A question for the Calvinists

No one denies this either but in fact is also one of the main points of non-cals and Arminians alike.
No man of or by himself will seek out nor seek after God.
Thus God must draw men to himself because no man 'can come' without being drawn. However what the text does not say is that everyone drawn is saved. It is not there nor is it implied in the passages surrounding. It is a simple statement of fact. If they are saved it is because they have been drawn, and as such no one drawn can come unless it has first been granted/allowed by the Father.

Another point though is that the first passage you quote actually has nothing to do with the aspect of 'drawing' men. Only that those whom the Father 'has given him' will come. Then Jesus describes how they will come. So technically it isn't a verse speaking of His drawing but reason behind why He is drawing.

 

Where is the will of man in these passages?

...if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled in them that perish: in whom the god of this world hath blinded .... that the light of the gospel....should not dawn upon them.........Seeing it is God....who shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge...2 Cor 4:3,4,6

But we received.....the spirit which is from God; that we might know........the natural man .... cannot know....because they are spiritually judged. 1 Cor 2:12,14

 

Red Herring...but without a will, what is the need to be "blinded"?

 

Nice cutting up of scripture to make it say just what you 'wish' it would say.
That is sad, really sad.
Here is the scripture UNEDITTED:

Note that the gospel is hid by satan because the men have 'already' rejected it. This is why it states 'they do not believe'. God isn't going to keep giving the light if they reject it but turns them over to their sin/lusts. We find this same premise in Rom 1 and 2 Thes 2:10-12 amoung many others. Also, if you will note verse 6 is broken up for a reason as it states most plainly- God commanded the light to shine out of the darkness, and it has shined in their hearts. Now do you remember why the light was not to shine upon the hearts of the others.. because they did not believe. In order not to believe you have to have already known the issue and rejected it. Thus the reason the light is shining or illuminating these men (the saved) is because they have believed. It is a simple simple explaintion NOT of why some are given light and others not but why some maintian in the light and why others are refused to be given more.

Your cutting up of the scripture of 1 Cor 2:13-14 is just as horrific for a theological presuposition instead of the plain context derived by the text.
Simply put the natural can not know spiritual things of nor by himself. The only things he can come to understand by himself of those things which are of the world because he is of the world. He can not come to understand spiritual things by himself through his own wisdom, abilities, or any other contrivance of his. These spiritual truths must be given to him because he can not come to know them of himself. Things like sin, righteousness, and the judgment to come are all spiritual truths that can only be understood by the God (the Holy Spirit) revealing them to man.

This is why Paul states that we (the saved) can know spiritual things because it is who we are and therefore we can come to understand them as they can only be discerned by those who are already there. Paul here isn't speaking of salvation knowledge but speaking of spiritual knowledge after this (or continuing in our walk) as we note in verses 6, 7, and 9 which speak of those things beyond salvation.

 

So why do you think men rejected a God they believed and knew so they could be eternally punished? :laugh: The answer is that they were deceived by Satan as Eve was and you are being now.

Dt. 29:4, "But to this day, the Lord has not given you a mind that understands or eyes that see or ears that hear."

So sorry, but one cannot understand anything that God doesn't enable him to understand. Romans 11;32 explains why God did this; "For God bound all men over to disobedience so he can have mercy on them all."

So you need to read the whole bible, not just a few verses that you have taken out of context to see that it is God who controls the universe not man.

 

Umm.. No. Scripture does not say anything about this nor does it state anywhere else tham mankind is decieved as Eve was. Actaully what we find is that Adam was not decieved but he still sinned.

Secondly, I never said they believe in God, I said they rejected the gospel or the spiritual truths God has revealed to them. They will be eternally punished because they did not believe.

Yes and your point? I think you need to understand what the term 'context' means. Notice 'who' it is that is being spoken to and 'when' it was done.

No doubt and I haven't said anything to the contrary.

Again, context brother, context.

:laugh: I love it when children come on the BB. However I think it might be wise to step it down a bit before you bite of more than you chew

 

Hello,

I have been reading the discussions on this board for the past few weeks, and have been enjoying the aspects of the debate which have remained civil and even at the best of times shown an attempt to understand the perspective and honestly held belief of the opposite view.

I have never posted before, but perhaps I could inject a couple thoughts; I wont try to win the debate because I’m not a theologian nor a very good debater. I think there are a lot of opportunities for comment or areas to take up argument but I’ll just put this out for what it is worth.

I suppose I am a Calvinist or Calvinistic at least, so that is the direction of my bias. One of the things which bothers me when I try to understand and consider an “Arminian” position relates to the difference between two men, one who will be saved, the other who will reject the gospel. Before the man who will be saved accepts the gospel, and the man who will not rejects it what is the difference between them? It appears to me that to a non-Calvinist there is no difference between them up to the point of acceptance or rejection of the gospel. But clearly there is a difference somewhere because one is compelled to put his faith in Christ while the other is not. What is the difference? Both men make a choice, but how and why does the man who is saved choose to put his faith in Christ when the other does not? Was the man who is saved less corrupt then the other? Did the man who is saved receive the right message in his mind psychologically which compelled him to accept Christ?

If both of these men are drawn equally by the message of the gospel and the work of the Holy Spirit then are we not forced to conclude that it was the nature of the delivery or something intrinsic in the heart of that man that turned his will towards God? This is one aspect of “Arminianism” which causes me difficulty because I am convinced that the only thing that separates me from the man who rejects Christ is Christ and his work, and the Holy Spirit and his work. That if it was not for the work of the Holy Spirit particularly in me, working in me that which was designed for me I would be just as the man who rejected Christ and still dead in sins.

This problem is what leads Calvinists to claim that “Arminians” take credit for their salvation. Because, if what differentiates you who accepted Christ from he who rejects him is the fact that you chose the correct path then indeed you do have somewhat to glory because you chose it when someone else did not. While you may give glory to God for the work he did and for enabling your salvation, if in the final analysis your choice made that work effectual and that even though God drew you, he drew you just as he drew the sinner who rejected the gospel, except that you accepted it that makes you better than that other man apart from the work of Christ on the cross, or the work of the Holy Spirit on your heart.

I’m not saying this merely to accuse a non-Calvinist position; my point is to demonstrate my own conviction and difficulty with that aspect of a non-Calvinist view. Likely I misunderstand some important component of Arminian theology which satisfies this difficulty. But my question to those of you who are not Calvinists is do you at least understand why a Calvinist has difficulty in this aspect of your theology?

Perhaps you do not see the difficulty in this that a Calvinist sees, but let me assure you a Calvinist sees a theological and practical problem. If what differentiates the man who will be saved from the man who will not is something in the way those men make their choice apart from the equal working of the gospel and Holy Spirit is something internal in that man in the way he makes a choice then Psychology and sales tactics are critically important in the task of evangelism because the preacher’s task and responsibility is to get that man to make the right choice. But if the difference is in what God does to the man’s heart who will be saved and God’s own working by his own design and that God himself turns the very heart and will of the man who is saved, then the responsibility of the preacher is to declare the gospel (this is what preach means) and plant and water that word and let God give the increase. Plead for men to turn from their sin and accept Christ as their savior, tell them that if they put their faith in him they will be saved and believe they will, but don’t think for one second that the power of your eloquent words on the man’s psychology will ever save him or “get him saved”… Surely only the power of God on his heart can do that. Is this a despicable position to take?

 

winman, I will advise, with all due respects, to slowly read Romans from Chapter 1 because Paul's flow of thought has always been consistent, from the universality of sin in both Jew and Gentile, to the grace being free, to faith being a gospel redemptive necessity, to the independence of God's love from human response, to the need of faith as a proof of one's redemption
(but remember that his addressees were former judaists, idolaters, and pagans as opposed to us on this board who claim to already know Christ).

You will see, if you had been reading with an emptied mind (emptied from pre-injected bias against pre-requisites to eternal salvation) that Paul was speaking of the elect children of God among Jewry who were still in the clutches of Judaism.

I do not believe in the necessity of hearing the gospel in order for the Holy Spirit to regenerate anyone. Calvinists believe the elect must be within hearing of the gospel in order for the Holy Spirit to regenerate the elect. You, on the other hand, believe the same thing, in order for the sinner (not necessarily an elect) to be both saved, redeemed and regenerated.
Truthfully, there is NOT MUCH difference between you and Calvinists, except the fact that Calvinists believe God elected a definite number of people from eternity past in Christ unto salvation.

However, I have also stated (perhaps not on this forum but another) that the gospel is good news intended for those who are already redeemed by which they are then directed to their Savior and Redeemer, and their responsibility to repent of their sin and idolatry and turn to the living God is given along with gospel instruction on how to live the kingdom life in this plane called time, and the consequences of disobedience here in time, where they are reaped, because Christ already took on Himself the punishment the elect should be reaping in eternity.

So, please, qualify your statements when saying that I do not believe the gospel is necessary.

This is a logical doctrinal conclusion that comes from putting Christ as the centerpiece of all true doctrine. Once we understand and know that His redemption of His people was an act of obedience TO HIS FATHER'S WILL, and not because of an unforeseen, or required, action or element or means on the sinner's part, then we begin to lose any delusion and illusion that there was something loveable within us, some good unseen ability to choose God on our own with or without any help from God, the Holy Spirit.
We begin to see that AFTER redeeming us from the wrath of God with no pre-conditions for us, God now expects us, or at least those who come under the hearing of the gospel and of gospel instruction, to take on our responsibility to "renew our minds", repent of all the pre-conceived or any notion we were born in about God which were false, and to live in accordance with the requirements of a holy God, here in time. These are abilities that He gave us when He gave us a new nature, when He regenerates His people.

That is not true. He, in the Person of the Holy Spirit, is actively involved, here in time, in the regeneration of His people. He is not "watching you from a distance". The unnecessity of the gospel is in the redemption of His elect, because that part of God's "plan of salvation", is now past.

The Three in One are all of them involved, and only They, in the redemption of sinners.

The Father chose, the Son redeemed, the Spirit regenerates.

 

Good post, and welcome to the BB.

This is it in a nutshell:

Armenians deny the right of the potter over the clay

Calvinists accept the right of the potter over the clay.

 

Erratum:

Re my post to winman : (emptied from pre-injected bias against pre-requisites to eternal salvation) should read (emptied from pre-injected bias in favor or....).
apologies.
thank you.

 

and may I add, both of them are "means" people. That is, for Calvinists, God is the potter, the sinner the clay, but God needs preachers and the gospel.
Arminians teach that God is the potter, the sinner the clay, but the clay has somehow means to mold itself to God's will, and the potter simply follows the direction in which the clay molds, and goes from there.
Welcome to the board.

 

...hehe......one thing at a time pinoy, one thing at a time. The Calvinists are our brothers in the doctrines of Sovereign Grace

 

First, it's Arminians (not Armenians), and second...you are wrong.

 

So prove we're wrong. The statement "You're wrong" is what atheists say to everything we say without backing up their claims. So your statement is as meaningless as theirs are without backing it up.

 

Hi Winman,

Thanks for your response.

Are you suggesting that in John 3:21 when it says that “He that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be manifest, that they are wrought in God” is saying that the unsaved man comes into the light to show that his deeds as an unsaved man are wrought in God?

I believe you are wrong in stating that saved men do not thirst and hunger after righteousness. Are you suggesting that you never have a hunger and thirst for righteousness as a saved man? I have that hunger and thirst which though satisfied in Christ is still there. I think the two verses are not talking about exactly the same thing. Mat. 5:6 is speaking about desire whereas John 4:13 is speaking about the source of the Spirit in a saved man being as a spring or fountain as an infinite supply as opposed to a container which must be continually filled. The thirsting in John does not refer to a desire for righteousness but to the fact that the one who drinks of the water that Christ gives never runs out of that Spirit, is never in need of that Spirit because he indwells that man providing an infinite source.

Who are the meek? Who are the merciful? Who are the pure in heart? Who are the peacemakers? Who are they which hunger and thirst after righteousness? Is the unsaved sinner meek? Is the unsaved sinner merciful? Is the unsaved sinner pure in heart?

My question is where does that thirst for righteousness come from. I understand that men love darkness rather than light and that is why they do not come, but why does the man who thirsts for righteousness thirst? Is it something inside of himself apart from Christ?

You say that Calvinists start with the doctrines of Calvin and then interpret scripture accordingly as if somehow arminians are free from interpreting the scripture according to their bias. I suppose the superiority of your position is that your scriptural knowledge is arrived at by the revelation of God whereas mine holds tenuously to the cogitations of a Baptist persecuting Protestant but I can assure you that I do not believe what I believe because Calvin said it. I believe what I believe because it is the understanding (however imperfect) which I have of what the scripture teaches and a conviction which comes from that understanding.

You speak as if Calvinists arrive at the doctrine of total depravity independent of scripture and then go about to understand the scripture based on that externally reasoned belief. But there is a pattern of evidence throughout the bible which compels me to conclude that there is a doctrine of total depravity taught in scripture. This is not to suggest that man is as sinful in his actions as he can be but an expression of the totality of his separation from God which the corruption of sin has caused and that this separation corrupts all aspects of his being. It is not that I cannot understand an unsaved man having a desire for God, but that outside of God’s grace I cannot understand an unsaved man’s desire for God not being corrupted by his depravity. In other words even his desire for God is misdirected, corrupted and in contempt, causing a stink in God’s nostrils if you will. Isa 64:6 even our righteousnesses are as filthy rags (ie. the putrid corrupted rags of a leper)

But the question remains. Do you see no difference between the Philipian Jailor’s question and the young rich man’s? Why did Jesus not say “Believe on me and thou shalt have life?” Instead, knowing that man’s heart and motivation he said, “Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.” Isn’t that a strange response if you are trying to equate the experience of both of these men, and only draw a difference between them in the response or final outcome? I don’t think the young man was interested in having his sins forgiven, he wanted eternal life. The jailor wanted forgiveness of sins. This is an important distinction.

Ez. 11:19 And I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit within you; and I will take the stony heart out of their flesh, and will give them a heart of flesh:

Rom 10:10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness;

You see, we have a heart of stone but we need a heart of flesh in order to believe unto righteousness. Until that heart is made flesh how can man believe unto righteousness?

I will do my best to believe the scriptures and even the persecuting John Calvin when he believes what the scriptures teach. There have been many wicked men who have believed one truth or another. Will you reject truth because a wicked man believed it too? If John Calvin is what prevents you from understanding the truth contained in Calvinism lets throw out Calvin, but let’s not throw out the truth he believed and exposited.

 

Again, who changes the heart? Ezekiel 36:27 is one of the myriad of verses that tells us, "And I will put my spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and obey my laws."

But, if you think you can tell God what to do, then you are giving man the credit for his faith instead of God which contradicts Ephesians 2:8-9. It's also called self-righteousness which is the yeast of the Pharisees.

 

Second time you have insinuated I am an atheist. Next time it will be reported.

 

I don't deny the right of the potter over the clay...so you (and he) are wrong. Surely you can do better than that? :laugh:

 

So then who can resist God's will? as Romans 9:19 says. NNE can as Romans 11:29 explains. Thus the belief in free will is a myth.