A Question Calvinists must Answer REVISITED

[Skandelon]

Again, I don't see how you can call the Gospel effective, since there is no guarantee that anyone will be saved

This whole line of argumentation is begging the question.

If the gospel's intent is to irresistibly draw all who heard it then yes it is not effective in accomplishing that intent, but that is not what we believe, so you are attacking the straw-man, or presuming your views upon us.

 

[Andy T.]

This whole line of argumentation is begging the question.

If the gospel's intent is to irresistibly draw all who heard it then yes it is not effective in accomplishing that intent, but that is not what we believe, so you are attacking the straw-man, or presuming your views upon us.

It's not begging the question; we just have different views of what the Gospel's "effective" purpose is: My view is that its purpose is to actually save people, yours is to just give information for people to use their unfettered LFW to decide upon such information.

 

[Skandelon]

It's not begging the question; we just have different views of what the Gospel's "effective" purpose is:

Yes, I know, and your presuming your view onto me by inferring that the gospel can't be effective unless it effectually accomplishes salvation when that is not what we believe the purpose of the gospel is... That is a model example of question begging.

My view is that its purpose is to actually save people,

Well, to be perfectly accurate your view is that its purpose is to save "elect people." It has no power for the majority of people in the world bringing all the passages which speak of its power, effectiveness etc into serious question.

 

[Andy T.]

Yes, I know, and your presuming your view onto me by inferring that the gospel can't be effective unless it effectually accomplishes salvation when that is not what we believe the purpose of the gospel is... That is a model example of question begging.

I'm not question begging - just comparing our differences on how the Gospel is effective.

Well, to be perfectly accurate your view is that its purpose is to save "elect people." It has no power for the majority of people in the world bringing all the passages which speak of its power, effectiveness etc into serious question.

But according to your view, it has no "power" over anyone - lest man's unfettered LFW be violated. Have you looked up the word "power" in the dictionary recently? I don't think you want to mesh power with your view of LFW, otherwise men might become the dreaded robots of Calvinism! The ultimate power in your view of salvation is man's will, since your highest truth is that man's will not be violated.

 

[Andy T.]

You are the one who brought up "culpability" first, so I think you need to defend your view first. You said that God is not culpable of sin merely because he has foreknowledge and permits it. So I ask again, are you culpable if you allow another man to murder someone else, if you had the full power and means (and even foreknowledge) to stop it? And how is this different from your view of God?

Don't want this to get lost in the shuffle, either.

 

[Skandelon]

I'm not question begging - just comparing our differences on how the Gospel is effective.

So you weren't inferring that the gospel can't be effective unless it effectually accomplishes salvation, cause that sure seems like what you said???

But according to your view, it has no "power" over anyone -

Power to do what? Again, question begging.

We don't claim that it has power to effectually change man's will to believe it. It accomplishes exactly what it was intended to accomplish.

Have you looked up the word "power" in the dictionary recently?

Sure: ability to do or act; capability of doing or accomplishing something.

The gospel according to our view is capable of accomplishing exactly what it was intended to accomplish. It appeals for men to be reconciled, by which they respond to that appeal. No issue unless you presume that the intent is something other than this, which you do.

 

[Skandelon]

Don't want this to get lost in the shuffle, either.

I replied to that on post 36

 

[Andy T.]

I replied to that on post 36

But you never replied to my post 37.

 

[Winman]

I'm not question begging - just comparing our differences on how the Gospel is effective.


But according to your view, it has no "power" over anyone - lest man's unfettered LFW be violated. Have you looked up the word "power" in the dictionary recently? I don't think you want to mesh power with your view of LFW, otherwise men might become the dreaded robots of Calvinism! The ultimate power in your view of salvation is man's will, since your highest truth is that man's will not be violated.

When God gives the gospel to a man, that man is responsible to God to be receptive to it. This is shown in the parable of the talents in Matt 25. To one servant he gave 5 talents (very receptive) who went out and gained 5 more. To another servant he gave 2 (receptive) who gained 2 more. To the third servant he gave 1 talent (not very receptive) who hid his talent. When the man returned he was very pleased with the first two servants, but was very angry with the third, and gave his talent to the man who had 10.
Was the third servants talent inferior to the talents given the first two? NO. Could he have made gain of his talent? YES, in fact his master said he could have given it to the exchangers and at minimum collected interest.
Then the master said that to those that have (faith) shall more be given, but to those that have not (faith) shall be taken away even that he hath.
God provides enough grace through the gospel that any man hearing it might be saved. To those that hear and believe he will give more, but to those who refuse to hear and believe he will take away even that which was given them.
So, the gospel has power to save, but a man is responsible to believe it.

 

[Aaron]

Thus, in the Arminian model God gets the glory for lifting men to a higher plane to be able to make the right choice and men get the blame for resisting and jumping off into sin.

And men who don't "jump off" are better men than those who do and get the praise for so being.

But that poses the question, who created them better?

Whereas, the Calvinistic model does give credit to God for the lifting but also leaves God to blame for those who sin because he never gives them what is needed to respond

And so the Calvinist goes to the Scripture which asks: What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God?.

Skandelon says yes, God is to blame.

The Scripture says God forbid. For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. The Calvinist yields to the text of the Scripture, and Skandelon rejects it.

It's like I told you, you think your questions are probing, but the Scriptures reveal them to be carnal and foolish, and has already answered them.

 

[Andy T.]

It accomplishes exactly what it was intended to accomplish.

No, in your view it does not accomplish anything. All the accomplishment lies with man's response. Since man's will cannot have power over it, the Gospel message is just information - it has no real power - if it did, then it would be imparting some kind of inward grace which you deny happens.

 

[Skandelon]

And men who don't "jump off" are better men than those who do and get the praise for so being.

When you say "praise" do you mean like when Paul said Abraham believed and it was credited to him as righteousness?

or

"Noah was a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time, and he walked with God."

or

"In the land of Uz there lived a man whose name was Job. This man was blameless and upright; he feared God and shunned evil."

or

"Have you considered my servant Job? There is no one on earth like him; he is blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil. And he still maintains his integrity, though you incited me against him to ruin him without any reason."

or

"Enoch walked with God"

or

Heb. 11

All giving praise for the great cloud of witnesses, whether effectually called to be so or not, the authors don't seem to have any issue giving praise or credit to man for their faithfulness to God. Why do you?

And so the Calvinist goes to the Scripture which asks: What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God?.

Skandelon says yes, God is to blame.

Incorrect. Man is to blame, just as I explained. He is only to blame in a system where he is making all the determinations.

The Scripture says God forbid. For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. The Calvinist yields to the text of the Scripture, and Skandelon rejects it.

Incorrect again. I've provided a perfectly sound exegesis of this passage which is actually consistent with the entirety of the passage...

Those being hardened are Israel, with the exception of the remnant of Jews reserved to be messengers to the rest of the world. But those hardened might be provoked to envy and saved (Rm 11:14) because the hardening is "in part" or "temporary." The Gentiles on the other hand are being grafted in. It is really very easy to understand if you know the historical context and intent of Paul.

 

[Skandelon]

No, in your view it does not accomplish anything.

Brother, that is just incorrect. Factually wrong. In our view, if you actually understand and represent it correctly, it accomplishes exactly what it is meant to accomplish. To deny that is to deny a fact about our view. It would be tantamount to me saying that evangelism has no place in the Calvinistic system. You know that is false and I know that is false, because Calvinists affirm evangelism as the means through which the elect are saved. I can't just make a claim about your view which isn't true and expect you to just accept it, can I? So don't do that to our view.

All the accomplishment lies with man's response.

Response to what? If the gospel can't accomplish ANYTHING then it wouldn't be needed, so there would be nothing left for them to respond to now would there? See the point? The gospel DOES accomplish something. It makes the appeal... Understand?

 

[Winman]

The gospel has power, but it only effectually works in those that believe (1 Thes 2:13). The gospel has power to profit, but it must be mixed with faith (Heb 4:2).

You might be bitten by a poisonous snake and dying. I have the antidote that has the power to save you. But it will not help you unless you receive it. Does this mean the antidote had no power to save you? NO.

Or you might be dying of thirst and I offer you a canteen of fresh water. Can the water save you? Yes, but only if YOU drink it.

So, the gospel has power to save, but a response is required on our part. This is scriptural, your view is not.

 

[jbh28]

For example, if you chose to where a red shirt yesterday, if all circumstances were equal to do over again, could you have willingly chose to wear a different shirt? Could you have chosen otherwise? Libertarian freedom says "yes," where as compatiblistism (Calvinists) typically say "no." Why? Because the act was determined by your desire which was determined by you nature which was determined by the creator of that nature, which is God.

If all circumstances are the same, You would choose the same. I don't believe any choices is totally "random." There was a reason why you chose the red shirt. Maybe it was because that's your favorite color, or you haven't worn that color in a while, or any other number of reasons. But you had a reason to wear that shirt and made a choice.

In Calvinism: If you lied yesterday at noon, then you could not have resisted that temptation to lie.

Sure you could have. who told you that you couldn't?

If I reject Calvinism then it must be because that is my desire, which was determined by my nature which was determined by God. So, the reason I'm not Calvinistic is because God made me that way...same reason some are saved and others aren't. See the problem?

I see your problem with your understanding of Calvinism. Where you really hyper when you were a Calvinist? Did you actually believe that? People make choices.

For a compatibilist a choice is free if it is according to one's desire, but that doesn't mean much in a world where God determines even the desires of men in such a way that they couldn't do otherwise than what they end up doing. Make sense?

Your statements seem to make God the author of sin, which is not the Calvinistic belief. At least not mainstream Calvinism.

 

[Skandelon]

If all circumstances are the same, You would choose the same. I don't believe any choices is totally "random." There was a reason why you chose the red shirt. Maybe it was because that's your favorite color, or you haven't worn that color in a while, or any other number of reasons. But you had a reason to wear that shirt and made a choice.

Sure you could have. who told you that you couldn't?

I don't believe their choices are random either, I believe they are self determined, and for the same reason you claimed that you wouldn't have been able to choose another shirt is the same reason you should have said you couldn't have willingly resisted the temptation to lie.

Let me explain another way. Determinists (compatibilists) believe God has created man's nature and thus the desires are determined by that nature so that a choice couldn't have been otherwise than whatever it ends up being. To affirm that you could have willingly resisted that lie yesterday is to affirm libertarian free will, something most Calvinists would not affirm.

I see your problem with your understanding of Calvinism. Where you really hyper when you were a Calvinist?

No, I wasn't hyper and neither are compatibilists.

Your statements seem to make God the author of sin, which is not the Calvinistic belief. At least not mainstream Calvinism.

It is mainstream Calvinism, and I agree, it does appear to make God the author of sin, thus my debate with Luke and others....

 

[jbh28]

I don't believe their choices are random either, I believe they are self determined, and for the same reason you claimed that you wouldn't have been able to choose another shirt is the same reason you should have said you couldn't have willingly resisted the temptation to lie.

Let me explain another way. Determinists (compatibilists) believe God has created man's nature and thus the desires are determined by that nature so that a choice couldn't have been otherwise than whatever it ends up being. To affirm that you could have willingly resisted that lie yesterday is to affirm libertarian free will, something most Calvinists would not affirm.

No, you could have chosen not to lie(or wear another shirt). that's very different from the statement that you would have made the same choice if everything was the same and you did it again.

No, I wasn't hyper and neither are compatibilists.

ok

It is mainstream Calvinism, and I agree, it does appear to make God the author of sin, thus my debate with Luke and others....

God isn't the author of sin. Calvinists don't believe God is the author of sin.

From a Calvinist webside...
Although Calvinists believe that even sinful acts are ordained by God (Ephesians 1:11 / Proverbs 16:4) yet such makes the event certain, but not necessary. This clears God from being the author of sin. This view best explains the Cross (Acts 2:23, 4:27-28 / Luke 22:22).

http://www.oldtruth.com/calvinism/avoidingconfusion.html

I haven't read this, but the previous site linked to it and it talks about pre-ordination of God for all events, yet God not the author of sin.

http://www.corkfpc.com/shedd.html

 

[Skandelon]

No, you could have chosen not to lie(or wear another shirt). that's very different from the statement that you would have made the same choice if everything was the same and you did it again.

Did you think something about yesterday's lie had changed? I simply asked you if you could have willingly resisted the temptation to lie and you said yes. That is affirming LFW. It is the ability to choose other than what ever you ended up choosing. So if you chose to lie, the question is could you have chosen to not lie? Nothing has changed, just confirm or deny your ability to willingly choose to resist that temptation.

God isn't the author of sin. Calvinists don't believe God is the author of sin.

Bro, I know they don't claim to believe it. I was just agreeing with you that what they argue through compatibilism appears to support the idea that God is the author of sin. Calvinists (compatibilists) say they don't affirm that God is the author of sin, but they leave no room for anyone one else to author it because in their view God can't be "informed" by man through foreknowledge...etc...

 

[jbh28]

Did you think something about yesterday's lie had changed? I simply asked you if you could have willingly resisted the temptation to lie and you said yes. That is affirming LFW.

But it's not denying the other..

It is the ability to choose other than what ever you ended up choosing.

And not Calvinists would deny that statement. Of course you had the ability to choose what you chose.

So if you chose to lie, the question is could you have chosen to not lie? Nothing has changed, just confirm or deny your ability to willingly choose to resist that temptation.

You can choose to lie and to not to lie. Lying and truth telling are both in our natures.

Bro, I know they don't claim to believe it. I was just agreeing with you that what they argue through compatibilism appears to support the idea that God is the author of sin. Calvinists (compatibilists) say they don't affirm that God is the author of sin, but they leave no room for anyone one else to author it because in their view God can't be "informed" by man through foreknowledge...etc...

Man is the author of his own sin.

 

[Skandelon]

So, let me make sure I'm understanding your answer.

Supposing you lied yesterday at noon. Could you have willingly chosen to not lie given the circumstance or situation is exactly the same?

And if man is the author of his own sin, is he informing God when he commits it? In other words, did God foreknow that which man authored and then allowed it to occur?