Calvinists' Conversions

[webdog]

You are going to get miffed at me for this but I suppose that you want me to answer honestly.

Yes. I think it is a maturity issue. For those who switched over I think it is because they never really understood the position when they held it.

I don't understand the "absolute truth" comment. The Trinity has certainly been debated.

I'm not miffed...you are just wrong Besides, it has been decreed by God for me to not understand it and not a matter of maturity, no?

If you don't understand the "absolute truth comment", could it be the spiritual maturity claim is on the wrong foot? People can debate the Trinity, heck people debate whether God even exists. The fact is the Trinity and all absolute truth is found in Scripture, calvinism has to be read in between the lines and into Scripture.

 

[webdog]

My hubby just told him the Gospel according to scripture. No need to get into the nitty gritty behind it all because if he comes to know Christ, we know it was all Christ anyway.

...so he shared the "non cal" Gospel

I will disagree with this part of your statement "if he was one of the many unatoned for it didn't matter what he believed" because Scripture CLEARLY tells us that no one will be turned away from the Father if they seek Him. There will be no one standing at the throne saying "I believed on Jesus Christ for my salvation. I trusted in His shed blood alone for my sins and I gave my life over to Him as Lord." yet they will be turned away. That's just not Biblical.

I agree that those who say that will not be turned away, but there will be many who seek God in the wrong places. There will be those who state "Lord, Lord, did we not..." who did believe in Christ's atonement.

Can someone who's "un-elect" believe in Christ's atonement? Absolutely. My mother in law currently believes this, but she is holding on to her religion of good works for salvation. So in a sense, if calvinism is true, Christ did not atone for her if she dies in this state and she believes He did.

 

[Luke2427]

I'm not miffed...you are just wrong Besides, it has been decreed by God for me to not understand it and not a matter of maturity, no?

If you don't understand the "absolute truth comment", could it be the spiritual maturity claim is on the wrong foot? People can debate the Trinity, heck people debate whether God even exists. The fact is the Trinity and all absolute truth is found in Scripture, calvinism has to be read in between the lines and into Scripture.

No, no, no. Calvinism is the clear teaching of Scripture. Election, Predestination, Sovereignty, these are all clearly taught in Scripture and taught as things which God alone decides without the aid of man. Calvinism is the only Biblical Soteriology.

Arminianism (or whatever you want to call it) is what men are born believing. They must mature to see otherwise.

 

[webdog]

No, no, no. Calvinism is the clear teaching of Scripture. Election, Predestination, Sovereignty, these are all clearly taught in Scripture and taught as things which God alone decides without the aid of man. Calvinism is the only Biblical Soteriology.

I agree all of those phrases represent absolute truth, but what the calvinist believes those phrases represent is NOT absolute truth. I can tell you that everyone in my church eats fried chicken (absolute truth given). From that statement you can come to the conclusion everyone outside my church hates fried chicken (your understanding of absolute truth). They are not one in the same.

Arminianism (or whatever you want to call it) is what men are born believing. They must mature to see otherwise.

So let me get this straight...men have no say in what they believe, the Holy Spirit brings them into union with Christ believing that which is not true from the beginning...and then at some point says "Ahhh, ok...I'll illuminate you and allow you to believe the really REAL truth now...but some believers I will withhold this top secret information."?

 

[Luke2427]

I agree all of those phrases represent absolute truth, but what the calvinist believes those phrases represent is NOT absolute truth. I can tell you that everyone in my church eats fried chicken (absolute truth given). From that statement you can come to the conclusion everyone outside my church hates fried chicken (your understanding of absolute truth). They are not one in the same.

I do not understand how this anecdote even relates to anything I have said.

So let me get this straight...men have no say in what they believe, the Holy Spirit brings them into union with Christ believing that which is not true from the beginning...and then at some point says "Ahhh, ok...I'll illuminate you and allow you to believe the really REAL truth now...but some believers I will withhold this top secret information."?

The Holy Spirit does not reveal all Soteriological, Christological, Hamartialogical truth to the sinner when he saves him. Just that Jesus is Lord and he must yield.

As the believer matures he learns that Jesus is the second person of the Godhead Trinity and that he is exhaustively sovereign ordaining and decreeing all things.

 

[webdog]

I do not understand how this anecdote even relates to anything I have said.

I was just trying to show how one's understanding of absolute truth is not necessarily absolute truth when given it.

The Holy Spirit does not reveal all Soteriological, Christological, Hamartialogical truth to the sinner when he saves him. Just that Jesus is Lord and he must yield.

I disagree. The plan of salvation and methods (soteriology), Who Christ is (Christology) and man's condition and judgement (hamartiology) are so easy a child can understand it. I did at 7 years old. I knew nothing of "yielding" to Jesus as Lord, in fact this is nothing more than front loaded works based salvation. If I commit to turning from sin in exchange for salvation, that is a work! That is a response one has once they have received Christ in faith.

 

[annsni]

...so he shared the "non cal" Gospel

There is no "non cal Gospel" or "cal Gospel". There is only the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

I agree that those who say that will not be turned away, but there will be many who seek God in the wrong places. There will be those who state "Lord, Lord, did we not..." who did believe in Christ's atonement.

Can someone who's "un-elect" believe in Christ's atonement? Absolutely. My mother in law currently believes this, but she is holding on to her religion of good works for salvation. So in a sense, if calvinism is true, Christ did not atone for her if she dies in this state and she believes He did.

Yes, someone who is unsaved, unelect or whatever can believe it all. The question is not do they believe IN it but do they believe ON it. There's a difference. So many believe IN Jesus but do not believe ON Him. These are the people who will say "But we knew all about you - we believed in you. We did all that you told us to do." yet they never once turned their hearts to Him. THAT is the difference.

 

[webdog]

There is no "non cal Gospel" or "cal Gospel". There is only the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

That's refreshing to hear considering it is often quoted here that calvinism is THE Gospel. The "good news" is John 3:16 as understood by the non cal, so in a way it is the non cal understanding of the Gospel that is truly the "good news".

 

[Luke2427]

I was just trying to show how one's understanding of absolute truth is not necessarily absolute truth when given it.
I disagree. The plan of salvation and methods (soteriology), Who Christ is (Christology) and man's condition and judgement (hamartiology) are so easy a child can understand it. I did at 7 years old. I knew nothing of "yielding" to Jesus as Lord, in fact this is nothing more than front loaded works based salvation. If I commit to turning from sin in exchange for salvation, that is a work! That is a response one has once they have received Christ in faith.

Webdog you still don't understand these things. You still do not understand hamartiology- that you are thoroughly sinful- that everything about you is sin- that in your flesh dwells no good thing.

You still don't understand soteriology- that God has elected in eternity past those he would save based on nothing they would do but based on his own perfect, and holy and just and Christ exalting purposes.

You still don't understand Christology- that the universe is about Christ- not man. That he came to please Him that sent Him- not just to save man and not primarily to save man. That the glory of Christ is the ultimate goal of the universe, not the salvation of man.

You still don't understand these things- are you not saved because you don't fully understand these things? I don't think so.

Neither does a child have to understand all of these things to be saved.

All a child must understand is that Jesus Christ is Lord.

 

[webdog]

Webdog you still don't understand these things. You still do not understand hamartiology- that you are thoroughly sinful- that everything about you is sin- that in your flesh dwells no good thing.

No, I understand what the Bible says about hamartiology...I reject what Augustine says the Bible says. That is the difference you fail to grasp in regards to absolute truth.

You still don't understand soteriology- that God has elected in eternity past those he would save based on nothing they would do but based on his own perfect, and holy and just and Christ exalting purposes.

Ditto above answer but substitute Calvin, Sproul, Edwards, etc.

You still don't understand Christology- that the universe is about Christ- not man. That he came to please Him that sent Him- not just to save man and not primarily to save man. That the glory of Christ is the ultimate goal of the universe, not the salvation of man.

Utter strawman that has been dealt with repeatedly. Repeating the same fallacies over and over again does nothing for this discussion and leads me to believe you are either intellectually dishonest or deliberately blinded. Accusing the non cal of a man centered theology is not only an insult, but un-Christlike.

You still don't understand these things- are you not saved because you don't fully understand these things? I don't think so.

No...you perceive based on YOUR theology I don't understand these things.

Neither does a child have to understand all of these things to be saved.

As I already have shown, they most certainly must understand, however, they don't need your understanding of those topics to be saved.

All a child must understand is that Jesus Christ is Lord.

This is becoming a circular discussion at this point.

 

[Luke2427]

No, I understand what the Bible says about hamartiology...I reject what Augustine says the Bible says. That is the difference you fail to grasp in regards to absolute truth.

I quoted the Bible in showing you that you do not understand it. I quoted where Paul affirmed that in our flesh dwells no good thing. I have proven this unequivocally in another thread. There is none that doeth good, no not one, the heart is desperately wicked, deceitful above all things, the carnal mind is enmity with God and not subject unto the Law of God neither indeed can it be, etc, etc, etc...

This is Bible- not John Calvin or Augustine. All they did was come along and declare what the Bible clearly, clearly teaches.

Utter strawman that has been dealt with repeatedly. Repeating the same fallacies over and over again does nothing for this discussion and leads me to believe you are either intellectually dishonest or deliberately blinded. Accusing the non cal of a man centered theology is not only an insult, but un-Christlike.

Not if it's true. Arminianism is man centered. I know you do not call yourself an Arminian but what you believe is Arminian except for the security of the believer. And it is man centered.

No...you perceive based on YOUR theology I don't understand these things.

No, based on Scripture, it is clear that you have not yet grasped the fullness of God's Sovereignty.

As I already have shown, they most certainly must understand, however, they don't need your understanding of those topics to be saved.
This is becoming a circular discussion at this point.

They must understand what, then, Webdog? What must they comprehend about hamartiology to be saved. What must they comprehend about soteriology to be saved?

I think they need to understand that they are sinners and that Jesus Christ is Lord and he saves whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord.

That is what I think. It is clear and simple. What do you think a person needs to understand to be saved?

 

[webdog]

I quoted the Bible in showing you that you do not understand it. I quoted where Paul affirmed that in our flesh dwells no good thing. I have proven this unequivocally in another thread. There is none that doeth good, no not one, the heart is desperately wicked, deceitful above all things, the carnal mind is enmity with God and not subject unto the Law of God neither indeed can it be, etc, etc, etc...

No...you quoted YOUR UNDERSTANDING of what the Bible says. You do not even understand this concept as you have blurred YOUR UNDERSTANDING (not absolute truth) with what the Bible actually says (absolute truth). If you cannot recognized this, there is no need to further debate anything with you, as when I argue your points, in your mind I'm arguing God's.

This is Bible- not John Calvin or Augustine. All they did was come along and declare what the Bible clearly, clearly teaches.

No, the gave THEIR UNDERSTANDING of what the Bible teaches, which if is so clear as you state there would be no debate at all!

Not if it's true. Arminianism is man centered. I know you do not call yourself an Arminian but what you believe is Arminian except for the security of the believer. And it is man centered.

So which is it...intellectually dishonest, or deliberately blinded? You have been shown how your "man centerd" view is nothing more than a non sequitur, and a bad one at that. Please learn what the other side actually believes, and not what YOU want to label them. I have asked this of you repeatedly, and you still spew the same nonsense time and time again.

No, based on Scripture, it is clear that you have not yet grasped the fullness of God's Sovereignty.

...and here the reader can see it again...YOUR understanding of Scripture (not immutable, absolute truth) is on par with and the same as Scripture (immutable, absolute truth)...and you dare call my theology "man centered"?!

They must understand what, then, Webdog? What must they comprehend about hamartiology to be saved. What must they comprehend about soteriology to be saved?

I think they need to understand that they are sinners and that Jesus Christ is Lord and he saves whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord.

That is what I think. It is clear and simple. What do you think a person needs to understand to be saved?

I agree with this, but now you are backtracking from what you said earlier, which is...

You still do not understand hamartiology- that you are thoroughly sinful- that everything about you is sin- that in your flesh dwells no good thing.

You still don't understand soteriology- that God has elected in eternity past those he would save based on nothing they would do but based on his own perfect, and holy and just and Christ exalting purposes.

You still don't understand Christology- that the universe is about Christ- not man. That he came to please Him that sent Him- not just to save man and not primarily to save man. That the glory of Christ is the ultimate goal of the universe, not the salvation of man.

That's an awful lot of detail for "we are sinners and He saves who calls on Him"

 

[Luke2427]

No...you quoted YOUR UNDERSTANDING of what the Bible says. You do not even understand this concept as you have blurred YOUR UNDERSTANDING (not absolute truth) with what the Bible actually says (absolute truth). If you cannot recognized this, there is no need to further debate anything with you, as when I argue your points, in your mind I'm arguing God's.

No, Bud. There is no point in you arguing this with me because you can't. You can't because I LITERALLY QUOTED WORD FOR WORD WHAT GOD'S WORD SAYS ON THE MATTER.

No, the gave THEIR UNDERSTANDING of what the Bible teaches, which if is so clear as you state there would be no debate at all!

We could see saw back and forth on this forever but suffice it to say that the Bible teaches that God worketh all things after the counsel of his own will and that of him and through him and to him are all things.

That is exhaustive sovereignty no mater how you may try to spin it and it is Bible- not Calvin.

So which is it...intellectually dishonest, or deliberately blinded? You have been shown how your "man centerd" view is nothing more than a non sequitur, and a bad one at that. Please learn what the other side actually believes, and not what YOU want to label them. I have asked this of you repeatedly, and you still spew the same nonsense time and time again.
...and here the reader can see it again...YOUR understanding of Scripture (not immutable, absolute truth) is on par with and the same as Scripture (immutable, absolute truth)...and you dare call my theology "man centered"?!

You believe that election is about men.
You believe that salvation is about men.
You believe that God wants to save everybody but can't because men keep him from being able to by their omnipotent free wills.
You believe that men are pretty good apart from Christ, just not good enough.
You believe that sin was a huge cosmic accident that God never intended and had to spill his own son's blood just to clean it up.
You believe God OWES sinful man the offer of salvation.
You believe that all babies go to heaven (which I believe too but for a much more God centered reason) because men are not born sinners.
You believe that love is dependent upon free will- that there is no real love apart from it and thus there was no real love in the Trinity in eternity past nor will there ever be.

This is man centered, Bud. You call it what you will, but it is what it is regardless of the label you choose.

Correct me where I am wrong on these above statements.

 

[webdog]

You believe that election is about men.
You believe that salvation is about men.
You believe that God wants to save everybody but can't because men keep him from being able to by their omnipotent free wills.
You believe that men are pretty good apart from Christ, just not good enough.
You believe that sin was a huge cosmic accident that God never intended and had to spill his own son's blood just to clean it up.
You believe God OWES sinful man the offer of salvation.
You believe that all babies go to heaven (which I believe too but for a much more God centered reason) because men are not born sinners.
You believe that love is dependent upon free will- that there is no real love apart from it and thus there was no real love in the Trinity in eternity past nor will there ever be.

This is man centered, Bud. You call it what you will, but it is what it is regardless of the label you choose.

Correct me where I am wrong on these above statements.

I love how you tell me what I believe after I have corrected you on your erroneous beliefs in the past. Now you are at the point of plain old dishonesty, and with that there is no further point in any discussion. For future reference, if someone tells you what they believe, and you intentionally dismiss it and put words in their cyber mouth, that is lying. Not to mention you hold yourself on par with God's Word and I cannot stomach that kind if ilk.

 

[Luke2427]

I love how you tell me what I believe after I have corrected you on your erroneous beliefs in the past. Now you are at the point of plain old dishonesty, and with that there is no further point in any discussion. For future reference, if someone tells you what they believe, and you intentionally dismiss it and put words in their cyber mouth, that is lying. Not to mention you hold yourself on par with God's Word and I cannot stomach that kind if ilk.

I told you to correct me where I am wrong in representing your beliefs. You did not because you cannot. You cannot because as much as you don't like the way it sounds when it is put plainly- it is what you believe.

You are leaving the discussion because you are defeated. Just admit it. I've seen you do this before.

 

[webdog]

I told you to correct me where I am wrong in representing your beliefs. You did not because you cannot. You cannot because as much as you don't like the way it sounds when it is put plainly- it is what you believe.

You are leaving the discussion because you are defeated. Just admit it. I've seen you do this before.

Luke, the "I win, you lose" mentality you exhibit here is quite juvenile. I don't wish to debate someone who is blatantly dishonest. I have addressed each of your "you believe's" in the past and I'm not wasting my time defending the fact I do NOT believe in a "man centered" theology, nor that man is the center of the universe. Please stop misrepresenting the other side and learn something.

 

[Luke2427]

Luke, the "I win, you lose" mentality you exhibit here is quite juvenile. I don't wish to debate someone who is blatantly dishonest. I have addressed each of your "you believe's" in the past and I'm not wasting my time defending the fact I do NOT believe in a "man centered" theology, nor that man is the center of the universe. Please stop misrepresenting the other side and learn something.

I don't think you have addressed ANY of them EVER.

 

[Jeffriesw]

Are there many Calvinists here who were saved while under the preaching/ministry of other Calvinists? It seems to be a common refrain that Calvinism is a later independent discovery ("Yes, I used to be Arminian/go to an Arminian church, but now I am very Reform/have gone beyond all that", etc.).

Yes, 3 of the 4 people who constantly witnessed to me and patiently explained to me the Word of God were followers of the Doctrines of Grace.

 

[davidgeminden]

In regards to preaching the calvinist understanding of the Gospel, I have yet to hear someone preach along the lines of "Today God might be talking to your heart, convicting you...but then again, He might not as the majority are on the broad path of destruction and God has only decided to save a few of you while leaving the rest to yourselves. If He is talking to you, you WILL come...and if not, you cannot come. God loves some of you (don't take "the world" literally in John 3:16 when you see it held up in the end zone of a football game), but hates the rest. You are clay of which God has formed some of you for His glory and the majority for destruction. When someone tells you 'Jesus loves you' on the street, they may or may not be right. When kids sing "Jesus loves me", that is a song only half correct as some of those very children will grow up and not be given saving faith, meaning they were never loved."

If this is the TRUE Gospel...why is it not presented this way? If Paul was a calvinist as some on here comically maintain, why did he not preach in such a manner? If the DoG are as beautiful as stated, why does it seem the Gospel is always presented in an "Arminian" fashion even by the staunchest calvinist? If it's truth...be truthful, no?

Hi All,

Before I was saved, I heard the gospel preached and backed up with quotes from the scripture. The preaching of the gospel that I heard was in a style of communication that implied to me that I needed to make a free will decision to accept Christ as my savior in order to be saved, the scripture that was used to support the gospel also implied to me that I needed to make a free will decision to accept Christ as my savior in order to be saved. When I actually looked up the scriptures that were used in the sermons, again the Bible text implied to me that I needed to make a free will decision to accept Christ as my savior in order to be saved. I had no idea whether the preacher believed in free will or not (Calvinism). For several months God was convicting me of my sin and that I was headed to hell, if I did not have my sins forgiven by faith in Christ. I was saved believing that I had made a free will decision to accept God's call to accept Christ as my savior.

As a new believer, I began to study the word of God from that perspective. As I came across the few verses (~2%) in the Bible that a Calvinists would use to syllogisticly build their “no free will to accept Christ as our savior” theology, I only temporarily mentally noted that they could be used to build the “no free will to accept Christ as our savior” theology; However, I proceeded to interpret those few scriptures from free will precedence, and did not have any problems understanding and interpreting them from a free will perspective. During these early years of my Christian life I had not even heard of Calvinism.

Years later I begin to come across Calvinists and heard their teaching and read of their theology of “no free will to accept Christ as our savior”. Their teaching of “no free will to accept Christ as our savior” seemed very strange to me; however their teaching and teaching method of just using those few verses (~2%) in the Bible appeared to me to be very intellectually appealing and very scholarly to me. I began to search myself as to why I had trouble accepting their very academic and scholarly syllogistic development of their “no free will to accept Christ as our savior” theology.

When they would give their interpretation of those few scriptures in their logic loop, the thought that repeatedly came to my mind was “what about the rest of the scriptures?” I would ask a question like “But, what about this verse over here in the Bible?”, then they would jump back to repeating their academic and scholarly syllogistic logic loop. I would again ask them the same question “But, what about this other verse over here in the Bible?”. And again they would jump right back on to their academic and scholarly syllogistic logic loop. Obviously the verses I brought up were verses that implied “that man had free will to accept or reject Christ as their savior”. After I had asked them about several verses in the Bible that implied “that man had free will to accept or reject Christ as their savior”, they would start accusing me of having a proof-texting mentality. I was then baffled and did not know how to proceed in the discussion with them, except to just ask them to give me more detail about their theology of “no free will to accept or reject Christ as our savior”.

Their seemed to me to be something about their development of the “no free will to accept or reject Christ as our savior” theology from the verses that they presented that seemed strange, even though their presentation of their logic loop appeared to me to be a very good academic and scholarly syllogistic logic loop. Also, their seemed to be something wrong with my method of discussing my conclusions with them. For a number of years, I pondered those two questions. Finally, I realized that they were experts at getting folk like me to get started on a verse hurdling contest, and then they would start accusing folk like me of being guilty of proof-texting. I asked myself why I was throwing the verses that I used at them? I realized that intuitively I realized that the “majority (~98%) of the Bible”, if not the whole Bible, was communicating from God to man in a style that reeked with an implication of an understood presupposition that those being communicated to (mankind) have the free will capacity to believe or reject what was being communicated to them from God. From that point on, I very early in discussions with a Calvinist, would point this out to them instead of getting caught up in a verse hurdling contest. I now also point out to them that the volume of scriptures that they use makes up only about 2% of the scriptures. I realized that the majority of people that get saved, intuitively see this implied underlying free will presupposition in the majority (98%) of the Bible without even being fully cognizant of it; and therefore, like I was, are unable to rationally explain it at first. Since the majority of scripture reeks with an implication of an understood presupposition that those being communicated to (mankind) have the free will capacity to believe or reject what was being communicated to them from God, I believe most folk, like myself, intuitively let that set the precedence and will automatically interpret the Calvinist ~2% of the scripture from a free will perspective. And those Calvinist ~2% of the scriptures are easily understood from a free will perspective. When I ask Calvinists to interpret the ~98% of scripture, that imply the free will of man, from their “no free will to accept or reject Christ as our savior” perspective, the majority of the time the answer I get is along this line “God communicates with man in a style that assumes man has a free will to accept or reject what God communicates, but God knows that man does not have the free will capacity to accept or reject what God communicates.” That response seems to me to imply that God has been deceiving mankind on this theological issue for millennia, implying that God is a deceiver. When I tell them that implies that God is a deceiver, they usually respond by saying that “--- My (God's) ways (are) higher than your ways --- Isa. 55:9”. When I ask the Calvinists why ~99% of the time they preach in a communication style that also implies the hearer has a free will to accept of reject, they usually reply by “saying that is the way God does it in the Bible”. This answer is like saying “If God is deceiving man on this issue, then so can I”. In my mind I think of those Calvinists that preach that way as “Bipolar Calvinists”.

David G.

 

[webdog]

Hi All,

Before I was saved, I heard the gospel preached and backed up with quotes from the scripture. The preaching of the gospel that I heard was in a style of communication that implied to me that I needed to make a free will decision to accept Christ as my savior in order to be saved, the scripture that was used to support the gospel also implied to me that I needed to make a free will decision to accept Christ as my savior in order to be saved. When I actually looked up the scriptures that were used in the sermons, again the Bible text implied to me that I needed to make a free will decision to accept Christ as my savior in order to be saved. I had no idea whether the preacher believed in free will or not (Calvinism). For several months God was convicting me of my sin and that I was headed to hell, if I did not have my sins forgiven by faith in Christ. I was saved believing that I had made a free will decision to accept God's call to accept Christ as my savior.

As a new believer, I began to study the word of God from that perspective. As I came across the few verses (~2%) in the Bible that a Calvinists would use to syllogisticly build their “no free will to accept Christ as our savior” theology, I only temporarily mentally noted that they could be used to build the “no free will to accept Christ as our savior” theology; However, I proceeded to interpret those few scriptures from free will precedence, and did not have any problems understanding and interpreting them from a free will perspective. During these early years of my Christian life I had not even heard of Calvinism.

Years later I begin to come across Calvinists and heard their teaching and read of their theology of “no free will to accept Christ as our savior”. Their teaching of “no free will to accept Christ as our savior” seemed very strange to me; however their teaching and teaching method of just using those few verses (~2%) in the Bible appeared to me to be very intellectually appealing and very scholarly to me. I began to search myself as to why I had trouble accepting their very academic and scholarly syllogistic development of their “no free will to accept Christ as our savior” theology.

When they would give their interpretation of those few scriptures in their logic loop, the thought that repeatedly came to my mind was “what about the rest of the scriptures?” I would ask a question like “But, what about this verse over here in the Bible?”, then they would jump back to repeating their academic and scholarly syllogistic logic loop. I would again ask them the same question “But, what about this other verse over here in the Bible?”. And again they would jump right back on to their academic and scholarly syllogistic logic loop. Obviously the verses I brought up were verses that implied “that man had free will to accept or reject Christ as their savior”. After I had asked them about several verses in the Bible that implied “that man had free will to accept or reject Christ as their savior”, they would start accusing me of having a proof-texting mentality. I was then baffled and did not know how to proceed in the discussion with them, except to just ask them to give me more detail about their theology of “no free will to accept or reject Christ as our savior”.

Their seemed to me to be something about their development of the “no free will to accept or reject Christ as our savior” theology from the verses that they presented that seemed strange, even though their presentation of their logic loop appeared to me to be a very good academic and scholarly syllogistic logic loop. Also, their seemed to be something wrong with my method of discussing my conclusions with them. For a number of years, I pondered those two questions. Finally, I realized that they were experts at getting folk like me to get started on a verse hurdling contest, and then they would start accusing folk like me of being guilty of proof-texting. I asked myself why I was throwing the verses that I used at them? I realized that intuitively I realized that the “majority (~98%) of the Bible”, if not the whole Bible, was communicating from God to man in a style that reeked with an implication of an understood presupposition that those being communicated to (mankind) have the free will capacity to believe or reject what was being communicated to them from God. From that point on, I very early in discussions with a Calvinist, would point this out to them instead of getting caught up in a verse hurdling contest. I now also point out to them that the volume of scriptures that they use makes up only about 2% of the scriptures. I realized that the majority of people that get saved, intuitively see this implied underlying free will presupposition in the majority (98%) of the Bible without even being fully cognizant of it; and therefore, like I was, are unable to rationally explain it at first. Since the majority of scripture reeks with an implication of an understood presupposition that those being communicated to (mankind) have the free will capacity to believe or reject what was being communicated to them from God, I believe most folk, like myself, intuitively let that set the precedence and will automatically interpret the Calvinist ~2% of the scripture from a free will perspective. And those Calvinist ~2% of the scriptures are easily understood from a free will perspective. When I ask Calvinists to interpret the ~98% of scripture, that imply the free will of man, from their “no free will to accept or reject Christ as our savior” perspective, the majority of the time the answer I get is along this line “God communicates with man in a style that assumes man has a free will to accept or reject what God communicates, but God knows that man does not have the free will capacity to accept or reject what God communicates.” That response seems to me to imply that God has been deceiving mankind on this theological issue for millennia, implying that God is a deceiver. When I tell them that implies that God is a deceiver, they usually respond by saying that “--- My (God's) ways (are) higher than your ways --- Isa. 55:9”. When I ask the Calvinists why ~99% of the time they preach in a communication style that also implies the hearer has a free will to accept of reject, they usually reply by “saying that is the way God does it in the Bible”. This answer is like saying “If God is deceiving man on this issue, then so can I”. In my mind I think of those Calvinists that preach that way as “Bipolar Calvinists”.

David G.

:thumbs: I concur.