Featured Semi-Calvinism

I'm not really sure what you are talking about here, MB. If you are referring to my post, then you are mistaken. I have not talked behind your back. I quoted your post and responded right here, publicly. That is generally what is done on a discussion board.

Again, not really sure what to make of this. Generally when people quote others it is because what they are saying applies to the quote. I never claimed to even know what you believed, much less have an opinion about it. I was not responding to your beliefs, but to what you posted.

You said "I just do not believe that we are forced into salvation". You also said "being willing to be saved is in scripture, being saved against our will is not." Whether you actually believe that is no concern of mine. But you did post it. And my point is that absolutely no one on this forum has even remotely indicated that they hold a belief that we are "forced into Salvation" or that we even can be "saved against our will".

Is there a difference between people falsely claiming that those in the free-will camp believe salvation is not completely of God and people falsely claiming that Calvinists present men being forced into salvation or saved against their wills? Is one lie really less a sin than the other?

I don't care if every Calvinist you met believes in the Easter Bunny. If you are being honest, and every Calvinist you have met has told you that God saves men against their will, that God forces men into salvation, then this has more bearing on your discernment than it does with Calvinism. Since this is not even close to what Calvinism teaches, this means that those "calvinists" you hang with are ignorant of the theology they claim to hold. Since it takes very little effort to find people like John Gill, John MacArthur, Spurgeon, John Piper, and Tim Keller (all Calvinists) denying that men are saved against their wills....also that regeneration is all about understanding (every Calvinist I've met thinks regeneration is a supernatural work of God in recreating a man)...this brings into question either your honesty or your discernment.

 

MB,

I apologize for pointing out your errors without pointing you to the evidence of those errors. It was late and we had just come in from Nashville (it’s less crowded to see Christmas lights after Christmas).

The Canons of Dort specifically addresses the error of believing that God saves men against their will.

“just as by the fall humans did not cease to be human, endowed with intellect and will, and just as sin, such has spread through the whole human race, did not abolish the nature of the human race …..also this divine grace of regeneration does not act in people as if they were blocks and stones; nor does it abolish the will and its properties or coerce a reluctant will by force…”

The Canons also address the error that “regeneration is all about understanding”. Regeneration is God making men into new beings (spiritually). God forgives us and He gives us a new spirit and a new heart. God puts His Spirit in us. Yes, this is the only way that we can understand. But that does not mean it is “all about understanding.” It is, rather, all about God.

Addressing errors, the Canons argue against those who “teach that grace by which we are converted to God is nothing but a gentle persuasion, or ..that which happens by persuasion…that God does not produce the assent of the will except in this manner of moral persuasion”. Calvinism instead holds “as Ezekiel 36:26 puts it: ‘I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you, and I will remove your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh.’”

The “Calvinists” you have listened to are probably not Calvinists at all as they deny the Canons of Dort (they deny Calvinistic soteriology). But there is room for disagreement even with those who would affirm the Canons as expressing their belief.

My suggestion to you is that you take the time to learn what those you are opposing really believe instead of just arguing your position. I am not picking on you because we disagree on the subject of free-will. We had a few “Calvinists” on this board from time to time who have made the same error of arguing out of ignorance. It is far to easy, if people would, to take the time and learn what others believe. I think that this would benefit you on this topic.

These links may help you understand what Calvinists (keep in mind most here are Baptist “Calvinists”) do believe.

https://www.crcna.org/welcome/beliefs/confessions/canons-dort

http://www.esvbible.org/resources/c...article-the-canons-of-the-synod-of-dort-1619/

I wish you well, should you endeavor to legitimately engage the topic. When you do learn what those people actually believe (and how they understand God’s work in salvation) then maybe we can have a more honest discussion on the topic. I look forward to it, brother.

 

You mean like you calling Particular Baptists "Calvinists?"

So, which part of man, body, soul, or spirit do you think avoided the consequences of the fall and remains in perfect holiness and merits God's grace?

Sufficient for all, efficient only for believers. And I am not sure what you mean by "available." The atonement is not "available" to us as it is not offered to us. The atonement was offered to God by the Lord Jesus Christ. The atonement is offered to the injured party. Our sin, as David says, is "Against you (God), and you only, I have sinned" (Psalm 51:4). It is the results of the Atonement, the forgiveness of our sins, that is applied to us by the Lord.

They are the same thing.

Matthew 20:16 So the last shall be first, and the first last: for many be called, but few are chosen (εκλεκτος).

Ephesians 1:4 even as he has chosen (εκλεκτος) us in him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and without defect before him in love;

Matthew 24:24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect (εκλεκτος).

Colossians 3:12 Put on therefore, as the elect (εκλεκτος) of God, holy and beloved, bowels of mercies, kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, longsuffering.

Which, of course, has nothing at all to do with the bible doctrine of "irresistible grace" (which I admit is a poor way of stating it, probably invented by a Baptist Preacher so the letter fit the TULIP acronym). The better word would be "efficacious" grace. When the regenerating grace of God is applied to the sinner it always accomplishes what God intended it to accomplish. The Grace of God never fails, but is always efficacious. It always accomplished what God intended it to accomplish.

And, of course, no Calvinist believes a person must persevere in order to be saved. They believe that the saved are "preserved" in Christ until the end.

Jude 1 "Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called."

We are not saved because we persevere. We persevere because we are preserved in Christ.

Yes, it is a sad fact that many preach against the Grace of God, the Sovereignty of God, the Election of God, the very Gospel itself out of ignorance as displayed above.

 

So, you are admitting you can't respond to any of my questions or statements?

 

So do you believe there is more than one way to be saved?

So, you believe regeneration is progressive over time?

Ignorance is bliss?

 

As you have chosen to tell us what Calvinists believe, their actual beliefs should concern you. This is called integrity. Given your comments when you thought I spoke of your beliefs you seem to expect it of others so I don't think it unreasonable to expect it of you.

I am not arguing against your belief, but questioning why you chose to misrepresent the views if others to "win" your argument. There are enough legitimate disagreements (even within Calvinism itself) to argue a lifetime. Straw-man arguments are, essentially, nothing but lies fabricated to puff up one’s own position. If your view is legitimate, and you understand the position that you hold, then it should be able to stand on its own. But when you misrepresent others to prove your view right, it typically has the opposite effect.

I do not know what you are speaking of insofar as my not providing Scripture to support my claim, but Exodus 20:16 should take care of that.

It does not matter what I know (or think) of the passage. I was telling you that Calvinism does not teach what you said that it taught. I did not say that they were right, or that they were wrong. Only that you were engaging in a dishonest representation of their beliefs. You claimed that Calvinists viewed regeneration as applying only to an understanding when in fact the Canons of Dort prove you wrong by applying regeneration to being “born again”. And then to cover the lie you address a verse Calvinists use to support their view you claim they do not even hold.

 

So, your answer is "I don't know?"

Which has nothing to do with the topic or my questions. Is this another diversion?

 

How can I spin your answers when you refuse to answer?

So, asking you to clarify what you believe is not well intended? Why not?

How can I spin an answer you refuse to give?

Here they are again:
You said:

To which I asked:
So do you believe there is more than one way to be saved?

You refuse to answer.

Which begs the question:
So, you believe regeneration is progressive over time?

You refuse to answer.

To which I replied:
Ignorance is bliss?
You insist you are an expert on the teachings or Dort but admit you have never read them?

How does that work?

Or will you refuse to answer again?

 

You will show me something is wrong in the scriptures? I don't think so.

Let's start at the beginning:

Article 1: God’s Right to Condemn All People
Since all people have sinned in Adam and have come under the sentence of the curse and eternal death, God would have done no one an injustice if it had been his will to leave the entire human race in sin and under the curse, and to condemn them on account of their sin. As the apostle says: “The whole world is liable to the condemnation of God” (Rom. 3:19), “All have sinned and are deprived of the glory of God” (Rom. 3:23), and “The wages of sin is death” (Rom. 6:23).

Now show me where Romans 3:19 is wrong.

Then show me where Romans 3:23 is wrong.

Then show me where Romans 6:23 is wrong.