Help Me Better Understand Calvinism Please

[Ryan&Amber2013]

If you could please give me your best answer to this question that came up. If God wants something and commands it, would he not be obligated to make the provision for that to happen? If not, how would we say he is good and fair?

Specifically, if God wants all people to turn from sin and be saved, would he then not be obligated to make provision for that? From the Calvinistic perspective, the Scriptures seem to say God is wanting and commanding all people to turn to him, but making no provision for them to be able to do that. I am trying to reconcile this in how we comprehend goodness and fairness. I couldn't reasonably ask an employee under me to do something for me unless I properly equipped them to be able to do it. As the old expression goes, how can you get blood out of a turnip?

Isaiah 45:22 He tells all the ends of the earth to turn to him and be saved.1 Tim 2:3-4 God wants all people to be saved and know the truth. 2 Peter 3:9 God does not want anybody to perish, but for all to reach repentance. Ezekiel 33:11 God does not take pleasure in the death of the wicked, but wants the wicked to turn from his way and live.

 

[alexanderjames]

I'll start simply by asking how does God not give all the provision necessary for repentance? The issue as I see it is entirely on our part as wilful disobedience.

 

[Ryan&Amber2013]

I'll start simply by asking how does God not give all the provision necessary for repentance? The issue as I see it is entirely on our part as wilful disobedience.

Regeneration has to come before faith and repentance, right? That's the idea of total depravity, and regeneration can only happen to who God chooses to have it. That's where Arminians have the idea of prevenient grace. So provision is made for all.

 

[Beoga]

If you could please give me your best answer to this question that came up. If God wants something and commands it, would he not be obligated to make the provision for that to happen? If not, how would we say he is good and fair?

Specifically, if God wants all people to turn from sin and be saved, would he then not be obligated to make provision for that? From the Calvinistic perspective, the Scriptures seem to say God is wanting and commanding all people to turn to him, but making no provision for them to be able to do that. I am trying to reconcile this in how we comprehend goodness and fairness. I couldn't reasonably ask an employee under me to do something for me unless I properly equipped them to be able to do it. As the old expression goes, how can you get blood out of a turnip?

Isaiah 45:22 He tells all the ends of the earth to turn to him and be saved.1 Tim 2:3-4 God wants all people to be saved and know the truth. 2 Peter 3:9 God does not want anybody to perish, but for all to reach repentance. Ezekiel 33:11 God does not take pleasure in the death of the wicked, but wants the wicked to turn from his way and live.

If you provided the employee with the tools to do the job, and they purposely destroyed those tools, would they still be required to do the job they were talked with?

 

[Ryan&Amber2013]

If you provided the employee with the tools to do the job, and they purposely destroyed those tools, would they still be required to do the job they were talked with?

Hi. Yes that sums up the Arminians' idea of prevenient grace. God gave a basic degree of Grace to each person in order for them to respond to the gospel, but many choose to reject it.

 

[Beoga]

Hi. Yes that sums up the Arminians' idea of prevenient grace. God gave a basic degree of Grace to each person in order for them to respond to the gospel, but many choose to reject it.

Sorry I was trying to address your concern about treating an employee fairly by not equipping them to do the job.

God did equip man with the ability to keep the law (do the job), man/Adam however at the instigation of the devil, in wilfull disobedience, robbed himself of this gift.

 

[C4MERON]

Hi Ryan, God is not in ‘want’, however, I understand the term to be used in some translations, but, I prefer the term ‘willing’. God has more than one kind of ‘will’ and can desire things that He does not bring to pass. 2 Peter 3:9 right? Willing that all come to repentance, but, this is not His decretive will. His elect will respond to the gospel call while the reprobate will be passed over in their sin. God is good and fair. In fact, He would be good and fair if He condemned all of us unprofitable wretches to hell for eternity. Thankfully, He is kind to save a remnant. And He is not obligated to do so.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

We have to distinguish, with Van Mastricht, between the legislative will of God and the decretive will of God. The legislative will is what God reveals as our duty, what He commands, approves, and declares pleasing to Himself. The decretive will is what He has actually purposed to bring to pass. So God is not obligated to bestow the grace to perform whatever He commands. He can righteously command what man ought to do without thereby decreeing to grant every sinner the grace by which he will actually do it. As Van Mastricht says,

If he should declare that he wills something to be our duty, that we should do it, or do something else, or not do it, then that is always our duty, although it may not be done in actuality.

That matters because fallen man’s inability is not an innocent lack of equipment. It is a guilty moral inability arising from sin. Man cannot come because he will not come. So when God commands all men everywhere to repent, He is not being unfair. He is declaring what righteousness requires. Westminster Confession 9.3 says fallen man

hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation

but that does not remove obligation. It establishes guilt. The Larger Catechism even says the law serves to convince men of their disability and leave them inexcusable.

So on texts like Isaiah 45:22, Ezekiel 33:11, 1 Timothy 2:4, and 2 Peter 3:9, the point is not that God has decreed the salvation of every individual without exception. The point is that in His legislative will He truly commands repentance, sincerely approves it, and does not delight in the death of the wicked as wickedness. That is why Van Mastricht also says,

It is quite different, however, when God commands something and declares that obedience to it would be pleasing to Him.

So God is good and fair because He never wrongs anyone. He commands only what is righteous. He condemns men for real guilt, not for innocence. And if He grants repentance and faith to His elect, He does so as mercy, not as a debt. The wonder is not that He does not save all, but that He saves any.

 

[Faithhopelove24]

God is not obligated to do anything. Maybe that’s just not the best word for what you are getting at. Do you mean that it appears inconsistent with his character?

 

[MW]

God is not obligated to do anything. Maybe that’s just not the best word for what you are getting at. Do you mean that it appears inconsistent with his character?

Yes. The question is well and truly answered in Romans 9. It is a matter of "will." He will show mercy on whom he will show mercy. He chooses not to show mercy on some in order to demonstrate the riches of his grace on others. To conceive it as an obligation is to make God our debtor. This would destroy the nature of grace and require us all to be saved by our own works. As this is impossible for us we would all be damned. Unless, of course, God relaxed the demands of His law. One will find that in reality the Arminian scheme works on the supposition that the gospel is a new and easier law for man to obey in order to be saved. It is not the gospel of grace at all.

 

[JH]

Can't remember who said it, but I'm pretty sure it was a Scotsman. Something to the effect of 'Predestination and election are God's business, faith and repentance are your business; mind your own business.'

 

[Ryan&Amber2013]

Man cannot come because he will not come. So when God commands all men everywhere to repent, He is not being unfair.

Thank you so much for the thoughtful reply. And thank you to everybody that's contributed so far. This is where I'm trying to get over the predicament of a catch-22.

Man cannot come because he will not come, but he will not come because he cannot come. It's a no-win scenario in which he is doomed to failure. At the end of the day do we just have to say it's this way because that's the way God wants it, and not really look for an ethical understanding?

 

[MW]

Man cannot come because he will not come, but he will not come because he cannot come. It's a no-win scenario in which he is doomed to failure. At the end of the day do we just have to say it's this way because that's the way God wants it, and not really look for an ethical understanding?

Yes, there are ethics involved. But are these the ethics of law or of grace? Everything depends on which category you place it in. Is salvation all of grace? or is it a mixture of works and grace? How you construct the issue is very important. If it is, Do this and live, you have a problem. Arminians view the gospel in these terms. You believe and repent, and God gives you salvation. So now, if you present Calvinism to them, it is the most horrendous thing possible, that God should be so unfair to choose one and not another. It has partiality written all over it. But the New Testament reveals grace in opposition to law. The gospel is a free promise of salvation in Christ. He who believes that promise will be saved. Believing adds nothing. It is a mere acceptance and reception of the free gift promised in the gospel. So now, if you present Calvinism on these terms, it is the most wonderful thing that could possibly be conceived, that God should be so free and liberal with His grace as to choose any at all. It has sovereign love written all over it. And because God is so gracious we are so thankful that we should be ready to do anything He requires of us.

 

[Christodulus]

Such is man’s sin that God would be just to totally abandon him and give no way of escape from the judgment against him, he deserves nothing from God but to burn forever. Likewise God is just in withholding His grace from any, because He would be just in withholding it from all. Grace cannot be demanded, it is a free gift of mercy and love.

What God commands informs us of our duty to Him, not His duty to us. This explains Isaiah 45:22 and Ezekiel 33:11. But what of 1 Timothy 2:3-4 and 2 Peter 3:9? First, I recommend to you the exegesis of all these texts by John Owen in the Death of Death in the Death of Christ, and anything I can say is paltry in comparison.

In 1 Timothy 2, Paul is instructing Timothy to lead the congregation in prayer for all men, “for kings and those who are in authority”, which is what is good and pleasing in the eyes of God our Savior. It would seem the sense of the second “all men” must be the same as the first, yet its meaning is plainly that prayers are to be made for all types of men, some of all kinds, as the pharisees are said to “tithe every herb” (Luke 11:42), and as none are to be excluded from the prayers of the Church on account of the type of man they are, likewise no man is excluded from the decree of election because he is a king or a beggar, a Jew or a Gentile.

In 2 Peter 3, Peter is answering the question: why has Christ not come? He warns against heeding the mocking of scoffers, who mock that Christ will ever return since nothing ever changes. But just as suddenly the wicked were destroyed in the great flood, so too shall these wicked men be consumed when Christ returns, as they are reserved “for the day of judgment and destruction”. For this reason, Christ “is patient toward you, not willing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.” That is, Christ tarries in returning not because He is slow toward His promise but because He is patient for all His elect to come in and be saved, not willing that any should perish but for all to come to repentance.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

All fallen men in Adam are obligated to repent of their sin and cleave to the righteousness provided by the Saviour, Jesus Christ, whom God, in His great love, sent into the world to save sinners.

Acts 17:29-31 NKJV, " Therefore, since we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, something shaped by art and man’s devising. Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent, because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead." [emphasis added]​

It is only right men forsake evil and out of obligation obey God's command, yet God is not obligated to save any of the wicked, who in Adam are defiled and sinful, and will not repent. Even if He had let all perish He would still be righteous.

But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved) [emphasis added] (Eph 2:4-5 KJV).​

The Father chose a bride for His eternal Son, now manifest in the flesh, exercising His right to show mercy on whom He would.

 

[No Other Name]

Man cannot come because he will not come, but he will not come because he cannot come. It's a no-win scenario in which he is doomed to failure. At the end of the day do we just have to say it's this way because that's the way God wants it, and not really look for an ethical understanding?

Hold on here. There seems to be a big misunderstanding.

1) I agree with everyone here and what they are answering to you. Great stuff; solidly Biblical and reflecting wisdom from God.

2) We need to define "can". Man cannot do what he cannot will to do, but he does have the ability to do many things even if he does not have the will to do it.

A: I love popping open a good can of beer during the 3-4 times a year we have huge family gatherings. My will and ability to do what I will are perfectly aligned.

B: I cannot possibly will myself into popping open a good can of motor oil and chugging - no matter who is visiting or not. But CAN I? Do I have the physical dexterity and working hands to perform that horrific deed? Yep I sure do.

Case B is the case of a sinner in hearing the Gospel. And would be for all of us everywhere were it not for the grace of God alone.

 

[JvMill]

To build off of @No Other Name, it is a moral inability, not a functional inability.

 

[Ryan&Amber2013]

commands all men everywhere to repent, because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness

Thank you. And sorry if others of you are answering this, and and I'm missing the clarity of it. So I think the predicament is that God is commanding all people to do something, but only giving the ability to do it to a select few.

So I can command my cat to start to speak English, and if he doesn't do it I can punish him. But obviously I wouldn't be good or fair to the cat, because he has no ability to speak the English language.

Because all people are born and conceived in sin, all people are given a command that they have no provision or resource to respond to, and on top of that God is saying he wants them to do it, but isn't giving them the provision or resource to make it happen.

Sorry if you all answered it so far and I'm missing it.

 

[No Other Name]

So I can command my cat to start to speak English, and if he doesn't do it I can punish him. But obviously I wouldn't be good or fair to the cat, because he has no ability to speak the English language.

Do you think this analogy is representative of our confessional belief system? If so, then this is not so much a rhetorical exercise as something else altogether. If not, why is this not a valid analogy and what would be a better analogy?

 

[Theoretical]

So I can command my cat to start to speak English, and if he doesn't do it I can punish him. But obviously I wouldn't be good or fair to the cat, because he has no ability to speak the English language.

Because all people are born and conceived in sin, all people are given a command that they have no provision or resource to respond to, and on top of that God is saying he wants them to do it, but isn't giving them the provision or resource to make it happen.

The analogy to line things up would be a situation where cats originally had the ability to speak English but the first cat and representative for the species rebelled and lost that ability as a punishment. A second representative, their Creator himself, came to restore that ability to those who believe, and it's his discretion whether to offer that restoration to none, a few, some, many, or all and what the terms are.

The First/Second Adam federal head is key to understanding the responsibility that someone who does lack the moral ability from birth to respond through no initial specific fault of their own.

 

[St. Gerdt]

I think a big part of the breakdown is happening because you are only considering man in his fallen state. Consider again this point made earlier:

God did equip man with the ability to keep the law (do the job), man/Adam however at the instigation of the devil, in wilfull disobedience, robbed himself of this gift.

Your catch-22 breaks down when you bring to bear the full weight of original sin. 100% of the antagonism the Arminian directs at calvinism (at God, really) for this apparent tyranny should be directed at Adam. We died in Adam—GAME OVER. Adam didn't just damn himself, he damned his whole posterity.

 

[YeshuaFan]

Regeneration has to come before faith and repentance, right? That's the idea of total depravity, and regeneration can only happen to who God chooses to have it. That's where Arminians have the idea of prevenient grace. So provision is made for all.

It comes down to is election and predestination based upon the sovereign will of God, or assuming sovereign will for man?

 

[Ryan&Amber2013]

Do you think this analogy is representative of our confessional belief system? If so, then this is not so much a rhetorical exercise as something else altogether. If not, why is this not a valid analogy and what would be a better analogy?

So in direct terms here is how I'm trying to rationalize it:

God towards the sinner: I wanted you to turn and live, why didn't you?

Human: Because I couldn't and you didn't make provision for me.

 

[YeshuaFan]

So in direct terms here is how I'm trying to rationalize it:

God towards the sinner: I wanted you to turn and live, why didn't you?

Human: Because I couldn't and you didn't make provision for me.

Is God obligated to do that?

 

[Ryan&Amber2013]

Is God obligated to do that?

I guess that's what I'm trying to get at. Doesn't that go against even our basic understanding of goodness and fairness?

 

[St. Gerdt]

So in direct terms here is how I'm trying to rationalize it:

God towards the sinner: I wanted you to turn and live, why didn't you?

Human: Because I couldn't and you didn't make provision for me.

This sounds more like an Arminian facebook meme than anything coming from Scripture. The initial question does not reflect the revealed character and nature of God—it plays at human passions and sympathies. These kinds of meditations need to be brought into subjection to the whole of Scripture (and subsequently killed).

I guess that's what I'm trying to get at. Doesn't that go against even our basic understanding of goodness and fairness?

Goodness and fairness, as revealed in Scripture, is that we be damned with Adam. Anything a man receives which improves on this, including a revealed Gospel that he ultimately rejects, is a mercy.

 

[DNM300]

I guess that's what I'm trying to get at. Doesn't that go against even our basic understanding of goodness and fairness?

This was referenced earlier. But I’ll repeat: fairness is everyone remaining lost and condemned. So no, God’s goodness is not impugned in reprobation.

Also, be careful about intuition. Our intuition, to be trustworthy at all, must be that which maps directly on to scripture logic.

Also worth considering, is how close your reasoning is to the objector in Roman’s 9 who says “how does God yet find fault? Who has resisted his will?”

 

[davejonescue]

Regarding the OP, I think Paul deals with this very question head on. In that, the fairness is not in how God equips or doesn't equip his creatures to do what he commands, but in that all creatures are Gods and he can do with them as he sees fit. Whether that is to show mercy, or harden them. Meaning, if I painted a picture, it is perfectly/equally fair for me to put it in a frame or the trash bin; no matter how beautiful or ugly it may be. i.e. God withholds his salvific grace from the most moral of men, while extending his mercy to the most vile. Either way, it is his prerogative.

One of the things Arminian's will try to get you to do is ethicize or try to explain how God is just for being God. No, God is sovereign over the angels, he is sovereign over man, he does what he wills with them, and there is nobody who can restrain him or tell him "what have you done?"

 

[Ryan&Amber2013]

I guess that kind of sums it up then. God is God and he's going to do what he wants. He sets the rules that we all have to play by. I think it all comes down to original sin and Adam as our federal head.

 

[davejonescue]

He sets the rules that we all have to play by.

This is the difference between the reprobate and the elect.

Reprobate: Rules we have to play by.
Elect: Rules we get to play by.

Reprobate: Righteousness is a burden.
Elect: Righteousness is a blessing.