So I'm arguing with a hyperCalvinist/Camping follower

[Andy T.]

1. People can't understand the Scripture if they are not elect and they cannot be saved.

There is disagreement among Calvinists on how much a lost person can understand Scripture. Calvinism is not monolithic on this point. So, False.

2. It's only the saved who will understand Scripture.

Again, Calvinism is not monolithic on this point. Again, False.

I affirmed that a real Calvinist wouldn't talk like this because Calvinists don't typically presume they know who is elect and who is not. And they are evangelistic because God has commanded it.

No, you did not affirm this in your first post above. You may affirm it now, but only after you've been called out on your initial distortion.

 

[annsni]

Actually, even according to Calvinists they must first be "enabled," so again they "can't" believe unless they are "drawn" or "enabled" (Jn 6:44 according Calvinism). If one is unable to be willing, then they are unable, period. So, once again there is nothing technically incorrect to say there is nothing the non-elect can do, right?

Let's look at John 6:44

"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day."

What does that mean to you? Can someone come to the Father without being drawn?

 

[glfredrick]

Yep, that's how I feel. I keep plugging away but this woman is nuts. How does she know that none of these people are elect? She doesn't. In my opinion, we treat every single person we see as if they are elect and make sure that they hear the Gospel and we answer any questions they have. The results are between them and God - not me. But I don't want to face God and have Him say "I sent them to you to hear my Word. Why did you not give it to them?" I am greatly blessed when God uses me to give someone the Gospel and they respond. I WANT to be a part of it.

AMEN! :thumbsup:

 

[glfredrick]

Thanks Benjamin. You know what's funny? I'm arguing a little bit of the other side. She says that there is NOTHING man does in salvation but I don't see that even in Calvinism. I still see man's turning in faith to God. Now, I believe that God is the catalyst to that change but man isn't just sitting there doing nothing. So I'm going a bit on the other side for this argument.

I would say that we participate with God in two aspects of our salvation, faith/repentance (two sides of one coin) and sanctification, and even there, as you said, God is the gifter and initiator. The rest is solely on God and our role is to be a faithful witness, just as He said.

 

[glfredrick]

What happens if an elect person gets murdered before he gets saved? Can any elect go to hell?

If God is powerful enough to elect to salvation, He is also powerful enough to set the appointment time for that individual's death at the appropriate time (I recall the Scriptures saying something along this line... :laugh: ).

He can also cause the interaction with the gospel, and give the grace it takes to first believe (not to mention fulfill all the aspects of salvation).

 

[glfredrick]

So then, technically number 1 is correct, right?


But its a given that they are not saved because they are not elect, right? So, what is the real difference? Again, technically it is not incorrect.



Actually, even according to Calvinists they must first be "enabled," so again they "can't" believe unless they are "drawn" or "enabled" (Jn 6:44 according Calvinism). If one is unable to be willing, then they are unable, period. So, once again there is nothing technically incorrect to say there is nothing the non-elect can do, right?

Except the issue of a time-table for when God accomplishes His task... That, we still cannot know, but you are assuming that our interaction with the lost is the end-all of the situation. Are you now turning farther to Pelagianism? Even a good Arminian knows that God's grace is the motivating factor in salvation for the lost. In your playing devil's advocate, you speak beyond what the Scriptures proclaim. I'd think that we dare not do that just to win an argument, and you are as wrong in so doing as is the hyper-Calvinist that annsni is dealing with.

 

[annsni]

I would say that we participate with God in two aspects of our salvation, faith/repentance (two sides of one coin) and sanctification, and even there, as you said, God is the gifter and initiator. The rest is solely on God and our role is to be a faithful witness, just as He said.

Yep - fully agree with you here. It seems like this person is totally opposed to saying that man has anything to do with anything but how can she say that in light of the Scriptures? She's constantly posting just two passages (and giving no commentary on them - just posting the references) - Romans 9 and Ephesians 1. That's all. But I posted the verses where men say "What must I do to be saved" and both Paul and Peter both say "Repent" or "Believe". But I guess she doesn't get that part.

 

[annsni]

If God is powerful enough to elect to salvation, He is also powerful enough to set the appointment time for that individual's death at the appropriate time (I recall the Scriptures saying something along this line... :laugh: ).

He can also cause the interaction with the gospel, and give the grace it takes to first believe (not to mention fulfill all the aspects of salvation).

God's pretty awesome that way.

 

[mets65]

I have a random question. If someone is not elect, how should they live their life? If the people on Jersey Shore are not elect how can we hold their antics against them?

 

[Skandelon]

Except the issue of a time-table for when God accomplishes His task... That, we still cannot know, but you are assuming that our interaction with the lost is the end-all of the situation.

But I didn't make any assumptions, I merely said that "technically" what the person said wasn't incorrect. I affirmed that Calvinists don't talk that way and that they are evangelistic.

Are you now turning farther to Pelagianism? Even a good Arminian knows that God's grace is the motivating factor in salvation for the lost.

Uh? I'm not even expressing what I do or don't believe in this post. I'm only speaking of what Calvinists believe and how it related to what the person in the OP said.

In your playing devil's advocate, you speak beyond what the Scriptures proclaim. I'd think that we dare not do that just to win an argument, and you are as wrong in so doing as is the hyper-Calvinist that annsni is dealing with.

Again, this makes no sense considering that I've only pointed out what Calvinists believe. What have I said that Calvinists do not affirm and why?

 

[Skandelon]

There is disagreement among Calvinists on how much a lost person can understand Scripture. Calvinism is not monolithic on this point. So, False.

Actually, I think all that is meant is that the non-elect can't understand the scripture unto salvation, which is true of Calvinism.

Again, Calvinism is not monolithic on this point. Again, False.

So, if all Calvinists are not in perfect agreement on any particular point then its automatically false and must be nit-picked?

No, you did not affirm this in your first post above. You may affirm it now, but only after you've been called out on your initial distortion.

Then you don't know me very well. I've consistently affirmed these points regarding Calvinists, if you don't believe me just ask around or do a search. Plus, you have yet to show any "distortion" of Calvinism, but only have attempted to show that not all Calvinists agree with what I asserted. I'd still like to know of any Calvinist who does believe that the non-elect might understand scripture unto salvation.

 

[Andy T.]

Actually, I think all that is meant is that the non-elect can't understand the scripture unto salvation, which is true of Calvinism.

Well, now you've added the phrase "unto salvation" which was not mentioned in the OP and changes the meaning of "understand." But the subject in the OP did not say "unto salvation" - she just said the unsaved can't understand Scripture. Some/Many Calvinists would disagree with the blanket statement that the unsaved have no understanding of Scripture.

So again, you were only talking about some Calvinists - mostly of the hyper brand. But your initial statement branded all Calvinists with that statement.

So, if all Calvinists are not in perfect agreement on any particular point then its automatically false and must be nit-picked?

Not nit-picked - you branded all of Calvinism as agreeing with the woman in the OP, which is not true.

Then you don't know me very well. I've consistently affirmed these points regarding Calvinists, if you don't believe me just ask around or do a search.

I don't doubt that you believe this, but it was not in your initial post, which taken at face value was a distortion. I guess the lesson is to be more careful in how you word things.

 

[Skandelon]

Let's look at John 6:44

"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day."

What does that mean to you? Can someone come to the Father without being drawn?

Of course not. How will they believe unless they have heard? How can they come unless they are invited?

What many fail to see is that during the time of Christ Israel was being hardened in their rebellion (sent a "spirit of stupor") and the gospel was being hidden from them in parables so that they wouldn't believe it. (Mk 4, John 12:39; Acts 28:24-28; Rm 10-11; Matt 13; etc). So who were the ONLY people who could come to Christ at that time? Those God had selected for him. Those drawn or invited to come. The apostles.

Why? Who was supposed to crucify Jesus? The Jews. Something they would only do if they remained blind and in their rebellion. Who needed to be grafted into the vine? The Gentiles, who will listen because they have not been hardened in their rebellion (Acts 28:28).

After Christ was crucified and the spirit came he draws all people to himself (John 12). This is why we see the same Jews who cried "crucify him" in the gospels account come to faith in him in Acts 2.

 

[Andy T.]

Of course not. How will they believe unless they have heard? How can they come unless they are invited?

What many fail to see is that during the time of Christ Israel was being hardened in their rebellion (sent a "spirit of stupor") and the gospel was being hidden from them in parables so that they wouldn't believe it. (Mk 4, John 12:39; Acts 28:24-28; Rm 10-11; Matt 13; etc). So who were the ONLY people who could come to Christ at that time? Those God had selected for him. Those drawn or invited to come. The apostles.

Why? Who was supposed to crucify Jesus? The Jews. Something they would only do if they remained blind and in their rebellion. Who needed to be grafted into the vine? The Gentiles, who will listen because they have not been hardened in their rebellion (Acts 28:28).

After Christ was crucified and the spirit came he draws all people to himself (John 12). This is why we see the same Jews who cried "crucify him" in the gospels account come to faith in him in Acts 2.

And people accuse Calvinists of being creative in how they interpret Scriptures? Can't get much more creative than this.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

And people accuse Calvinists of being creative in how they interpret Scriptures? Can't get much more creative than this.

Ohooooooo snap, ROFL :laugh::laugh::laugh:

 

[mets65]

Someone please answer post 29

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

So I'm arguing with a hyperCalvinist/Camping follower

so Ann my dear lady......"Why are you arguing with a NUT?"

Oh dear oh dear oh dear.....LOL

 

[glfredrick]

And people accuse Calvinists of being creative in how they interpret Scriptures? Can't get much more creative than this.

I was going to say the same thing... Wow... Love to have our brother try to run that by some of the profs at Southern. It would be really fun to watch. :laugh:

 

[Skandelon]

Well, now you've added the phrase "unto salvation"

What other type of understanding matters? And are you seriously going to nit-pick the semantics when it is clear that I have not in any way distorted Calvinism. In fact, I suspect had a Calvinist said it you would have accepted it and moved on.

But the subject in the OP did not say "unto salvation" - she just said the unsaved can't understand Scripture.

Actually, it says, "can't understand the Scripture...and they cannot be saved," which clearly is addressing someones ability to understand scripture unto salvation, especially in the context of Ann attempting to witness and bring them to salvation.

Some/Many Calvinists would disagree with the blanket statement that the unsaved have no understanding of Scripture.

Some might, but the fact that most wouldn't proves its no "distortion." Plus, haven't you heard countless arguements from Calvinists about 1 Cor 2:14 regarding the natural man's inability to understand spiritual matters? I think for most Calvinists that includes more than merely their understanding unto salvation, don't you?

So again, you were only talking about some Calvinists - mostly of the hyper brand. But your initial statement branded all Calvinists with that statement.

Nope. Even non-hypers wouldn't believe that the non-elect have any real understanding of spiritual matters (1 Cor 2:14), especially in regard to the context of one believing unto salvation.

I guess the lesson is to be more careful in how you word things.

And not to address you without carefully spelling out every possible nuance of the Calvinistic dogma lest I'm railed upon for distortion.

 

[Andy T.]

I have a random question. If someone is not elect, how should they live their life? If the people on Jersey Shore are not elect how can we hold their antics against them?

Start another thread - way too off topic. And in my opinion, not that astute of a question to begin with.