Featured Sincerity

I asked for YOUR conclusion. A simple yes or no answer regarding you belief about whether repentance merits forgiveness, and you are dodging giving a direct simple answer. Revealing.

I'm the only one addressing your 'sincerity' topic but you refuse to engage. Again, very revealing.

So who do you think is wrong? Webster or God? You still haven't told us who you think make an error. I assume you think Webster is incorrect, so maybe you should find a better definition? That way no one thinks you are disagreeing with what God said...

So you disagree with God? Or you disagree with that definition? Obviously, God is ok with boasting, but you just need to find a definition of boasting that suits you.

Good call.

 

I "skipped" that part because I am tired of playing your games. You read your whole position into the term "response-ability" which you claim exists AFTER the fall and thus the fallen state has ability to respond. In contrast, I claim that ability was forfeited by the human race in the fall and thus the fallen nature is without the ability to respond due to their own sin in Adam. HOwever, you know that is my position and so you are intentionally playing the "debate" game.

Don't you get tired of being deceitful????? You know very well that is not what I think about this list of scripture but what I have proven to be your complete ignorance and abuse of these scriptures. The first two are jerked out of context becuase they do not deal at all with lost persons but with saved persons but YOU used them to respond to my argument concerning LOST people who are without a new heart. The last text is no more applicable than the command to "do this and live" is in regard to keeping the law - neither prove the lost man has ability. So take your choice, either you are PITTING scripture against scripture or you are jerking scripture out of context and the readers can easily see this, so don't bother running for cover.

More games! The issue is not about "irresitibly application" but about INABILITY. However, you know that but you have simply chosen to change the subject. Moreover, you realize that if total inability is proven, meaning, that fallen human nature is unwilling and incapable of response then it must be of "God that worketh in you both TO WILL and TO DO of His good pleasure" and that is something you want to avoid at all cost.

It is YOUR position that man has ability to respond to a command but that is not MY position. So rework your argument to fit my system instead of using your preassumptions as the basis to argue against my system.

You cannot base an argument upon grace found in in a POST-regenerate condition to defend your position concerning a PRE-regenerate condition.

If the heart is the problem that prevents desire, which is the cause of inability, then I am not confounding anything but providing the Biblical explanation as plainly stated in Romans 8:7-8 and John 3:19-20, etc., and it is you that are confounding the matter by refusing to consider all the data.

Have you forgotten that the "heart" is the seat of DESIRE and thus the source from which "SEEKING" God originates and if that heart is at "enmity against God" then total inability to desire, seek and submit are the natural responses as long as that heart is dominated by "enmity against God." If that enmity can be changed or removed from that heart then there is no need for any "new" heart or "new" spirit and that is the problem with your view if logically followed, as your position needs no "new" heart as your position has a heart where man can remove the central problem himself.

 

He quoted Acts 11:17 to show it is a gift of God. You also know that gospel repentance is INSEPARABLE from gospel faith and thus if one is "given" then then the other is equally a "gift" of God (Eph. 2:8).

Moroever, you know that we believe that such gifts of grace are inseparable fruits of the creative work of God/regeneration (Eph. 2:10) that precedes "good works" and thus neither repentance or faith are merited but neither originates with the fallen human nature either as YOUR POSITION demands.

Our position is that the fallen nature, the heart of fallen man is "enmity against God" and thus as the SEAT OF DESIRE such a heart is incapable of DESIRING the things of God, desiring to seek after God, desiring to hate sin and love righteousness. The SEAT OF DESIRE must be changed (regeneration) from love of darkness to love of light, from enmity against God to love for God.

Our Position is that regeneration is the creation of a "new" heart and a "new" spirit necessarily made manifest by repentance and faith. NO CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER but only a logical order. Gospel conversion is simply the expression of regeneration or in Biblical terms "turn us O God and we shall be turned."

 

I have copied the text in question within its context
.
The open-minded, discerning reader will soon see that Calvin in no way denies faith is the gift of God.

"8. For by grace are ye saved. This is an inference from the former
statements. Having treated of election and of effectual calling, he arrives at
this general conclusion, that they had obtained salvation by faith alone.
First, he asserts, that the salvation of the Ephesians was entirely the work,
the gracious work of God. But then they had obtained this grace by faith.
On one side, we must look at God; and, on the other, at man. God declares,
that he owes us nothing; so that salvation is not a reward or recompense,
but unmixed grace. The next question is, in what way do men receive that
salvation which is offered to them by the hand of God? The answer is, by
faith; and hence he concludes that nothing connected with it is our own.
If, on the part of God, it is grace alone, and if we bring nothing but faith,
which strips us of all commendation, it follows that salvation does not
come from us.

Ought we not then to be silent about free-will, and good intentions, and
fancied preparations, and merits, and satisfactions? There is none of these
which does not claim a share of praise in the salvation of men; so that the
praise of grace would not, as Paul shews, remain undiminished. When, on
the part of man, the act of receiving salvation is made to consist in faith
alone, all other means, on which men are accustomed to rely, are discarded.
Faith, then, brings a man empty to God, that he may be filled with the
blessings of Christ. And so he adds, not of yourselves; that claiming
nothing for themselves, they may acknowledge God alone as the author of
their salvation.

9. Not of works. Instead of what he had said, that their salvation is of
grace, he now affirms, that “it is the gift of God.” F19 Instead of what he
had said, “Not of yourselves,” he now says, “Not of works.” Hence we
see, that the apostle leaves nothing to men in procuring salvation.

In these three phrases, — not of yourselves, — it is the gift of God, — not of works,
— he embraces the substance of his long argument in the Epistles to the Romans and to the Galatians,
that righteousness comes to us from the
mercy of God alone, — is offered to us in Christ by the gospel, — and is
received by faith alone, without the merit of works.

This passage affords an easy refutation of the idle cavil by which Papists
attempt to evade the argument, that we are justified without works. Paul,
they tell us, is speaking about ceremonies. But the present question is not
confined to one class of works. Nothing can be more clear than this. The
whole righteousness of man, which consists in works, — nay, the whole
man, and everything that he can call his own, is set aside. We must attend
to the contrast between God and Man, between grace and works. Why
should God be contrasted with man, if the controversy related to nothing
more than ceremonies?

Papists themselves are compelled to own that Paul ascribes to the grace of
God the whole glory of our salvation, but endeavor to do away with this
admission by another contrivance. This mode of expression, they tell us, is
employed, because God bestows the first grace. It is really foolish to
imagine that they can succeed in this way, since Paul excludes man and his
utmost ability, — not only from the commencement, but throughout, —
from the whole work of obtaining salvation.But it is still more absurd to overlook the apostle’s inference, lest any man
should boast. Some room must always remain for man’s boasting, so long
as, independently of grace, merits are of any avail. Paul’s doctrine is
overthrown, unless the whole praise is rendered to God alone and to his
mercy. And here we must advert to a very common error in the
interpretation of this passage. Many persons restrict the word gift to faith
alone. But Paul is only repeating in other words the former sentiment. His
meaning is, not that faith is the gift of God, but that salvation is given to us
by God, or, that we obtain it by the gift of God."[End of citation]

In context Calvin is refuting the Roman Catholic teaching that it is man who works righteousness once enabling grace is given. It is now up to man hard work and ability to make good use of the enabling grace God has given him, Catholic theologians assert.

The quote which Skandelon copied from anti-cal sources (i.e, Geisler) makes an obvious point: it is not only faith which is the gift of God, but salvation in its entirety….from first to last, including all necessary conditions.

In no way, shape or form does Calvin deny faith is the gift of God.

There are numerous other comments by Calvin throughout his works which explicitly state ‘faith is the gift of God.’

Is it not curious that Calvin specifically mentions that man has no cause for ‘boasting’ because he has no 'ability' in his natural state?

 

You need to define what you think "seeks" means in that context.

You have a TERRIBLE habit of taking words like that one and using their wooden definition to undermine the nature of God and redefine him as some Zeus type god who learns as he goes and whose "I Amness" is perfectly transferable.

 

God treats us as responsible, so why assume otherwise?

We got a vote on that? Who decided the consequences of the fall? God did. Own it.

Say it with Paul and me, "God bound all men over to disobedience..."

"Without the ability to respond" yet you still call them 'responsible?' Revealingly contradictory.

I wrote, "...where we disagree is regarding God sincerity or forthrightness in a statement like this. Because I believe, and common sense tell us, that the "responsibility" is strongly implied in a statement like this one.

A honest reasonable adult doesn't say to a cripple child, "IF you get up and walk, I will give you candy." Even a Warden, unless he was just cruel, wouldn't say to his prisoners, "If you can walk through your prison bars, I'll let you go free." The IF/THEN statement coming from an HONEST person carries weight and strong implications. I do not believe you have ANY clear and conclusive text to deny the strong implication of God's IF/THEN statement. To suggest otherwise paints God in a deceptive light, at best."

You call this a 'debate game' but its not. It is my honest assessment of the deceptiveness that Calvinism appears to place onto God's actions. That is an argument. Whether you like it or not your system has God punishing mankind with total inability and then treating them as responsible (enabled) individuals. That appears deceptive to me and I am going to say it if that is what I believe.

Sorry, but I stopped reading after this. You can't do this and expect me to continue to give you the respect of reading the entirety of your posts. It is possible to disagree without being deceitful or even accusing the other of being deceitful. You have a history of reading a nefarious intent into those who disagree with you. That needs to stop. I'm not saying this as a moderator, as I don't moderate this forum. I'm saying it as a fellow debater and brother. You can't do this or I will not engage with your posts any longer.

 

Ok, so you have a problem with how Webster defines boasting. Fine. Supply a definition that makes what God stated acceptable to you and your view. I'll wait.

 

Oh, right. So when it says "God seeks worshippers," we should automatically just know that actually means, "God makes worshippers," as if that choice of words just wasn't available to the author. Nice hermeneutics... whatever you guys need to do in order to fit the bible into your little system, right?

 

Are there people really arguing with this?

Calvinist here - and can't argue with this. There's nothing to argue with. Thread ender! :thumbs:

I read through the rest of the pages anyhow. I don't get the argument.

Just go read the above quote again. He simply repeated the words of our Savior. If you have an argument with that, no matter what your doctrinal stance, you're wrong and not just a little wrong, you're really, really, turn around and go the opposite way type wrong. The end.

 

I never stated otherwise. I don't even deny faith is a gift of God, so why would I attempt to claim Calvin did?

Once again, this reveals you no much less about what we believe than you think you do.

 

I have been reading your posts to others and you are simply using debate tactics. You know full well what they beleive and yet you word your arguments as though they are stupid and you do it repeatedly.

 

Well, then call it a debate tactic and explain why. If I commit a fallacy, like:

argumentum ad antiquitatem
argumentum ad hominem
argumentum ad ignorantiam
argumentum ad logicam
argumentum ad misericordiam
argumentum ad nauseam
argumentum ad numerum
argumentum ad populum
argumentum ad verecundiam
circulus in demonstrando
complex question
dicto simpliciter
naturalistic fallacy
nature, appeal to
non sequitur
petitio principii
post hoc ergo propter hoc
red herring
slippery slope
straw man
tu quoque

Then quote the fallacy and explain why you think I committed it. That is a honest, and completely valid objection to make in a debate. Calling someone intentionally 'deceptive' is the fallacy of "argumentum ad hominem," and its not necessary.

 

Do you know what a REPRESENTATIVE government is? God chose the very best representative for mankind - Adam. The totality of human nature consisted in that representative and existed in that representative and acted in unison as ONE MAN. There could be no possible better representative for us. In that one man we had ability to choose right but willfully forfeited that ability. We did, not God, but mankind. God could have destroyed Adam and Eve instantly and thus all mankind together with them as all mankind came directly from them. Fallen mankind is condemned already in Adam as "all die in Adam."

This is an absurd and ridiculous argument. First, so what if God determined the consequences? They are just and righteous consequences as the "wages of sin is death." Second, the fallen condition of man is the NATURAL consequence of sin. Sin is repudiating God from your heart as final authority over your person and life. Sin "IS" enmity against God as God because sin is assuming yourself as God. Third, usurpation of God is by nature rebellion against the true God and thus must create SEPARATION from God, the source of life which "IS" death. Hence, the consequences of the Fall are NATURAL results. Genesis 2:17 is a DECLARATION of fact rather than God's designed consequences. Such consequences NEED NO DESIGN as they are the only other possible option if God is God, the source and author of life and all good. The only other possible option is evil, destruction and death.

 

I did several times and I did it in langauge every one understands without attempting to impress anyone. Just go back and read what I said.