Yes, Calvinists—free will IS in the Bible.

[praise_yeshua]

I'm sorry to hear that brother. I'll see if I can get a few to back off with their assumptions /attacks.

Personally I think the word " Calvinist " is always perceived as what Calvin taught but there are many within that group that differ from what he taught, so we cannot lump everyone together and throw the baby out with the bath water. I read yesterday an article where many who are 3 or 4 point among many other differences from the calvinist of the 16th century consider themselves to be calvinists.

Flowers talks about some of that here

https://soteriology101.com/2017/05/20/you-dont-understand-calvinism/

There are moderate Calvinists, high Calvinists, ultra Calvinists and hyper Calvinists (the last of which most Calvinists would disavow completely). There are some who affirm God’s provisional atonement for all people and God’s sincere desire for every individual to repent and believe; but others who do not. There are some who affirm God’s genuine love for every individual, while others only describe his feelings toward the non-elect as wrath-filled hatred.

Those familiar with the lapsarian controversy, which has to do with the logical order of God’s eternal decrees of salvation, realize the complexities of rightly defining the various perspectives of Calvinism. This disagreement is ultimately centered around the “achilles heel” of the Calvinistic worldview: DIVINE CULPABILITY. How does God escape being held responsible for the origin and ultimate cause of all moral evil? Some Calvinists attempt to explain the logical order of the divine decree in such a way as to minimize His guilt for the fall and the origin of evil, while “higher” forms of Calvinism (typically called “Supralapsarianism”) simply embrace the troubling concept of double predestination and refer to “lesser” views of Calvinism as being “inconsistent.”

One scholar accurately observed:

Calvinists are seriously divided among themselves and always have been. There is Supralapsarianism vs. Sublapsarianism vs. Infralapsarianism. ‘The Supralapsarians hold that God decreed the fall of Adam; the Sublapsarians, that he permitted it’ (McClintock & Strong). The Calvinists at the Synod of Dort were divided on many issues, including lapsarianism. The Swiss Calvinists who wrote the Helvetic Consensus Formula in 1675 were in conflict with the French Calvinists of the School of Saumur. There are Strict Calvinists and Moderate Calvinists, Hyper and non-Hyper (differing especially on reprobation and the extent of the atonement and whether God loves all men), 5 pointers, 4 pointers, 3 pointers, 2 pointers. In America Calvinists were divided into Old School and the New School. As we have seen, the Calvinists of England were divided in the 19th century.

Whenever, therefore, one tries to state TULIP theology and then refute it, there are Calvinists who will argue with you that you are misrepresenting Calvinism. It is not so much that you are misrepresenting Calvinism, though. You might be quoting directly from various Calvinists or even from Calvin himself. The problem is that you are misrepresenting THEIR Calvinism! There are Calvin Calvinists and Thomas Fuller Calvinists and Arthur W. Pink Calvinists and Presbyterian Calvinists and Baptist Calvinists and many other sorts of Calvinists. Many Calvinists have never read Calvin’s Institutes of Christian Religion for themselves. They are merely following someone who follows someone who allegedly follows Calvin (who, by his own admission, followed Augustine)

He can put me on ignore. He is whining.

 

[TomL]

Right he did not. There's actually no need for him to do that since we are all quite capable of sinning on our own.

And he is too holy to act in such a manner

 

[Aeliana]

And he is too holy to act in such a manner

Yes He is. Our God is Holy, He is Mighty Holy.

 

[TomL]

Yes He is. Our God is Holy, He is Mighty Holy.

And his actions reflect his character

 

[Aeliana]

And his actions reflect his character

I just read that somewhere I'm going to try to find it.

 

[Aeliana]

Well this is close but not the one I was looking for.

"God's love as a strictly essential divine attribute, with justice as a derivative of love."

 

[Khazar]

Well this is close but not the one I was looking for.

"God's love as a strictly essential divine attribute, with justice as a derivative of love."

Here's a good one.


Because God is love, God is holy.

Because God is love, God is just.

We can only understand God’s holiness and justice when we consider them through the lens of God’s love. Through that lens, we see that God’s holiness never separates us from God, but draws us deeper into connection with God in spite of our sinfulness. Through that lens, we see that God’s justice does not condemn us, but delivers us into the fullness of who God created us to be.

God is love, and therefore God is holy and just. The rich beauty of this reality is that, because God loves everyone, God reaches out to us, connects with us, and refuses to allow us to suffer eternal torment.

God's Holiness, Justice, and Love - Randall J. Greene

God's holiness and justness are products of God's love. They don't exist as independent characteristics, creating conflicts in God's character. Holiness and justice are outflows of God's nature, which is love.

randalljgreene.com

 

[TomL]

I just read that somewhere I'm going to try to find it.

OK

 

[Johann]

This is a classic example of why Calvinists have a bad reputation online.

So why are you in agreement with @Biblelesson -double standards?

 

[civic]

So why are you in agreement with @Biblelesson -double standards?

Where ?

 

[TomL]

The debate is all set

https://berean-apologetics.community.forum/threads/ladodger-and-civic-debate-on-gods-nature-in-theology.100/

What ever happened here?

 

[civic]

What ever happened here?

he backed out. I'll pm you.

 

[TomL]

he backed out. I'll pm you.

Ok thanks