A question for the Calvinists

Did you not say that the further one moves away from calvinism, the further they move away from salvation being all God?

 

Not my favorite word...but unfortunately you and the like erect them like clock work, so it does come up quite often. What is your favorite...blasphemy? Heretic?

 

Incorrect. there are good theological reasons for it. You should study it. You might not agree, but at least you wouldn't say stuff like this.

This is part of the problem, perhaps. You apparently don't understand how to study. A deduction is when you say draw conclusions based on what the text says. Reading something into the text is when you force something into a text in spite of what it says. Those are not "meaning the same thing." They are two entirely different things.

How do you know?

How do you know?

I agree and so does most of Calvinism. God does not save people against their will or prevent them from believing against their will. That's the point of Eph 2:1-3 ... They are doing what they want to do. Their wills are fully engaged.

In a nutshell, yes. If that's lame, then so be it. My point is always "Just read the text and explain it. Don't explain it away."

 

Some peoples "stawman" is to use the phrase stawman for they have not an answer.

I have seen it used by one person when it doesn't even fit the logic of the context. Which makes me wonder if they even read what the other person wrote, as well as read their own post, but rather just sign on, see its a Calvinist that just posted and post "Stawman" as a reply.

If one is to use the phrase "stawman" they need to say why they feel it is indeed that very thing.

When they don't it seems they only use the word for they have no answer

 

You assume I lack in study for the reason I'm disagreeing? What of those whom have studied their whole lives and don't read Calvinism in the bible at all? Your objection is flawed, or at the least, presumptuous.

Darren

 

Don't feel left out, for you I use "troll" quite often. If you guys would quit using such ignorant logic like "they believe they are partners in salvation" or "the take all the credit in salvation" that word would never be used. Ludicrous to think that the one receiving a gift can take credit for the giving of the gift, or the one reaching for a lifeline can take credit for partnering in the rescue. I wish you guys would leave the ignorance out.

Do you still participate in the threads you start, btw? You do realize if you don't that's trolling, don't you? I only see you pop in to bash people from time to time....which is also trolling. Maybe you need to spend more time under the bridge?

 

No Webdog - here's exactly what I said.

"As you move across the spectrum of salvation theology - from High Calvinism to Rank Pelagianism the emphasis shifts away from God gradually toward man."

That is an observation that simply says if you look at the Salvation Theology of various groups, denominations, churches, etc., the closer one of those groups, etc., is to Rank Pelagianism the more emphasis is placed on Man's part in Salvation.

Remove the Calvinism and Pelagianism labels and the truth is still there.

There is a theology present in the "Christian" world that is man-centered. We Baptists have always called it a "Salvation by Works Theology".

Now if you want to get back to what you claim I said then I suppose you can do that with the example of Clark Pinnock.

Dr. Pinnock started off as a 5 point Calvinist and is now one of the Leading proponents of Open Theology which most Baptists agree is a "man-centered" doctrine. I'm sure Dr. Pinnock would disagree with that as do all those who hold to "man-centered" theologies generally do.

It's interesting to me how much folks can mix Man into the Salvation mix and still say with a straight face that Salvation is All of God.

 

Well, you are asking what the biblical basis is for Calvinism. If you have studied, then you don't have to ask. You notice that I don't ask what the biblical basis for your view is. I know it. I might be able to argue for it better than you do. But I have studied enough to know what you believe and how it is based in the Bible.

What of them? What have they studied? And do they say, "I don't see any arguments for Calvinism in the Bible" or do they say, "I see the arguments and I find them flawed"? Those are two different responses.

It is neither.

When you say that Calvinism reads regeneration preceding faith into the text, you are either unaware of their arguments or your are not telling the truth. The argument is there. I disagree with it as they state it. But I know what it is. It is not read into the text.

When you say that reading into the text and deducing from the text are "the same thing," you are either unaware of logical argument or not telling the truth. They are not the same.

I don't think you aren't telling the truth. I think you are. My conclusion is that you simply don't know what you are talking about. We see it quite often, and usually from the most vocal people here.

 

In regards to Pelagianism, I agree...however that phrase seems to allude to the fact that calvinism has it right, and any other view takes the emphasis away from God...particularly the last sentence in your post.

 

Yes, it apparently is.

No, hands down your usage of "strawman" is the winner by far. I wouldn't even qualify as a distant second.

 

Yes, you use that name on me a bit.

Synergism is that very thing. There are only two views and I have heard you say many times over that monergism is not right.

I'm not sure who has said this "TAKE CREDIT FOR GIVING OF THE GIFT". Maybe you would like to share who said it.

But it is clear that some want to take credit for receiving the gift, for they have made better use of their grace than the non-believer

Again, who has said this? But some want to take credit for ALLOWING God to rescue them. As if God must wait on us to give the ok before God can do anything. What kind of God is that?

Note the tone in your post.

1st I didn't start this thread for I have no question for Calvinist being that I am one.

2nd, I participate when I can. I don't come and stay on here everyday. Because I have not replied, please don't think I have nothing to say. You should know by now I have a big mouth and I like to use it.

You have told me in the past what trolling is. What I would like to know is how you know what I'm am doing all day.

Ok, now you have changed the meaning. You have said in the past that a troll...(and I have only heard this from you, for it must mean something to you) is one that watches a thread without and then post one lines off the subject.

The subject that I posted on was already on the board. I replied to it.

Now you bring up a new subject which is "trolling". That is a subject change. humm. What does that mean?

You got to love all the love from the freewillers.

Now please get back to the subject.

 

Notice how much time was spent on the above. Very constructive use of time...

Might want to consider spending time on the threads you start and abandon?

 

I think it is interesting as I stand back and watch some of these so-called wars that are repeating and they do nothing but drive me away from something I enjoy, discussing Scripture and theology.

1. I dont hold onto the title "Calvinist" but I do agree with the soteriology of Calvinists. Im sure the majority of the Calvinists would say the same for obvious reasons and that their beliefs are derived from Scripture as are non-cals.

2. There are Calvinists and non-calvinists who are born again and not born again.

3. I think it is funny how we take sides to argue rather than fellowship. It is clear we misunderstand each other and some people are wiser than others. But doesnt Scripture teach that the wiser should be more humble, lowly, and patient?

4. I am tired of hearing people on either side accusing people of reading their views into Scripture because everyone is guilty of this to some degree or another, while nobody really intends to do this.

5. We all are guilty of all sins to some degree, so it is silly to say somebody is doing something foolish when you and I also do the same thing. It is true some are more foolish than others but anyone who sins is a fool, and we all have sin.

anyway the last thing I read was discussing rebirth I believe-

options of views
1. rebrith comes before faith
2. rebirth comes after faith
3. rebirth and faith come at the exact same time.

both of which come from the word of God; the preaching of the Word and the work of the Spirit.

maybe say which view you hold and lay down all scripture that leads you to conclude this. and we can debate this in peace.

 

Brother, that is exactly what you believe and teach. Thus it is the very God you serve.

1. You do not for one second believe that God saves any man apart from faith.
2. You also believe that must regenerate man prior to his faith so that man will believe willingly and 'allow' God to save him.
...2b. Othewise God would save them apart from faith.

Therefore as you said, 'God must wait on us to give the ok before He can do anything' and since the subject here is about salvation (and receiving a gift) that is what anything pertains to here as I see it. Welcome to synergism

 

ALLAN- I had an off topic question for you, as we have had a few discussions in the past. From what I remember you hold that-

faith preceeds rebirth, correct? IOW- rebirth happens almost exactly the same time one decides to believe.

And that the Spirit must work and does all He can do while man must make the ultimate choice to believe?

Faith isn't a gift from God but is totally on man to bring about within Himself upon conviction?

I respect your view by the way, and wanted to clarify a few things I'm studying currently.

 

Which Calvinists don't like these verses? Can you identify one for us?

Assuming you have properly interpreted these verses (which is certainly suspect since he is address a church, not "all men"), what is the problem with Calvinism here? Any man who hears the voice of God and opens the door will receive Jesus. Calvinism doesn't disagree with that. Calvinism believes we should preach the gospel to all men, and call all to respond. Calvinists believe that whosoever will may come, but they have to will. God doesn't save anyone who "won't."

So frankly, it's not clear what your beef is.

 

I was going to say something similar, but I just stopped .

 

Correct.

No, not 'does all He can' as if He is incapable. He does all that is required to bring man to that choice He sets before them. Believe or not.

Faith isn't a gift as in something that must be placed into man.
Example: Someone gives you a bike because you never had one or anything that resembled it.

I do believe that faith is a gift in that man would never have faith if it had not been for God bringing man to it. I have no idea where you get the impression from me, non-cals, or even any Arminian that man must somehow bring about faith in himself. God brings man to the point of faith but it is man choice to believe or not. Faith is something that must be willingly given but no man can bring 'himself' to this point, God must intervene in order that man might come to such a place.

And I greatly appreciate your asking me

 

Well said.