The Calvinistic system introduces the most disingenuous invitation known to man

[Skandelon]

I used this analogy in another post but want to vet it further in a new thread. I realize all analogies fall short of perfect representation of any one view, but please explain how this analogy doesn't correctly represent the universal call/invitation of the gospel that goes into all the world from the Calvinistic perspective:

Imagine a Governor standing in front of a bunch of prison inmates knowing full well that 95% of them couldn't understand any english and saying without any interpretation, "If you will come to me and apologize for your crime you will be set free, otherwise you will be tortured for the rest of your life in this prison." All the while making statements like, "I don't want any one to be tortured, but all to be set free from this prison," and "I love the prisoners and have provided pardon for their crimes."

Is that a genuine invitation? Considering that the Governor is fully aware of the inmates inability to understand english and thus respond to the invitation, I don't see how that can be viewed as a genuine invitation. But how is that different from the Calvinistic view of God's universal gospel call?

 

[Johnv]

What's the emoticon for "Anti-Calvinism Troll"?

 

[canadyjd]

I used this analogy in another post but want to vet it further in a new thread. I realize all analogies fall short of perfect representation of any one view, but please explain how this analogy doesn't correctly represent the universal call/invitation of the gospel that goes into all the world from the Calvinistic perspective:

Explain the difference between the Calvinist's perspective of the gospel call and the Arminian perspective of the gospel call?

Do you believe the Calvinist call to believe the gospel is not legitimate because only the "elect" and "predestined" have the ability to believe?

How is that different from the Arminian belief that God has already seen who will believe and "elected" and "predestined" on the basis of that foreknowledge?

In both systems the outcome has already been decided by God. God already knows who will reject and accept the gospel (in both systems).

Why go preach to everybody?

Why not go directly to those who are "elected" (based on whichever view you hold) instead of giving a general call to everyone?

peace to youraying:

 

[Skandelon]

What's the emoticon for "Anti-Calvinism Troll"?

Actually a troll is one who uses personal attacks and is purposefully off topic, which better fits your response than my OP. I have made a sincere attempt to vet an analogy. If you don't wish to participate in a civil manner I request that you say nothing at all. Blessings to you.

 

[Johnv]

Actually a troll is one who uses personal attacks and is purposefully off topic, which better fits your response than my OP.

:laugh::laugh: Spoken like a true troll!!

 

[Winman]

Explain the difference between the Calvinist's perspective of the gospel call and the Arminian perspective of the gospel call?

Do you believe the Calvinist call to believe the gospel is not legitimate because only the "elect" and "predestined" have the ability to believe?

How is that different from the Arminian belief that God has already seen who will believe and "elected" and "predestined" on the basis of that foreknowledge?

In both systems the outcome has already been decided by God. God already knows who will reject and accept the gospel (in both systems).

Why go preach to everybody?

Why not go directly to those who are "elected" (based on whichever view you hold) instead of giving a general call to everyone?

peace to youraying:

God electing those he knows will believe is not the same as determining who will believe.

Imagine a radio show that says the fifth caller will win $100. Has it been determined that the fifth caller will receive $100? Yes. Does that determine the identity of the fifth caller? No. Is this offer open to everyone? Yes.

Now, you will not understand this, but God sees the outcome no matter what outcome that is. If a man does not believe today, God sees that and saw that from the beginning. If that man never believes on Christ, he sees that too. But if that man repents tomorrow and believes on Christ, he sees that. What he sees does not determine the outcome, but he always sees the outcome.

 

[annsni]

What's the emoticon for "Anti-Calvinism Troll"?

Nah - not a troll but a man who stands so against Calvinism that we don't know what else he does stand for. Honestly, it's tiresome when someone constantly comes up to you arguing against ONE theological belief yet nothing else ever catches his attention. Those are the people I've learned to just say "I'm not discussing this" and walk away.

 

[Skandelon]

Explain the difference between the Calvinist's perspective of the gospel call and the Arminian perspective of the gospel call?

I know both Calvinists and Arminians historically view the gospel call as "universal," meaning that it is meant for all people to hear without distinction. However, the Calvinist believes that only the elect, once effectually called, have the ability understand the gospel and thus willingly believe it. While the Arminian believes all men have clearly seen and understood the clear revelations of God and thus stand without excuse.

Do you believe the Calvinist call to believe the gospel is not legitimate because only the "elect" and "predestined" have the ability to believe?

Not the Calvinist, per say. An individual who believes Calvinistically does not know who is elect and who is not and thus can genuinely call them to repent. What I've described as being disingenuous is the view of God as he "holds out his hands" (rm 10) and "longs to gather" (Matt 23) different people in scripture all the while saying that he "desires non to perish but all to come to repentance" and that he "so loves the world" all the while knowing full well that he has not granted all people the capacity to understand and willingly believe his message. Thus the point of the analogy... In other words, the Governor represents "Calvinism's God," not just a Calvinist.

How is that different from the Arminian belief that God has already seen who will believe and "elected" and "predestined" on the basis of that foreknowledge?

You tell me. Is foreknowing a person or foreseeing his decisions equal to predetermining that person to be who he is and to do what he does? I don't think so.

Inviting someone to a banquet who I foreknow will freely choose to reject is far different from inviting someone to a banquet who I have predetermined will not be able to willingly accept it. Especially, in light of the fact that their rejection will ultimately lead to their eternal damnation and their culpability (standing "without excuse") for that choice is at stake.

In both systems the outcome has already been decided by God. God already knows who will reject and accept the gospel (in both systems).

Incorrect. In the non-Calvinistic system it has not already been decided by God. It will be decided by the individual being invited and God's merely knows the outcome. Those two cannot be equated.

 

[pinoybaptist]

Skan,
Can you please provide Scripture that unmistakably is a gospel call to all men, with an exegesis of why "all men" necessarily means all of mankind ?
Secondly, again may I point out that the loss of man's ability to "respond" to God is a result of his fallen condition which he inherited from Adam and your analogy portrays God a no-brain idiot dictator who knows fully well the inability of His subjects to meet His standards and yet punishes them nevertheless for that inability, while on the contrary God enabling His people by quickening them, to respond to Him in accordance with what He requires shows Him to be a merciful God who knows His people are flesh and weak ?
Thirdly, I am not aware that Calvinists here or on other boards espouse a view of God's universal gospel call. I thought that was the Arminian's view.

 

[Skandelon]

Nah - not a troll but a man who stands so against Calvinism that we don't know what else he does stand for. Honestly, it's tiresome when someone constantly comes up to you arguing against ONE theological belief yet nothing else ever catches his attention. Those are the people I've learned to just say "I'm not discussing this" and walk away.

Oh, good, is that a promise?

 

[Skandelon]

:laugh::laugh: Spoken like a true troll!!

Translation= I have nothing better to offer than personal attacks and accusations.

 

[Johnv]

Translation= I have nothing better to offer than personal attacks and accusations.

That's true, on this topic, you don't.

 

[Skandelon]

Skan,
Can you please provide Scripture that unmistakably is a gospel call to all men, with an exegesis of why "all men" necessarily means all of mankind ?

This is the gospel that you heard and that has been proclaimed to every creature under heaven, and of which I, Paul, have become a servant. Col 1:24

And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. Mark 16:15

So, do you think all men and women would be included in "every creature?"

Secondly, again may I point out that the loss of man's ability to "respond" to God is a result of his fallen condition which he inherited from Adam

Ok, but who chose for that to be the result of Adam's sin? God did, right? So God chose to remove the ability of mankind to be able to respond to his message of reconciliation which was needed due to the Fall and then He chooses punish people for not responding. That doesn't seem questionable in your eyes? Really?

and your analogy portrays God a no-brain idiot dictator who knows fully well the inability of His subjects to meet His standards and yet punishes them nevertheless for that inability,

Besides the "no-brain idiot dictator" that you inserted into this what is different from the God of your dogma?

while on the contrary God enabling His people by quickening them, to respond to Him in accordance with what He requires shows Him to be a merciful God who knows His people are flesh and weak ?

Just like the merciful Governor who knew his english speaking inmates, right?

Thirdly, I am not aware that Calvinists here or on other boards espouse a view of God's universal gospel call. I thought that was the Arminian's view.

Really? I thought most Calvinists affirmed the universal call of the gospel.

As a well know Calvinist Charles Hodge states: "This call [gospel] is universal in the sense that it is addressed to all men indiscriminately to whom the gospel is sent. It is confined to no age, nation, or class of men. It is made to the Jew and Gentile, to Barbarians and Scythians, bond and free; to the learned and to the ignorant; to the righteous and to the wicked; to the elect and to the non-elect. This follows from its nature. Being a proclamation of the terms on which God is willing to save sinners, and an exhibition of the duty of fallen men in relation to that plan, it of necessity binds all those who are in the condition which the plan contemplates."

How can you not affirm that?

 

[Skandelon]

That's true, on this topic, you don't.

So far on this thread you have called me a troll twice while I have been engaging with others on the OP. I have purposefully avoiding calling you any names, but yet you continue to accuse me of doing what only you are guilty of. Please, I ask you as a brother in Christ, just let this go and move on. I love you in Christ and wish you all the best.

 

[Winman]

Secondly, again may I point out that the loss of man's ability to "respond" to God is a result of his fallen condition which he inherited from Adam

Baloney, that is not said anywhere in scripture. The curse on Adam and Eve did not mention whatsoever that they were cursed so that they could no longer respond to God.

Gen 3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;
18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;
19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

Show me one word in God's curse on Adam and Eve where God said man's moral nature was cursed so that he could not respond to God's word.

 

[Skandelon]

Baloney, that is not said anywhere in scripture. The curse on Adam and Eve did not mention whatsoever that they were cursed so that they could no longer respond to God.

Gen 3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;
18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;
19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

Show me one word in God's curse on Adam and Eve where God said man's moral nature was cursed so that he could not respond to God's word.

Yeah, it does seem that a curse that severe would have been mentioned here, doesn't it? I mean, the whole labor pains and having to sweat to work the ground seems like nothing compared to the inability to willingly respond to messages of reconciliation sent to us in love by our creator. Maybe the author just forgot to mention it because it wasn't all that important. :thumbs:

 

[pinoybaptist]

This is the gospel that you heard and that has been proclaimed to every creature under heaven, and of which I, Paul, have become a servant. Col 1:24

And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. Mark 16:15

So, do you think all men and women would be included in "every creature?"

So, you are saying that according to Paul this gospel was heard by the Corinthians but not only that, also by the Hittites, the Jebusites, the Romans, the Greeks, the Polynesians, the Indonesians, the Eskimos (by whatever name they were known at the time), by headhunters in the jungles, by every man under heaven ?
So I guess you are the one who have to prove that this gospel has been heard by one and all in every point of the compass, by one and all in every point of time, including babies, infants, old men, old women, blacks, whites, hispanics, indians, red, yellow, olive men and women.

Ok, but who chose for that to be the result of Adam's sin? God did, right? So God chose to remove the ability of mankind to be able to respond to his message of reconciliation which was needed due to the Fall and then He chooses punish people for not responding. That doesn't seem questionable in your eyes? Really?

Oh, so now, God is not only an idiot. He is a scoundrel, a scalawag, an evil monster, the source and creator of every imaginable sin ?
Where is the Scripture, please ?
It is never man's fault, it is always God's fault ?
God is the martyr maker, and man is the martyr ?

Besides the "no-brain idiot dictator" that you inserted into this what is different from the God of your dogma?

oh, shoot, did I hurt your feelings, skan ?
sorry.

Just like the merciful Governor who knew his english speaking inmates, right?

Your "merciful" governor doesn't even come near the God of this universe in comparison, skan. Your hatred of the Doctrine of Grace is clouding your perception.

Really? I thought most Calvinists affirmed the universal call of the gospel.

As a well know Calvinist Charles Hodge states: "This call [gospel] is universal in the sense that it is addressed to all men indiscriminately to whom the gospel is sent. It is confined to no age, nation, or class of men. It is made to the Jew and Gentile, to Barbarians and Scythians, bond and free; to the learned and to the ignorant; to the righteous and to the wicked; to the elect and to the non-elect. This follows from its nature. Being a proclamation of the terms on which God is willing to save sinners, and an exhibition of the duty of fallen men in relation to that plan, it of necessity binds all those who are in the condition which the plan contemplates."
[

Well, first off, let me point out that Mr. Hodges is in no way saying that this call is to all mankind, but to all classes of man, bond, free, Jew, Gentile, rich, poor, in castles, in slums.
Second, I don't know, nor have I read, Mr. Hodges, and I disagree with him that this call goes out to the unelect.
I don't agree with that.
Along with the gospel call comes the call to repentance, and the unelect is under no obligation to repent, since it is not God's will to quicken them, and if it not God's will to quicken them, how will they even be capable of Godly repentance ?
Then your skewed illustration may indeed apply to God.

How can you not affirm that?

for the simple reason I am not a Calvinist, though I love them as much as I do you.

 

[Skandelon]

It's like you are responding to someone else's post while quoting mine... I never attempted to suggest that every creature has already heard the gospel. Like the scripture I quoted says, it has been sent to all creatures. Almost all "orthodox" Calvinists believe and teach universal gospel call. I'm sorry to hear that you don't. I cannot see how you can justify that biblically since clearly the scripture calls us to preach to all creatures.

I never even implied that "Calvinism's God" is an "idiot. He is a scoundrel, a scalawag, an evil monster, the source and creator of every imaginable sin" (as you put it) and the fact that you read that into my reply proves that further reply would be pointless. Blessings to you.

 

[canadyjd]

Imagine a Governor standing in front of a bunch of prison inmates knowing full well that 95% of them couldn't understand any english and saying without any interpretation, "If you will come to me and apologize for your crime you will be set free, otherwise you will be tortured for the rest of your life in this prison." All the while making statements like, "I don't want any one to be tortured, but all to be set free from this prison," and "I love the prisoners and have provided pardon for their crimes."


Is that a genuine invitation? Considering that the Governor is fully aware of the inmates inability to understand english and thus respond to the invitation, I don't see how that can be viewed as a genuine invitation. But how is that different from the Calvinistic view of God's universal gospel call?

I'll use your analogy to try to explain my point.

Firstly, to be a truly calvinist analogy, the warden knows that 100% of the inmates are gulity and deserve death and 100% do not understand english.

Secondly, the warden would have to chose some to be saved/pardoned, according to His will alone.

Thirdly, the warden would have to send His Son to the electric chair to pay the penalty for the sins of those He has chosen.

Fourthly, the warden would send His Holy Spirit to call/draw those He has chosen to accept the truth that His Son has died for them. His Holy Spirit is so convincing that every single person so called would come forward to accept the pardon.

Fifthly, the warden would ordain that the method He used to bring about the salvation of those He chose would be to make an open proclaimation to everyone, inviting them all to come, but knowing that only those whom His Holy Spirit convinced to come would do so.

Finally, the warden would carry out the punishment already decreed for those who rejected, but show mercy to those who accepted His call to repentance.

peace to youraying:

 

[canadyjd]

Imagine a Governor standing in front of a bunch of prison inmates knowing full well that 95% of them couldn't understand any english and saying without any interpretation, "If you will come to me and apologize for your crime you will be set free, otherwise you will be tortured for the rest of your life in this prison." All the while making statements like, "I don't want any one to be tortured, but all to be set free from this prison," and "I love the prisoners and have provided pardon for their crimes."

Is that a genuine invitation? Considering that the Governor is fully aware of the inmates inability to understand english and thus respond to the invitation, I don't see how that can be viewed as a genuine invitation. But how is that different from the Calvinistic view of God's universal gospel call?

Now for the arminian version:

Firstly, the warden knows that 100% of the inmates are gulity and deserve death.

Secondly, the warden desires everyone of them to be saved.

Thirdly, the warden decides to send His Son to the electric chair to pay the penalty for the sins of all the prisoners.

Fourthly, the warden looks through time and sees which one of the inmates will understand English, and accept His offer of pardon by their own free will. These He elects to recieve the pardon.

Fifthly, the warden ordains that the method He used to bring about the salvation of those He has foreknown to accept His offer is to make an open proclaimation to everyone, inviting them all to come, but knowing that only those will come who understand English and come according to their own free will.

Finally, the warden would carry out the punishment already decreed for those who rejected (i.e. death), even though His Son has already been put to death to pay their penalty and even though He knew they couldn't understand and wouldn't respond to His offer of mercy.

As far as disingenuous invitations go... the arminian version has just as many problems (if not more) than the calvinistic version.

peace to youraying: