A Question Calvinists must Answer REVISITED

[quantumfaith]

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

JBH,

If I took the "notion", I could play eenie, meenie, minie, mo, each morning with the choice of shirts, then, if there be any thing behind the final choice, it would then have to be associated with the "total determinism" espoused by SOME of the reformers.

 

[jbh28]

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?

could...yes, would...no
I could have chosen just as I can choose to lie or tell the truth now.

My username is jjjjjj - that's a lie
My username is jbh28 - that's the truth

See, I can do both. So yes, I could have chosen either one just as I can chose either one tomorrow.

Now, would I have chosen differently? No, that was the choice I made. I chose because that's what I wanted to do based on the circumstances. Unless you believe in random choices, there is a cause for the choice. If the causes don't change, what makes one think the decision would have been any different.

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?

yes, but it was part of God pre-ordained plan. Don't understand how the two work together....nether do I. How do I make choices, but yet God's preordained plan always works out. Can I change God's plan. No.

This is where extremes go bad. Hyper Calvinists deny man's responsibly...aka choices. Others deny God's pre-ordination. They both exist. We don't understand how they communicate with each other.

 

[jbh28]

JBH,

If I took the "notion", I could play eenie, meenie, minie, mo, each morning with the choice of shirts, then, if there be any thing behind the final choice, it would then have to be associated with the "total determinism" espoused by SOME of the reformers.

And your choice would have been to choose a shirt by playing "eenie, meenie, minie, mo"

 

[Andy T.]

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.

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?

I'm just going off your previous statements. You deny that God imparts any inward grace or convicting power that will enable fallen man to respond to the Gospel. So in your view, the Gospel is diminished to mere information given to the hearer - nothing supernatural is involved - the result is strictly based on man's unfettered LFW. Feel free to correct me where I've mispresented your view.

 

[Aaron]

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?

So you agree that those who don't "jump off" are intrinsically better people and are worthy of this "praise."

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

You said God is to blame in the Calvinist view. Your contention is the very one Paul answered in Rom. 9.

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

No you haven't.

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.

Sure, if you completely discount Pharaoh and Paul's dichotomy of the children of the flesh who are bastards and the children of the Spirit who are the legitimate offspring of Abraham, jews and gentiles alike.

 

[webdog]

So you agree that those who don't "jump off" are intrinsically better people and are worthy of this "praise."

I'm sure you can supply where he (or anyone) has maintained they are "intrinsically better people". We won't hold our breath.

 

[Skandelon]

I'm just going off your previous statements.

Then you are not understanding my previous statements.

You deny that God imparts any inward grace or convicting power that will enable fallen man to respond to the Gospel.

Some Arminians do believe God imparts some kind of inward grace to give the gospel power, but I don't see that is a necessity because it presumes the work of grace in bringing the gospel is somehow an insufficient work of God's grace. That is simply not supported in the scripture. But, my point is that either way you take this, the model presented in the OP stands.

So in your view, the Gospel is diminished to mere information given to the hearer - nothing supernatural is involved

No, the gospel itself is the power...it is supernatural...God breathed...inspired..."spirit and life"...the words by which mankind will be judged....the appeal to be reconciled...the power of God unto salvation...sharper than a double edged sword...etc

So, actually my view of the gospel is just the opposite of "diminished" it is MORE powerful. In Calvinism all the power is in the secret inward work of regeneration (irresistible calling), which is never expounded upon in the scripture. In my view the power is right where the scripture say it is...in the gospel!

 

[Skandelon]

So you agree that those who don't "jump off" are intrinsically better people and are worthy of this "praise."

Is the brother who found himself face down in a pigsty, who had to go back to grovel to his daddy for a slave job considered "intrinsically better?"

Broken isn't better, its weaker, and God has chosen the weak to shame the wise.

You said God is to blame in the Calvinist view. Your contention is the very one Paul answered in Rom. 9.

Actually, the contention is not an Arminian's contention, it is a temporarily hardened Jews contention.

Which would sound like this: "Why would you use some Jews for "noble purpose" (i.e. Paul) while leaving the rest hardened in their rebellion and used for "common use" all the while showing mercy to dirty unclean Gentiles!?!" That is the contention Paul is answering.

 

[Aaron]

I'm sure you can supply where he (or anyone) has maintained they are "intrinsically better people". We won't hold our breath.

It's the inescapable conclusion of noncalvinism.

 

[Skandelon]

It's the inescapable conclusion of noncalvinism.

Honestly, I don't know how you think Calvinists avoid the same charge? Whether one is 'better' because God made them irresistibly so, as you believe, or 'better' because God allowed them to freely respond, it doesn't change the fact that one is "better if one presumes believing unto salvation is "better."

The only real difference is that non-elect people in your system have an excuse for not believing unto salvation, for which they will be judged.

 

[Aaron]

Actually, the contention is not an Arminian's contention, it is a temporarily hardened Jews contention.

Which would sound like this: "Why would you use some Jews for "noble purpose" (i.e. Paul) while leaving the rest hardened in their rebellion and used for "common use" all the while showing mercy to dirty unclean Gentiles!?!" That is the contention Paul is answering.

Paul didn't use Caiaphas or Judas as an example of one that God had hardened. He used Pharaoh.

So who are the temporarily hardened jews? It couldn't have been Caiphas or Judas or Gamaliel. It couldn't have been any of the unbelieving jews who died in their sins. Those who are temporarily hardened, as you put it, would have to have been those who eventually believed, like Paul.

And so we find that Paul is right. God hasn't cast off Israel (according to the flesh). The very fact of his salvation and ministry shows that God has redeemed Israel like He promised. And those jews according to the flesh who die in their sins aren't "temporarily hardened," they never really were of the Israel of God.

 

[Winman]

Honestly, I don't know how you think Calvinists avoid the same charge? Whether one is 'better' because God made them irresistibly so, as you believe, or 'better' because God allowed them to freely respond, it doesn't change the fact that one is "better if one presumes believing unto salvation is "better."

The only real difference is that non-elect people in your system have an excuse for not believing unto salvation, for which they will be judged.

I agree, I don't know how anybody could not be a little prideful to believe they were specially chosen or elected. You may not understand why God chose you, but it would be hard not to think of yourself as "special".

In fact, one thing I have noticed is that Calvinists and Reformed like to refer to themselves as "the elect", while non-Cals tend to call themselves "saved". Calling yourself "elect" tends to glorify self, calling yourself "saved" tends to glorify your Savior.

 

[Aaron]

Is the brother who found himself face down in a pigsty, who had to go back to grovel to his daddy for a slave job considered "intrinsically better?"

Broken isn't better, its weaker, and God has chosen the weak to shame the wise.

Better than the one who woke up face down in a pigsty and stayed.

 

[Skandelon]

Better than the one who woke up face down in a pigsty and stayed.

And even in your system the guy that gets up is "better" than the guy who stayed...just for different reasons.

The difference is that in your system the guy who stayed has a good excuse for it, while in my system he is truly responsible (response-able).

 

[Skandelon]

Paul didn't use Caiaphas or Judas as an example of one that God had hardened. He used Pharaoh.

Right, because just as Moses was the foreshadowing figure for Jesus, so too Pharaoh was the foreshadowing figure for Israel.

Just like Pharaoh was hardened in his already rebellious and unbelieving state to ensure the first passover, so too Israel was hardened in their already rebellious and unbelieving state to ensure the real PASSOVER.

 

[Aaron]

And even in your system the guy that gets up is "better" than the guy who stayed...just for different reasons.

Better off, yes, but not a better person.

Does better, but by God's grace working in him, not because of the mythical "free will."

You say the one did better because he was better. We say one did better because of God working in him.

The difference is that in your system the guy who stayed has a good excuse for it, while in my system he is truly responsible (response-able).

And there you go again with the carnal response that Paul already addressed.

 

[Aaron]

Right, because just as Moses was the foreshadowing figure for Jesus, so too Pharaoh was the foreshadowing figure for Israel.

Just like Pharaoh was hardened in his already rebellious and unbelieving state to ensure the first passover, so too Israel was hardened in their already rebellious and unbelieving state to ensure the real PASSOVER.

Who hardened him, and was his hardening "temporary?"

 

[Skandelon]

Who hardened him,

Well, the bible indicates that he hardened himself in some cases and that God did in others. I don't suspect that Pharaoh wanted to let go his nation's free slave labor, but certainly turning the river to blood, as one example, might convince him to change his mind. God didn't want his mind to change UNTIL the passover so that His Glory would be revealed.

and was his hardening "temporary?"

Well, how long would God need to actively hardened Pharaoh to make him not want to let the slaves go? Until the next plague a least, or until the passover was accomplished at most.

 

[Skandelon]

Better off, yes, but not a better person.

A person who is effectually regenerated by the Spirit to become one whose life is irresistibly marked by the fruits of the spirit, isn't better? By whose definition?

Does better, but by God's grace working in him, not because of the mythical "free will."

As if we deny the gracious working of the Spirit, come now, let's not intentionally misrepresent others views.

You say the one did better because he was better. We say one did better because of God working in him.

Actually we say one did better because God's working in him and the one didn't do better because he resisted the freely offered grace of God.

And there you go again with the carnal response that Paul already addressed.

And there you go again committing the debate fallacy of question begging, while thinking you are making an actual argument worthy of rebuttal.

 

[Aaron]

A person who is effectually regenerated by the Spirit to become one whose life is irresistibly marked by the fruits of the spirit, isn't better? By whose definition?

God's.

As if we deny the gracious working of the Spirit, come now, let's not intentionally misrepresent others views.

I'm not misrepresenting anything. Your OP presents two men who were both lifted by the Spirit, but one "jumped off."

Tell me why one doesn't "jump off" while the other does, if it isn't because he was a better man to begin with.