Featured The BEST argument against Calvinism . . .

I do not disagree with you in that God does not cause man to sin we do quite well on our own. But where the problem comes in with the calvinist position is that they say that while man can choose to sin he can not choose to trust in God. That is an illogical position to hold.

If God holds man responsible for not trusting in His son then He is either being disingenuous or man actually can make those free choices.
God being omniscient knows all that man will freely do but foreknowledge does not mean cause.

One major difference between you and I is that you keep referring to what men, Owen, Edwards, the Puritan's etc, have said and I just go with what the bible shows us.

I do disagree with you that it is just the hyper-Cals and Primitive Baptists that hold to God determines all things. Those that hold to the TULIP/DoG would logically hold to the deterministic view. I know you say you disagree with a few of the DoG points but since they require all to be held for that view to be consistent I am not sure why you still call yourself a calvinist.

 

You make a valid point here. And I think, although they tend to not write down things in systematic theology terms, that the average basic Baptist position would be that either on your own, or with persuasion by the Holy Spirit, you can at least say "I am in trouble", and throw yourself on God's mercy through Christ's work. If you do that, then God will indeed indwell you with the Holy Spirit and give you all the protection, inclination, and ability to follow Christ as a disciple. It is at the point of calling on God for help that you are born again. I have absolutely no problem with that position.

The Calvinist answer per Owen would be that if your own free will was really good enough to do that without help then you would logically be able to not sin - which no one does at all. Also, he said that your salvation would depend upon the fickle bodily mood you had at the time of say a hearing of the gospel occurred and your eternal destiny might rest on whether you had a good nights sleep or if the kids were fussing during an invitation. This also seems logically wrong to me. And, I know for a fact that Baptist free will preachers put a high premium on removing fussing babies and the music, and mood for that stated reason. They also put a high premium on their own ability to create a "mood" and use emotion provoking stories about everything from a dog, to a war hero coming home, and so on. And, Arminian guys like G. Campbell Morgan, say the same thing themselves, so it's not a false accusation.

The Bible clearly does have a lot of verses that look to me to be God or Jesus appealing directly to men as if the decision is completely up to them. You can't deny that. But there are also verses indicating that God works with our will itself, and that our natural inclination is to consider the things of God as foolishness. Since the Calvinists I read, and the free willers, even the most extreme would agree that at the personal level of the individual himself it definitely is your will working, the only difference is whether it was your own unchanged will which has of itself enough virtue to choose wisely, or whether you choosing wisely is a result of a renewed or enlightened will (even though still your will). They agree it was you choosing.

You are correct in saying that. I definitely don't believe in a limited atonement and the modern Calvinists do indeed insist it is all five or nothing so you are right in that. I just find the writings of the Puritans to be very good theologically, and beneficial in a pastoral sense. I never was really into the theological arguments for Calvinistic determinism, never read much Haldane, or Boettner or even Sproul. But I like the Puritans and even appreciate the fact that they were more open minded than you have been lead to believe. Baxter was a 4 pointer, probably had a flawed view of justification that was close to Roman Catholicism, and yet is the most loved and revered practical preacher of the Puritans, by the Puritans themselves, as well as later guys like Lloyd Jones and Packer. It's just not as cut and dried as one might think.

 

Go to 1:30 (or listen to it all) to hear for yourself how Primitive Baptists see it. Overruling Providence.
(I've told you this before)

Overruling Providence (Pastor Joe Jones) Sunday-AM - YouTube

 

I looked at the part at and a little after 1:30 and as long as they believe that Joseph's brothers were actually doing what they wanted, according to their own free wills, then I have no problem with the idea that they were really at the same time doing God's will (in the sense of accomplishing his overall plan). Do you believe that there is a true "offer" of salvation to everyone, such that if a person would repent of their sins and believe the gospel, they would be saved? Your answer will determine my next post as to the differences I find on this board as far as Calvinism.

 

the BEST arguments AGAINST much of the HUMAN teachings in Calvinism, is John Calvin himself!

John Calvin vs Calvinism

 

They do.

I believe that everyone who repents and believes the gospel HAS eternal life. I told you this before. PBs hold to Justification From Eternity.

The gospel is 'sheep food', not a formula that changes goats into sheep.

 

Good. So what I was saying in what you quoted in post 23 was that for you guys, there is no argument about free will and it's meaning to discuss. Those saved were justified from eternity. Those not justified from eternity are by definition damned from eternity. So when the guy in the original video says that the core of the Calvinism argument is about free will - it can only be for the Puritan type Calvinists and their later followers. This is because you have gone off in a different direction altogether. I'm not criticizing you view here but just saying that your arguments are from a completely different direction than Owen, Edwards and the Puritans are making.

What happens on here is that in a discussion about whether Calvinism is true or not, when we are discussing exactly what it means to choose to come to Christ or to have a true free will - it short circuits everything if someone jumps in and says that none of that matters because you were justified from eternity.

The difference between the Puritan Calvinists like Owen, Watson, or even guys like Edwards and you are greater in my opinion than the difference between them and the Arminians, or Silverhair for that matter. In my post no. 20 I was separating you guys out that have a view of absolute determinism as a primary starting point as opposed to those who even though they put salvation as completely due to God's sovereign choice, they do have it operating in time, with justification occurring timewise at least near the time of believing, with faith having some causal relationship with justification. You can get from one position to the other logically I admit, but how you view this I think will determine the way you argue your beliefs. I've probably confused everybody at this point.

 

I agree that it is doubtful that Calvin was aware of something called "limited atonement". I've looked into this too and found that Edwards also is doubtful on this. Some of the Puritans like Baxter were against limited atonement, and some even though they signed off on confessions, did not preach like they believed it. Guys like J.C. Ryle believed it "officially" yet freely said Christ was offered to everyone and said it was fine to say to anyone that "Jesus died for your sins". (Same with Spurgeon.) This to me is the weakest link in Calvinism and it is why most Baptists consider themselves "moderate" or four point Calvinists even though theologians tell them they are not allowed to do that.

What Calvinism does say, and where I think it is correct, is that Jesus did not die and then God and Jesus had to sit back and hope that some of us at least would decide on our own free will to respond to this offer. And that is where some of the free willers end up. They have to explain that too, if they do not believe God is sovereign in this.

 

The Calvinist answer per Owen would be that if your own free will was really good enough to do that without help then you would logically be able to not sin - which no one does at all. Also, he said that your salvation would depend upon the fickle bodily mood you had at the time of say a hearing of the gospel occurred and your eternal destiny might rest on whether you had a good nights sleep or if the kids were fussing during an invitation. This also seems logically wrong to me. And, I know for a fact that Baptist free will preachers put a high premium on removing fussing babies and the music, and mood for that stated reason. They also put a high premium on their own ability to create a "mood" and use emotion provoking stories about everything from a dog, to a war hero coming home, and so on. And, Arminian guys like G. Campbell Morgan, say the same thing themselves, so it's not a false accusation. [/QUOTE]

The fact that the person has to respond is what trips up many of the calvinist persuasion. We see this in Owen's comment, how he could come to the conclusion that free will equals able not to sin is surprising. That sounds like what Pelagius was accused of saying.
I do agree that some preachers do think they have to set the mood or conditions for someone to trust in Christ. But we also see the other side when Calvinist preachers will not even preach about you trusting in God because if you were chosen then you will just believe.
Both views are wrong from a biblical perspective. That is why we are told to preach the gospel message to the whole world.

If we go with the "enlightened" will idea then we have to clarify what one means by enlightened. If you mean that God has to change them in some way so that they will believe then that is not biblical. If on the other hand you are saying that man evaluates the various information available to him and then recognizes the truth of the gospel message, then yes as that is what we see in the biblical text.
Bottom line is that if we require God to change our will so that we will trust in Him then why did He only do it for such a small group? He said He wants all to trust in Him and holds us responsible for not doing so.
Either God is disingenuous and really only wanted to save/enlighten a small group or He is not powerful enough to accomplish what He desires, to save all humanity or man has an actual free will with which to either trust in or reject God.

For me salvation is cut and dried. I have read and heard various views on how or why one is saved but I just hold them up to scripture. Does God influence us YES does He force us NO. He has not pick out a select group. He has said here is my Son what will you do with Him?

 

Yes. This is the core of the issue with Puritan era Calvinists because they believe that a man must repent and believe the gospel. They believed that faith is a condition of justification. (This is true even though some of them had a very high view of election and sovereignty). The other groups on here who believe that you are justified from eternity and that the proclaiming of the gospel is just a means of discovering who is already saved - they are not in this argument.

But then the question comes up, are you truly free and neutral towards God in your natural state, so that you are just as inclined to come to Christ as to reject him, or is there something really wrong with us, due to the fall, and due to our own nature, which determines our own true will, that impairs or even prohibits us from coming to Christ?

Calvinists like Owen concede that the facts of the gospel, the information about what Christ did, and what we need to do are understandable by the natural, unaided man. This is not what they dispute. What they say though is that a natural man, unaided by the Holy Spirit, will not tend to think those facts are important, or that they are foolish or overdone, or that dealing with these things can be put off. And they also prefer their current pleasures to repentance and faith in Christ. Scripture backs that up too.

 

@Silverhair . If you really can evaluate the information provide by the gospel and make a rational decision on your own and that is all that is involved then Calvinism is obviously false. If it requires some action by the Holy Spirit in the sense of moral persuasion, or an enlightenment of understanding at least then you are saying something different and - you will have to start dealing with the fact that this may not be offered equally to everyone and then the issues of sovereign action of the Holy Spirit come up. If you believe that an actual work of the Spirit beyond conviction or persuasion that goes to quickening or even regeneration prior to faith is essential then you are on the way to Calvinism. And even then, the question comes up, is such a thing resistible? I'm confused here because even the most staunch Calvinists preached like it is, yet they claim it is not.

 

It is not a matter of whether one is neutral it is whether one has a free will. No one is truly neutral about anything. Even those that oppose God can at a later time turn and trust in Him for their salvation. At the fall we lost our spiritual relationship with God. But having said that we did not lose our ability to restore that relationship through faith in Him. God in His mercy has drawn us to Him through various means but it is always up to the person to either accept or reject the the gift offered.

While most will want to stay in the condition they are in others will choose too trust in God. But in either case it is still a free will action. The only other option is that what each person does has been determined for them by God. And as Owen says the natural man can understand the information. What he does with it is his choice.[/QUOTE]

 

But that is exactly what the bible shows us. Whether it is to know God through creation Rom 1:18-20 so they have no excuse or the conviction of the Holy Spirit Joh 16:8-11or the preaching of the gospel Eph 1:13. We are told that the gospel is the power of God for salvation. But for whom? Answer "everyone who believes" Rom 1:16 What must the person do? Confess Christ as Lord and believe that God raised Him from the dead. Rom 10:9

Now man either has the God given free will with which to evaluate the information given or God determines who will be, as you say, enlightened by the Holy Spirit. But since we know that God desires all to be saved then why would He restrict who can be saved. You seem to ignore the Holy Spirit's conviction of sin which the whole world gets.

That is where the Calvinist view really falls apart. They want to have a person saved prior to them believing in God. The bible does not support such a view and actually speaks against it in numerous scriptures. Which I am sure you are aware of.

I am not well versed in what these staunch Calvinists preach but I am aware of what the bible teaches. That is why I see calvinism as teaching error.

 

If you believe that then we just disagree. I think a lot more is going on and have been taught that a lot more than that is going on for years even in violently anti-Calvinist churches.

 

I believe it because that is what the bible teaches us. Since you disagree with the scripture that I posted what is your alternative?

By your answer it seems you think calvinism's view overrules what the bible says. The bible is clear that we must respond to the various means that God uses to draw us to Him.

Calvinism says that no one can respond to those various means unless God first causes them to do so. So if calvinism is correct than all those that do not trust in God have the best excuse going, God did not cause me to trust in Him.

You have said you do not hold to calvinist determinism but then you turn around and require that same determinism. God has to do something first. You do seem rather conflicted in your view. Perhaps you are placing to much stock in the men you read and not enough in what the Holy Spirit inspired.

 

How about a balanced approach that takes into account other scriptures as well as your favorites. Calvinism freely agrees with the importance of and existence of the things you mention. They are called "external means" and also include the lively persuasive type of preaching most evangelicals are familiar with. But there are also, in the case of someone who actually gets saved an "inward" effect that is beyond what you claim. Ephesians 2:10 says we are the workmanship of God and were created in Christ Jesus. Ezekiel 36:26,27 says that he puts his spirit within us. 2 Peter 1:3 says all the things that pertain to life and Godliness are given to us. Deut. 30:6 says the Lord will circumcise your heart. Same with Jer. 31:33 and 32:40. These are not propositions offered to you, they are divine actions. Look at the story of Lydia. Here was a woman who had come along quite a way towards God with the external means she had yet scripture says God opened her heart. I fully see how one can come to a conclusion that Calvinism goes too far in some areas but honestly, I get a little frustrated when someone really thinks that these guys haven't read the Bible too!

My problem with Calvinistic determinism is if they say that God, before people even existed, decided that many would be damned to Hell in an active, causal sense. But when it comes to a study of human free will and what exactly that means, they seem to be better than your system, I think.

 

You make these sound like harsh prerequisites instead of the grand priviledges and gifts that they are.

Are you like our resident pelagian who says faith is a choice of the creature instead of the assurance and conviction that it is?

 

I can understand your frustration with how some approach the biblical text. It drives me crazy also.

Does God interact with His creation, of course. Does He cause some to believe and not others, well according to calvinism He does but not according to scripture. Scripture shows us that we will be held responsible for who we say Jesus is, just another man or Lord and savior.

God acting in the lives of believers is what we expect Him to do. God uses various means to bring His people {Israel} back to Him is shown in numerous passages. When we look at Jer 31:33 & Jer 32:40 we see God establishing a New Covenant which will not happen until Christ returns.
What we see in Lydia is a Jew that worshiped God but upon hearing the gospel message trust in the risen Christ. We see this understanding clearly established in Eph 1:13.

How God interacts with those that know Him is different from how He does with those that have not trusted in Him.

As you said those calvinist preachers know what the bible says but still teach what it does not.

 

No. It's just that with your view of soteriology, where someone is justified from eternity, the argument is going to be coming from a completely different angle than that which @Silverhair and I are discussing. I am coming from the viewpoint that our free will is damaged to the point of there being no possibility of coming to Christ by faith without divine intervention. But I believe we still have to come and are born in a lost condition. I use Puritan Calvinism a lot and they don't believe in eternal justification for the most part.

That would be a good debate topic - whether a position of eternal justification is closer to the Calvinism of Owen than Owen was to Arminianism, since he disagreed with both.

 

I believe we are priviledged to come:

29 because to you it hath been granted in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer in his behalf: Phil 1

25 in meekness correcting them that oppose themselves; if peradventure God may give them repentance unto the knowledge of the truth, 2 Tim 2

8 the Spirit where he willeth doth blow, and his voice thou dost hear, but thou hast not known whence he cometh, and whither he goeth; thus is every one who hath been born of the Spirit.`Jn 3

6 Seeing it is God, that said, Light shall shine out of darkness, who shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. 2 Cor 4

21 But he that doeth the truth cometh to the light, that his works may be made manifest, that they have been wrought in God. Jn 3