness. His ways are perfect. 

His By Grace--"John Gill: A Body of Doctrinal & Practical Divinity"-Doctrinal Book 3, Chapter 8



> John Gill
> A Body of Doctrinal & Practical Divinity
> 
> 2. Secondly, How creatures, so wise and knowing, so holy, just, and good; made after the image and likeness of God, came to sin as they did, deserves an enquiry: To what could their sin and fall be owing? Not unto God; he is not the author of sin, nor tempts unto it; nor is he tempted by it: nor to Satan, only as an instrument, enticing and deceiving; but to themselves, to their own will, it was their own act and deed.
> ...


----------



## cih1355 (Dec 10, 2009)

> 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.



Even though God ordained that Adam would sin, Adam is responsible for his sin because he acted according to his desires and his desires were not generated in an inappropriate way.


----------



## TaylorWest (Dec 10, 2009)

*Swimming or Dead?*



iahm87 said:


> 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.



Most Calvinists say we're dead at the bottom of the lake, not swimming away. "And you were dead in your ..."


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Dec 10, 2009)

TaylorWest said:


> iahm87 said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



I have never heard a Calvinistic person speak like this Humir. The scriptures say we are already dead. Thus, according to the illustration we would already be drowned. We need to be made alive again. Thus the wording, "You must be born again." We need to be regenerate or made alive again. We are born dead in sins and trespasses as it is recorded in Ephesians.



> (Eph 2:1) And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;
> 
> (Eph 2:2) Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:
> 
> ...


----------



## Archlute (Dec 10, 2009)

Humir,

You might find it helpful to speak with Paul Viggiano, a minister in Torrence who pastors Branch of Hope OPC. He used to be a Foursquare minister, and the church used to be a Foursquare church. I am sure that he would love to help you out with any questions, and I think you will find him a great brother to get to know, as well.



iahm87 said:


> 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.


----------



## TKarrer (Dec 10, 2009)

It is probably natural to have doubts about the deep things of God. Even as children of God, our minds are partially darkened, in that we must be continually enlightened and "renewed" in our minds (Romans 12:2). All our previous notions were man-centered; thus we have to learn to understand the glory of God's absolute sovereignty. I'm sure you know this; I just hope to encourage you to press on in this truth!

In God's ordination of Adam's sin, He purposed to allow Adam to choose sin. In this we see the freedom of Adam. And not that Adam could ultimately reject the Decree of God; but that in His decree, God chose to let Adam fall, rather than prevent him. God did not have to coerce Adam in any way; He simply had to give Adam over to what Adam wanted. 

This truth is weighty. Why would God create Adam in the first place then? This also is the tough part to chew. We know God purposed to magnify His attributes. He allows the children of satan to engulf themselves in the sin they so love, and to hate Him in the very core of their soul forever. They are wicked and brute beasts. They do not deserve mercy. Their vileness is covered now, often times with a very beautiful fascade; but in the day of wrath we will see them as they are, and we will rejoice in the justice of the Holy One. God has done this to magnify His anger, power, justice, and wrath (Romans 9:22).

We were of the same company; wild animals, lacking any affection for the Glorious Lord of Heaven. But God chose to rescue us from our vomit. He purposed to pluck us out of the grip of hell, and to join us forever to His Son! We are made like Him, and granted to see the beauty and glory of ALL His attributes. The wicked will never know the sweetness of God's grace as we will. God has chosen to save us, in order to magnify His mercy and love (Romans 9:23)!

At the end of the day, I admittedly still wrestle through these things. Sometimes my heart rises up in arrogance, and I can only but recognize my need for final redemption. I hate my unwillingness to bless God for all His ways, all the time. But one day I will. I long for that day. Until then, and during those times of difficulty, I humble myself in prayer, and I fix my gaze upon those beautiful Gospel-realities I've experienced! God is great.


----------



## iahm87 (Dec 11, 2009)

Thanks for the replies guys. I will study this topic more.

If you could recommend me a book that deals specifically with this issue and talks about it in-depth, I would appreaciate it.


----------



## TeachingTulip (Dec 11, 2009)

iahm87 said:


> 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.


----------



## Philip (Dec 11, 2009)

iahm87 said:


> Thanks for the replies guys. I will study this topic more.
> 
> If you could recommend me a book that deals specifically with this issue and talks about it in-depth, I would appreaciate it.



R.C. Sproul's _Chosen by God_ is a classic of Calvinist apologetics and has a very clear section explaining the classic compatibilist position and how free will (properly defined) is compatible with divine decree.


----------



## Iconoclast (Dec 11, 2009)

Here is how the confession of faith describes it:
Chapter 6: Of the Fall of Man, Of Sin, And of the Punishment Thereof
1._____ Although God created man upright and perfect, and gave him a righteous law, which had been unto life had he kept it, and threatened death upon the breach thereof, yet he did not long abide in this honour; Satan using the subtlety of the serpent to subdue Eve, then by her seducing Adam, who, without any compulsion, did willfully transgress the law of their creation, and the command given unto them, in eating the forbidden fruit, which God was pleased, according to his wise and holy counsel to permit, having purposed to order it to his own glory. 
( Genesis 2:16, 17; Genesis 3:12,13; 2 Corinthians 11:3 ) 
2._____ Our first parents, by this sin, fell from their original righteousness and communion with God, and we in them whereby death came upon all: all becoming dead in sin, and wholly defiled in all the faculties and parts of soul and body. 
( Romans 3:23; Romans 5:12, etc; Titus 1:15; Genesis 6:5; Jeremiah 17:9; Romans 3:10-19 ) 

3._____ They being the root, and by God's appointment, standing in the room and stead of all mankind, the guilt of the sin was imputed, and corrupted nature conveyed, to all their posterity descending from them by ordinary generation, being now conceived in sin, and by nature children of wrath, the servants of sin, the subjects of death, and all other miseries, spiritual, temporal, and eternal, unless the Lord Jesus set them free. 
( Romans 5:12-19; 1 Corinthians 15:21, 22, 45, 49; Psalms 51:5; Job 14:4; Ephesians 2:3; Romans 6:20 Romans 5:12; Hebrews 2:14, 15; 1 Thessalonians 1:10 ) 

4._____ From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil, do proceed all actual transgressions. 
( Romans 8:7; Colossians 1:21; James 1:14, 15; Matthew 15:19 ) 

5._____ The corruption of nature, during this life, doth remain in those that are regenerated; and although it be through Christ pardoned and mortified, yet both itself, and the first motions thereof, are truly and properly sin. 
( Romans 7:18,23; Ecclesiastes 7:20; 1 John 1:8; Romans 7:23-25; Galatians 5:17 ) 

This is the faith we confess and believe:
Chapter 3: Of God's Decree
1._____ God hath decreed in himself, from all eternity, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably, all things, whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby is God neither the author of sin nor hath fellowship with any therein; nor is violence offered to the will of the creature, nor yet is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established; in which appears his wisdom in disposing all things, and power and faithfulness in accomplishing his decree.
( Isaiah 46:10; Ephesians 1:11; Hebrews 6:17; Romans 9:15, 18; James 1:13; 1 John 1:5; Acts 4:27, 28; John 19:11; Numbers 23:19; Ephesians 1:3-5 ) 
2._____ Although God knoweth whatsoever may or can come to pass, upon all supposed conditions, yet hath he not decreed anything, because he foresaw it as future, or as that which would come to pass upon such conditions.
( Acts 15:18; Romans 9:11, 13, 16, 18 ) 

3._____ By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestinated, or foreordained to eternal life through Jesus Christ, to the praise of his glorious grace; others being left to act in their sin to their just condemnation, to the praise of his glorious justice.
( 1 Timothy 5:21; Matthew 25:34; Ephesians 1:5, 6; Romans 9:22, 23; Jude 4 ) 

4.______These angels and men thus predestinated and foreordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed, and their number so certain and definite, that it cannot be either increased or diminished.
( 2 Timothy 2:19; John 13:18 ) 

5._____ Those of mankind that are predestinated to life, God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to his eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of his will, hath chosen in Christ unto everlasting glory, out of his mere free grace and love, without any other thing in the creature as a condition or cause moving him thereunto.
( Ephesians 1:4, 9, 11; Romans 8:30; 2 Timothy 1:9; 1 Thessalonians 5:9; Romans 9:13, 16; Ephesians 2:5, 12 ) 

6._____ As God hath appointed the elect unto glory, so he hath, by the eternal and most free purpose of his will, foreordained all the means thereunto; wherefore they who are elected, being fallen in Adam, are redeemed by Christ, are effectually called unto faith in Christ, by his Spirit working in due season, are justified, adopted, sanctified, and kept by his power through faith unto salvation; neither are any other redeemed by Christ, or effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only.
( 1 Peter 1:2; 2 Thessalonians 2:13; 1 Thessalonians 5:9, 10; Romans 8:30; 2 Thessalonians 2:13; 1 Peter 1:5; John 10:26; John 17:9; John 6:64 ) 

7._____ The doctrine of the high mystery of predestination is to be handled with special prudence and care, that men attending the will of God revealed in his Word, and yielding obedience thereunto, may, from the certainty of their effectual vocation, be assured of their eternal election; so shall this doctrine afford matter of praise, reverence, and admiration of God, and of humility, diligence, and abundant consolation to all that sincerely obey the gospel.
( 1 Thessalonians 1:4, 5; 2 Peter 1:10; Ephesians 1:6; Romans 11:33; Romans 11:5, 6, 20; Luke 10:20 ) 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


----------



## Brian Withnell (Dec 11, 2009)

I think that the question itself is from an inherent lack of understanding of creature/creator relationship. Does a clay pigeon say to the manufacturer "Why did you make me just to have me shot to pieces?"

We are the equivalent of clay. That God chose to give to Christ a redeemed people, and so the fall was needful for that to occur, means only that we had to be made so that we would fall. The intent of God was good, right and pure. He ordained that we would _*freely choose*_ to sin against him. He also ordained, by the council of his immutable will, that some would be redeemed, to the praise of his glorious grace, while other he ordained they would be passed by, to the praise of his glorious justice.

But we are clay. That a potter chooses some clay to make a toilet, and other clay to make a work of art is up to the potter. The clay is of no consequence, unless the potter makes it of consequence.


----------



## Spinningplates2 (Dec 11, 2009)

I can't, no one can, fully understand God. But He has kindly told us He is Good and all that He does is Good. He knows the end from the beginning. We have Christ as our Savior who has forgiven out sins, past and future. Thank God for the Gospel and that is what some call Calvinism. (Shorthand for what is taught about salvation in the Bible.) His ways are higher then ours and we will NEVER be able to grasp them, so thank Him for what He has reveled to you so far.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Dec 11, 2009)

Christ fully fulfilled the requirements of the law (inwardly and outwardly) on our behalf. He then took the punishmet for our failure to do such. That is more than a marvelous thing. For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.



> 2Co 5:10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.
> 2Co 5:11 Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men; but we are made manifest unto God; and I trust also are made manifest in your consciences.
> 2Co 5:12 For we commend not ourselves again unto you, but give you occasion to glory on our behalf, that ye may have somewhat to answer them which glory in appearance, and not in heart.
> 2Co 5:13 For whether we be beside ourselves, it is to God: or whether we be sober, it is for your cause.
> ...


----------



## PresbyDane (Dec 11, 2009)

No doubts!
YES it is Biblical!


----------



## Scott1 (Dec 11, 2009)

> Westminster Confession of Faith
> (emphasis added)
> 
> Chapter III
> ...


.


----------



## Michael Doyle (Dec 11, 2009)

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 (Dec 11, 2009)

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 (Dec 11, 2009)

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 (Dec 11, 2009)

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 (Dec 11, 2009)

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 (Dec 11, 2009)

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.
> ...



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.
> ...



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 (Dec 11, 2009)

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 (Dec 11, 2009)

iahm87 said:


> 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 (Dec 11, 2009)

TeachingTulip said:


> iahm87 said:
> 
> 
> > what's the difference between God ordaining something, and God causing something.
> ...



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. (Dec 11, 2009)

From the Heidelberg Catechism:



> Lord’s Day 4
> 
> 9. Is God, then, not unjust by requiring in His law what man cannot perform?
> 
> ...


----------



## TeachingTulip (Dec 11, 2009)

Chaplainintraining said:


> TeachingTulip said:
> 
> 
> > iahm87 said:
> ...



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 (Dec 11, 2009)

> 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 (Dec 11, 2009)

Chaplainintraining said:


> > 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.")
> 
> ...



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 (Dec 11, 2009)

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 (Dec 11, 2009)

TeachingTulip said:


> Chaplainintraining said:
> 
> 
> > > 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.
> ...



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 (Dec 11, 2009)

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 (Dec 11, 2009)

jogri17 said:


> 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 (Dec 11, 2009)

Scott1 said:


> jogri17 said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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 (Dec 11, 2009)

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 (Dec 11, 2009)

jogri17 said:


> Scott1 said:
> 
> 
> > jogri17 said:
> ...



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 (Dec 11, 2009)

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


----------



## charliejunfan (Dec 11, 2009)

Brian Withnell said:


> 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 (Dec 12, 2009)

Chaplainintraining said:


> (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 (Dec 12, 2009)

Dao said:


> Chaplainintraining said:
> 
> 
> > (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).
> ...



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 (Dec 12, 2009)

Dao said:


> Chaplainintraining said:
> 
> 
> > (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).
> ...



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 (Jan 1, 2010)

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 (Jan 11, 2010)

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 (Jan 11, 2010)

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 (Jan 11, 2010)

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 (Jan 11, 2010)

iahm87 said:


> 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!


----------



## etexas (Jan 11, 2010)

I had grave doubts about reformed thought, Grace, and Sola Scriptura that were deep enough to bring me to RCIA (Roman Catholic Initiation classes) , God, turned it to Glory. I by questioning Luther and Calvin, was able to challenge ALL my presuppositions. It made me stronger, the Catholic Church could answer the deep things. I turned back to Scripture, with a focus on Hebrews. It was as if a cloud lifted. As my friend Matthew Winzer noted it is not about "Calvin" but about what IS Christianity. It may seem I am not giving an answer, perhaps I am not, other than this, God can "handle" questions, God in His Providence will guide the honest Christian "seeker" to truth. (No I was not using seeker as it is tossed about in current Christian circles.) I mean what I mean, HONESTLY looking. God knows His own. He will guide you to truth as Truth is a part of his very aspect. Grace and Peace.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Jan 11, 2010)

There are few things I hold to with as much certainty as I do the doctrines of grace.


----------



## Zenas (Jan 12, 2010)

To answer the question posed in the thread's title:

Yes.


----------



## tt1106 (Jan 12, 2010)

In the Great work of the Gospel, the author quotes another by explaining (paraphrase) prior ot creationm, there was no way for God to exhibit mercy. God could certianly display justice and holiness to and through the trinity, but in order for God to glorify himself through his infinite capacity for mercy, he needed (or it pleased him) something on which to display his capacity for mercy. I really like this thought process, because I think it's as accurate as any other supposition. God desired to be merciful, so he created something on which to show mercy.


----------



## Joseph Scibbe (Jan 12, 2010)

Alrhough I do (generally) fall into the Calvinist camp I am not so dumb as to think that I could not be wrong.


----------



## peetred (Jan 12, 2010)

My doubts disappeared when I knew that I must trust the word of God and not the teachings of men. I can't deny what the scriptures say, even though it sometimes takes a step of faith.


----------

