A Question Calvinists must Answer

[Luke2427]

A false dilemma would'nt allow and even ask you to provide your own choice would it? I did, which I notice you conveniently didn't do. If not one of these options, which one? There has to be a cause for that choice to reject or accept Calvinism within a deterministic system, right? So, why? What causes it?


Its not a dilemma for us because we affirm free will (LFW). We believe in self-determiniation. I determine my choices. God created me with the ability of first cause choices...i.e. choices not caused by Him. I determined to be Arminian, not God. If I'm wrong its my responsibility because it was my choice. I could have done otherwise because nothing prevented me from seeing and understanding the truth and responding to it.

Since you deny the possibility of LFW you cannot say this. You must either say (1) we don't accept Calvinism because we aren't really saved or (2) we don't accept Calvinism because God didn't grant the grace to some of His children to accept it, while he did to others. There is really no other option unless you affirm LFW.

There you go again. You started this post off denying that you present false dilemma because you leave the door open for another option.

Then you present the EXACT same false dilemma in the exact same post and SLAM the door for that other option at the end of the post.


Your "first cause" argument is illogical and totally void of Scriptural support. Not only, though, is it lacking in biblical support but it also contradicts a host passages and a superabundance of Scriptural evidence that God alone is the ultimate cause of all things.
I have presented many of these passages in previous exchanges.

The problem with your position is that "ultimate cause" and "first cause" are the same thing.

Man CANNOT be the ultimate cause of ANYTHING. He CANNOT be the Prime Mover of ANYTHING. He cannot create anything or cause anything or author anything "ex nihilo".

Only God can do this.

 

[quantumfaith]

There you go again. You started this post off denying that you present false dilemma because you leave the door open for another option.

Then you present the EXACT same false dilemma in the exact same post and SLAM the door for that other option at the end of the post.


Your "first cause" argument is illogical and totally void of Scriptural support. Not only, though, is it lacking in biblical support but it also contradicts a host passages and a superabundance of Scriptural evidence that God alone is the ultimate cause of all things.
I have presented many of these passages in previous exchanges.

The problem with your position is that "ultimate cause" and "first cause" are the same thing.

Man CANNOT be the ultimate cause of ANYTHING. He CANNOT be the Prime Mover of ANYTHING. He cannot create anything or cause anything or author anything "ex nihilo".

Only God can do this.

Man can do, cause and/or create anything in which God grants him the authority and ability to do so. QED

 

[David Lamb]

Man can do, cause and/or create anything in which God grants him the authority and ability to do so. QED

Agreed, but perhaps you didn't notice the words I've highlighted in this quote from Luke's post:

Man CANNOT be the ultimate cause of ANYTHING. He CANNOT be the Prime Mover of ANYTHING. He cannot create anything or cause anything or author anything "ex nihilo".

Only God can do this.
​

 

[quantumfaith]

Agreed, but perhaps you didn't notice the words I've highlighted in this quote from Luke's post:

Man CANNOT be the ultimate cause of ANYTHING. He CANNOT be the Prime Mover of ANYTHING. He cannot create anything or cause anything or author anything "ex nihilo".

Only God can do this.
​

Which is precisely what I was implying David.

 

[David Lamb]

Which is precisely what I was implying David.

Sorry if I misunderstood. I thought that when you wrote: "Man can do, cause and/or create anything in which God grants him the authority and ability to do so," you were arguing against Luke where he said: "Man CANNOT be the ultimate cause of ANYTHING. He CANNOT be the Prime Mover of ANYTHING. He cannot create anything or cause anything or author anything "ex nihilo".

 

[quantumfaith]

Sorry if I misunderstood. I thought that when you wrote: "Man can do, cause and/or create anything in which God grants him the authority and ability to do so," you were arguing against Luke where he said: "Man CANNOT be the ultimate cause of ANYTHING. He CANNOT be the Prime Mover of ANYTHING. He cannot create anything or cause anything or author anything "ex nihilo".

No apology necessary. I am most definitely not "on the same side of the coin" as Luke though, ask him, I am sure he would be glad to acknowledge that.

I do in fact hold that God is the ultimate cause of creation, however, I also hold that His creation was engineered with "soft libertarian" principles. Thus man, in my book, (cause, create, decide, choose) etc. within the parameters that God has established. I DO NOT believe in the determinism that Luke endorses.

 

[glfredrick]

No apology necessary. I am most definitely not "on the same side of the coin" as Luke though, ask him, I am sure he would be glad to acknowledge that.

I do in fact hold that God is the ultimate cause of creation, however, I also hold that His creation was engineered with "soft libertarian" principles. Thus man, in my book, (cause, create, decide, choose) etc. within the parameters that God has established. I DO NOT believe in the determinism that Luke endorses.

I would suggest that Infralapsarian Calvinism would say precisely what you just said above. We have freedom of will as expressed in the Scriptures -- to an extent limited by God -- which does not include our ability to influence God in the case of salvation (He being the ONLY righteous judge) and He being the only one who can "re-create" lost persons/souls into a "new creation" by the all-sufficient atonement of Christ imputed to us by God as a pure gift of grace.

 

[quantumfaith]

I would suggest that Infralapsarian Calvinism would say precisely what you just said above. We have freedom of will as expressed in the Scriptures -- to an extent limited by God -- which does not include our ability to influence God in the case of salvation (He being the ONLY righteous judge) and He being the only one who can "re-create" lost persons/souls into a "new creation" by the all-sufficient atonement of Christ imputed to us by God as a pure gift of grace.

You are welcome to correct me if my "view" is incorrect, but even in IC, God is viewed as "ordaining" the rebellion and fall of mankind, I, although I most certainly acknowledge God's omniscience, do not believe He ordained (decreed etc.) the necessity of the Fall.

 

[glfredrick]

You are welcome to correct me if my "view" is incorrect, but even in IC, God is viewed as "ordaining" the rebellion and fall of mankind, I, although I most certainly acknowledge God's omniscience, do not believe He ordained (decreed etc.) the necessity of the Fall.

You are not incorrect. IC does see that.

But, in your view, by necessity, God is not the only power and is not in control. Permissive will explains the fall, hands off does not.

Who else is strong enough to stand next to God to decree such a thing as the human fall? Is there another who is co-equal to God, or close enough to have overrun God's decrees?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I would suggest that Infralapsarian Calvinism would say precisely what you just said above. We have freedom of will as expressed in the Scriptures -- to an extent limited by God -- which does not include our ability to influence God in the case of salvation (He being the ONLY righteous judge) and He being the only one who can "re-create" lost persons/souls into a "new creation" by the all-sufficient atonement of Christ imputed to us by God as a pure gift of grace.

Guy....it would help for you to explain in greater detail for people not schooled in this:


according to the infralapsarian view the order of events was as follows: God proposed,

1. to create;
2. to permit the fall;
3. to elect to eternal life and blessedness a great multitude out of this mass of fallen men, and to leave the others, as He left the Devil and the fallen angels, to suffer the just punishment of their sins;
4. to give His Son, Jesus Christ, for the redemption of the elect; and
5. to send the Holy Spirit to apply to the elect the redemption which was purchased by Christ.

According to the supralapsarian view the order of events was:

1. to elect some creatable men (that is, men who were to be created) to life and to condemn others to destruction;
2. to create;
3. to permit the fall;
4. to send Christ to redeem the elect; and
5. to send the Holy Spirit to apply this redemption to the elect The question then is as to whether election precedes or follows the fall.

 

[Skandelon]

Ok, can we now get back to the questioned posed in the OP?

Supposing Calvinism is correct, why have some professing believers, like John Wesley or CS Lewis, rejected it while others accepted it?

1. They were self-deceived and not really believers thus they couldn't accept the truth of Calvinism.

2. They weren't as smart/good as the Calvinists. Which means the Calvinists can claim something good within themselves which makes them better than another and gives them room to boast.

3. They weren't given the grace needed to understand, while Calvinists were given as extra measure of grace. God hid this truth from some of his children while revealing it to others.

Is there a fourth option?

 

[Skandelon]

There you go again. You started this post off denying that you present false dilemma because you leave the door open for another option.

Then you present the EXACT same false dilemma in the exact same post and SLAM the door for that other option at the end of the post.

Slam the door? What do you mean? Did I create a software that prevents you from answering the question by submitting your own option? What other option is there Luke? Please just submit another option Luke. I welcome a fourth answer...


waiting...

The problem with your position is that "ultimate cause" and "first cause" are the same thing.

No, you have misunderstood if you think this is the case. God is the ultimate cause of us having the ability of first causes. Or as Quantum so eloquently stated: "Man can do, cause and/or create anything in which God grants him the authority and ability to do so."

How else do you explain the origin of Dahmer's evil intent to rape, torture and murder a child? God have Dahmer the ability of first cause choices (which in that case God would be the "ultimate cause" of all subsequent free choices, but without determining those choices), so Dahmer had the ability to "create" or "originate" a sinful intent and action. Understand?

Man CANNOT be the ultimate cause of ANYTHING. He CANNOT be the Prime Mover of ANYTHING. He cannot create anything or cause anything or author anything "ex nihilo".

Only God can do this.

If sin must have an author/creator and man cannot author/create anything then you must acknowledge that God is the author/creator of sin, which is clearly unbiblical and even contrary to what Calvinists such as Edwards taught. Again, the same problem you have had all along.

 

[Ron Wood]

Ok, can we now get back to the questioned posed in the OP?

Supposing Calvinism is correct, why have some professing believers, like John Wesley or CS Lewis, rejected it while others accepted it?

1. They were self-deceived and not really believers thus they couldn't accept the truth of Calvinism.

2. They weren't as smart/good as the Calvinists. Which means the Calvinists can claim something good within themselves which makes them better than another and gives them room to boast.

3. They weren't given the grace needed to understand, while Calvinists were given as extra measure of grace. God hid this truth from some of his children while revealing it to others.

Is there a fourth option?

#1 Though not because they rejected Calvinism but because they rejected the one true God. The Good Shepherd said that His sheep hear His voice and follow Him.

 

[Skandelon]

#1 Though not because they rejected Calvinism but because they rejected the one true God. The Good Shepherd said that His sheep hear His voice and follow Him.

So, you believe that professing believers such as John Wesley and CS Lewis who rejected Calvinism weren't saved?

And you believe that we who reject Calvinism's dogma are also unsaved because we reject the "one true God?" Is that your position?

 

[convicted1]

Here is something for the DoG Brethern to "chew" on:

Rev. 2:20 Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols.

21 And I gave her space to repent of her fornication; and she repented not.

22 Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds.

Now, in the TULIP, Jezebel would fit the exact mold of a "non-elect", correct? The "I's" that I bolded are referring to Jesus, correct? So Jesus even gave Jezebel a "space" to repent, and she repented not. So how can this be reconciled with TULIP??

i am I AM's!!

Willis

 

[Aaron]

Why do you accept the "truth" of Calvinism while so many other believers throughout history didn't? Here I'll give you multiple choice:

1. Those "believers" who rejected Calvinism weren't really saved (elect).

2. Those believers who rejected Calvinism weren't as good (smart/humble etc) or were too sinful (prideful etc) to accept it. I on the other hand was better (smarter/humble) and didn't allow pride and sin to keep me from accepting this "truth." (Warning: you have just affirmed libertarian free will if you pick this option...and you have room to boast and take "glory" from God thus removing many Calvinistic definitions of "Sovereignty" )

3. Those believers who rejected Calvinism weren't chosen by God to understand Calvinism. They were given enough Grace to be saved, but not enough to understand correct soteriology. (Warning: If you choose this option you have to ponder the reason WHY God would deliberately hide the truth from some of his children while revealing it to others and why you would waste time attempting to convince non-Calvinists to convert to Calvinism considering that you don't have the command to convert people to Calvinistic soteriology but only the command to evangelize. After all the reason Calvinist say they are to evangelize is because "God told us to.")

So, which is it: 1, 2, or 3; Or add the correct answer if you don't believe I've provided all the options. Let's stay civil please. Thanks

God gives gifts, and gives to each severally as He will. Saying that one was "not chosen to understand Calvinism," is like saying one was not chosen to to have this gift or that gift. It isn't a slight on the part of God, but a lesson in love and humility for those who have the knowledge. Those who have the knowledge didn't give it to themselves, nor were they given it because they were worthy of it, but because God of His own mercy and grace imparted it.

There is a deep and true humility in the realization of that.

Contrast that with the necessary conclusion of your theology. If you chose Christ, it's because it's because you were good enough to, and better than the one who rejects Him.

There is no alternative.

So if the question were put to you, Why did you choose Arminianism? You would have to choose #2.

 

[Ron Wood]

So, you believe that professing believers such as John Wesley and CS Lewis who rejected Calvinism weren't saved?

And you believe that we who reject Calvinism's dogma are also unsaved because we reject the "one true God?" Is that your position?

I know that you are trying to get me in trouble with the powers that be here but the answer to your question is yes. But as I said it isn't because you reject Calvinism's dogma but because you reject the one true God. I could care less if you are a Calvinist or not. As I said before I have known many dead Calvinists.

 

[Skandelon]

God gives gifts, and gives to each severally as He will. Saying that one was "not chosen to understand Calvinism," is like saying one was not chosen to to have this gift or that gift. It isn't a slight on the part of God, but a lesson in love and humility for those who have the knowledge. Those who have the knowledge didn't give it to themselves, nor were they given it because they were worthy of it, but because God of His own mercy and grace imparted it.

There is a deep and true humility in the realization of that.

So, you pick #3, but with different wording so as to "soften" the blow, got it.

Nevertheless, the reason some believers don't accept your theology is because God didn't give the grace to impart that to us, for whatever reason.

So, you are left with the questions:
1. Why do you suppose God might not want some believers to believe Calvinistic soteriology? Why keep this truth from some of his elect children?

2. And why would you attempt to convert us to Calvinism when its up to him to impart that knowledge to us? When asked that question regarding evangelism Calvinists typically say, "Because God say so," but no where in scripture does it tell you to convert people to your soteriological views. Why not spend your time doing evangelism, which you are commanded to do, and less time trying to convert us?

Contrast that with the necessary conclusion of your theology. If you chose Christ, it's because it's because you were good enough to, and better than the one who rejects Him.

If being broken and crying out for help is consider "being better" then fine. On what other basis is the system of reward and punishment resting? "Well done my good and faithful servant," must mean something. "Ye of little faith," certainly implies they could have been more faithful. The countless text where men and women are praised/credited for their faithfulness to God must have some meaning. If God is the only actor and decider then you reduce him to a boy playing with GI-JOES and then having an award banquet for the one he made to win.

So if the question were put to you, Why did you choose Arminianism? You would have to choose #2.

Assuming Arminianism is true, yes, I would affirm LFW and I would be responsible for my respond to scripture, just as you will be if you're wrong. I admit. If we are right then we are better than you because you are wrong. We interpret correctly and you incorrectly, which is a basis for calling YOU wrong, rather than God wrong for making you believe what you believe.

 

[Skandelon]

I know that you are trying to get me in trouble with the powers that be here but the answer to your question is yes. But as I said it isn't because you reject Calvinism's dogma but because you reject the one true God. I could care less if you are a Calvinist or not. As I said before I have known many dead Calvinists.

I asked the moderators for leniency on this thread because I'm asking the question and you have to be honest, so no I'm "not trying to get you in trouble."

I understand that people aren't saved by believing Calvinism according to your belief, but at least you are consistent to say that the rejection of Calvinism is something only an unbeliever would do. I truly do believe that is the only consistent and logic response for a Calvinistic believer, which is really sobering when you begin to look around at all the loved ones who reject Calvinism. I hope all you young white guys enjoy each other up there, since statistically many more of you are Calvinistic. I guess God just doesn't love women and more sensitive or less intellectual types as much, because again it is quite clear that statically they are much less likely to accept Calvinistic teaching. Just some interesting things to consider.

 

[webdog]

I know that you are trying to get me in trouble with the powers that be here but the answer to your question is yes. But as I said it isn't because you reject Calvinism's dogma but because you reject the one true God. I could care less if you are a Calvinist or not. As I said before I have known many dead Calvinists.

Wow...that makes two on this very thread :tear:

The irony is you need to believe complete correct doctrine pertaining to calvinism in order to be saved. That is salvation by works.