Featured Am I Calvinist or Arminian II

And this is precisely the incorrect assumption that is being challenged by the Hebrews falling away passages. For anyone to hold a particular belief, they'd have to both point to Scriptures which exclusively and conclusively asserts such a belief as well as consistently explain away the seeming contradictions raised against other parts of Scriptures. Has calvinism met this standard over this assumed belief?

As action points to move forward,
1. Point to Scriptures that assert "it's nothing at all!!" for the non-elect which cannot be read any other way.
2. Explain the seeming contradictions of "God not dealing with the non-elect at all on any kind of salvation basis/process" with the arguments raised in Post #72 and Post #74.

This is only a debate forum and obviously nobody can be compelled to conclude - but you could save yourself a lot of effort by getting out of the circular argument.
We began with the question, 'Does God do any supernatural work in the non-elect towards salvation' -> I presented the Hebrews passages as evidence that He does -> you were reluctant to conclude -> I asked what keeps you from accepting the conclusion -> you said the elect must have assured salvation -> I reaffirmed that that is absolutely true and is not violated by this interpretation, pressing on to why still you cannot accept the conclusion -> you restate that's because God does not do any supernatural work in the non-elect towards salvation.

Do you see how you end where you began without engaging with the arguments that could help conclude? Answering a question with itself as an assertion is simply dogma and not a reasoned belief - and I suppose each are entitled to their own. But then, you'd also then have to concede that these are valid reasons why others do not find calvinism to be completely consistent and honest.

 

Where do you find "conditional salvation for the non-elect" taught in scripture?
You seem to have created an onion layer regarding the types of salvation by claiming that the non-elect can somehow convince God to save them by some meritorious means. How does that work in your narrative?

 

Oh, not my creation. And definitely not the non-elect earning it by any merit - it is by God's mercy alone.

While God has unconditional and everlasting mercy upon the elect, He has conditional mercy upon the non-elect which He removes once they fall away in unbelief and are rejected (2Sam 7:15), though they were once supernaturally worked upon by God (1Sam 10:9).

The same is reaffirmed in the Hebrews and 2Pet passages that denote the falling away of those who were once supernaturally worked on by God. I've already presented the citations and the arguments earlier on this thread as was being discussed. How do you see this differently and how would you engage with the arguments?

 

Thanks for the clarification. Here is what I hear you saying.

Only the elect are saved. God shows both mercy and grace to the elect for eternity.
The non-elect are shown a moment of mercy while living on earth. Upon death the mercy God displayed is finished. Grace is never given to the non-elect.

Is that accurate?

 

True.

Yes? (I'd say the same but not with the nuance you're leading up to in what's to follow..)

We've already had a frustrating back-and-forth splitting hairs between mercy and grace and I do not intend rehashing it given you left some of my questions unanswered back then. I'd only say Grace to the non-elect is not exactly the same as seen in the elect.
According to you, what is God's giving of a new heart to a person on account of - His grace or mercy?

 

God only makes the elect alive with Christ. Therefore only the elect can have a "new heart" as you state it. Grace is only extended to the elect. Mercy is extended to all humanity, the elect unto eternity, the non-elect for a season.

I believe that answers your question. A new heart is given by God's grace, not by his mercy. The non-elect do not and are not given a new heart.

 

That was my question also, as it does not seem biblical that God would sorta save us, and then wait to see if we would agree to keep holding on to it!

 

Those who made the final walk away from God cannot have eternal life, for Jesus stated that all those whom he saves are forever saved, so they would not be spiritual dead any more, but neither really spiritually alive ?

 

God only gave new hearts towards his own elect in Christ, per the scriptures....

 

Yes, it does answer my question directly and I appreciate that. It throws up more questions though -

1Sa 10:6 Then the Spirit of the LORD will rush upon you, and you will prophesy with them and be turned into another man.
1Sa 10:7 Now when these signs meet you, do what your hand finds to do, for God is with you.
1Sa 10:9 When he turned his back to leave Samuel, God gave him another heart. And all these signs came to pass that day.
1Sa 10:10 When they came to Gibeah, behold, a group of prophets met him, and the Spirit of God rushed upon him, and he prophesied among them.

These events of God giving Saul another heart, turning him into another man, having His Spirit come upon him so he prophesies, with the declaration that "God is with you" - these then are by the Grace of God according to you, right? (Again note, I do not make such distinctions between God's grace and mercy as you, but am willing to engage with your belief system)

 

No.
Saul was the choice of the people, not God.

God acted according to what he had ordained toward the nation. God did not show grace to Saul. God showed kindness to the people. God choosing to bless unsaved people is not God giving them salvation and then taking it away.

Are you building your entire theory around Saul simply based upon this one instance?

 

No, but Scripture cannot be broken and not even a single instance can be contradicted, right? You said giving of a new heart is only to the elect and is by God's grace -> we then read in Scriptures that God gave Saul a new heart -> your conclusion consequently should be that he is the elect by God's grace right? But which you say he isn't - so how do you explain the inconsistency?

 

Was saul stated to be going to hell?

 

you tell me
do you now consider him to be possibly elect?

 

I asked what you meant by a new heart as it never is used in regard to salvation. God refers to making a person alive with Christ when talking about salvation. He doesn't state something about giving a new heart.
You are conflating salvation with a Mosaic Covenant event in Israel.

 

To a time when the holy spirit was not indwelling them, but came upon them for a season and purpose, and then departed!

 

Removing the hardened heart and giving of a new heart is part of God's regeneration of the sinner - and none can be saved without this occurring in them. Why are we revisiting these basics, which is in fact one of the core identifiable calvinist doctrines quoted in the Canons of Dort too? And it's not even an exclusively calvinist doctrine - even the arminians and others acknowledge in the giving of a new heart in place of the old as part of God's saving grace.

Do you consider Eze 36:24-28 as part of the Old Covenant or the New Covenant?

 

I really didn't gather what you meant - but if we're still discussing Saul, what was God's purpose for anointing Saul king? Didn't God desire to establish Saul's kingdom forever (by no means a seasonal desire)?

And this was a conditional desire, which when Saul fell away from, God withdrew His mercy and sought the elect David to unconditionally have everlasting mercy upon and whose kingdom assuredly continues forever.

 

What does the entire passage reveal?
If you pay attention, it is future tense to the elect. You are attempting to conflate God's word to prop up your presupposition.

Ezekiel 36:22-32 “Therefore say to the house of Israel, Thus says the Lord God: It is not for your sake, O house of Israel, that I am about to act, but for the sake of my holy name, which you have profaned among the nations to which you came. And I will vindicate the holiness of my great name, which has been profaned among the nations, and which you have profaned among them. And the nations will know that I am the Lord, declares the Lord God, when through you I vindicate my holiness before their eyes. I will take you from the nations and gather you from all the countries and bring you into your own land. I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules. You shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers, and you shall be my people, and I will be your God. And I will deliver you from all your uncleannesses. And I will summon the grain and make it abundant and lay no famine upon you. I will make the fruit of the tree and the increase of the field abundant, that you may never again suffer the disgrace of famine among the nations. Then you will remember your evil ways, and your deeds that were not good, and you will loathe yourselves for your iniquities and your abominations. It is not for your sake that I will act, declares the Lord God; let that be known to you. Be ashamed and confounded for your ways, O house of Israel.

 

You lost me again.

We were discussing your inconsistency in saying that only the elect are given a new heart by God's grace. You changed your position to assert that the giving of a new heart is unrelated to salvation and must've been part of the mosaic covenant. I presented Eze 36 which clearly shows it is very much in the context of salvation as part of the new covenant too. Now you seem to be saying that since it is part of the new covenant in the future, it doesn't apply to the old testament people? Why keep shifting the goal posts?

How do you think the old testament saints were saved? Wasn't it through faith in God alone, having repented unto God? And how do you think they were able to repent unto God with a hardened heart - wasn't it by God giving them a new heart? Why did David pray Psa 51:10 if it was only to the future elect? Where are you going with this?

Again to put it in perspective, do you still hold giving of a new heart is unrelated to salvation for the OT people and if so, do you hold them not to be totally depraved and hardened in their hearts as we are now in the NT?