Featured The BEST argument against Calvinism . . .

These threads do show that the main issue is how one perceives the meaning of free will. The original video said so and Edwards said so in his book on free will. And the issue goes further to what you think the natural state of our free will is without any influence of the Holy Spirit. We just disagree and how you view it will be determined by other things like what happened, if anything to our will due to the fall of Adam and so on. I can tell you that the debate we have on here is much like what Edwards and Arminius discussed years ago and what Lennox and Flowers and White discuss today. So I don't think we will solve it.

 

It wasn't a 'nothing post', it pointed to a depth in scripture that you're evidently incapable of grasping and yet persist on slandering those that do embrace it.

You're shallow and repulsive.

 

You're right. I don't believe in a limited atonement and I think that in some sense grace is resistible so I can't really be in the "Calvinist camp". But the view of free will that Edwards put forth I find to be the best I have read. The only thing I'm not sure of is how the Holy Spirit works. The modern Arminians say it's more of an "influence and response" action rather than a "cause and effect" action like the Calvinists say and maybe they have a point. My theology develops and changes, as do many others, even smart people. It actually would seem odd if it didn't. There is quite a bit of diversity in the beliefs of theologians. Most Calvinists say Baxter was a wreck theologically, and many nowadays question Piper and even Edwards on justification. Even Martin Luther started out just asking the Catholics to stop some of the indulgence silliness.

Now in your case, I can say that if you really have a view of justification occurring before a person individually believes then your theology is in error. I realize some Calvinists try to say that regeneration occurs before faith and I disagree although there probably is some enlightening or even some quickening before faith. But those of you that say justification occurs from the beginning of time or from the time of Christ's death I am saying that you are in serious error. Salvation then becomes no more than coming to understand that you are elect rather than repenting and believing the gospel. Even R.C. Sproul said that before an elect person is saved - they are lost. I hope that part is clear enough for you.

 

Thanks. You are an honest mugwump, which I've no problem with. One of my favorite characters on this board was @HankD (I miss him), a self-professed mugwump, and a friend.

 

KY you are the chief bloviator. You just can not stand it when others do not follow your errant philosophy.

 

Liar! This is another of your dishonest replies. Show where I do any of the wordy windy posts like you and Dave generate. My posts are concise and to the point. You're a liar in every aspect of the word. Liar.

You're shallow and repulsive and a liar.

 

I do find that those that have nothing to say resort to slander and name calling. I do expect better of someone that calls themselves a Christian.

 

As usual you have nothing of substance to say. Ky you are showing your true self.

 

You should not try to put words in my mouth, that just shows bad form on your part.

The bible does not say God has chosen to save all but it does say He desires all to be saved and to come to the knowledge of truth . 1 Timothy 2:4

The bible also tells us that we have to believe the gospel message before we are saved. Ephesians 1:13 & Romans 10:9

And we should not forget that the bible is clear that it is God that saves those that believe Ephesians 2:8

And we are even told what we need to believe for our salvation. Romans 1:16

But we are told that we can confess Christ and be saved or deny Him and be lost. Matthew 10:32-33

So it would seem that since God desires all to be saved but we can actually deny Him and be lost we are not thwarting His plan.

His plan is quite simple really.
John 3:14 "As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up;
John 3:15 so that whoever believes will in Him have eternal life.

and if you ask why
John 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.
John 3:17 "For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.

I just trust scripture as the Holy Spirit inspired it. I do not have to alter the meaning of words or twist scripture to fit some system as some are want to do.

 

This is a matter of how we understand free will in relation to ones salvation. While we do disagree in that respect we have civil disagreements.

I enjoy good civil discussions as we then grow in our faith as we defend our views. Iron sharpens iron.

This seems to be one of those topics that we circle back to quite often. Perhaps because it is so central to salvation.

Solve it, don't think so, but that does not mean we can't try.

 

2309 θέλω thelo [thel’-o] or ἑθέλω ethelo [eth-el’-o] in certain tenses θελέω theleo [thel-eh’-o] and ἑθελέω etheleo [eth-el-eh’-o] which are otherwise obsolete

apparently strengthened from the alternate form of 138; v; TDNT- 3:44,318; [{See TDNT 303 }]

AV-will/would 159, will/would have 16, desire 13, desirous 3, list 3, to will 2, misc 4; 210

1) to will, have in mind, intend
1a) to be resolved or determined, to purpose
1b) to desire, to wish
1c) to love
1c1) to like to do a thing, be fond of doing
1d) to take delight in, have pleasure

14 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.
15 For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.
16 If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good.
17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.
19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.
20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
21 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.
22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:
23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.
24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?
25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

This man said he had will to know and to keep God's perfect law but he did not have the power because of the weakness of the flesh, until Jesus came. A man who reads and believes Rom 7 and 8 should never again doubt if the not yet born again man has a will. This man did, he said. He also had a conscience, knowing good and evil. If he did not possess these two things he would be more a dog than a man and there would be no salvation for him because he would not need it. Sin is the transgression of the law of God. This man tells of a conflict between his inner man, his soul, who desires to be reconciled to God by keeping his law, and his flesh, through which sin works in him to hinder him.

 

The question here is, do you think the man described here is a good Jew or a Christian? Does a non- Christian "want to know and keep God's perfect law"? In your life as a Christian, are you saying that you never have the inner conflict and battles described in this passage?

Good men interpret it both ways, and most agree that this passage is not describing what should be a normal, Christian life of someone lead by the Spirit, but it is just as hard to believe that Paul here is describing a natural man.

In other words, only a Christian could say the above. If that "inward man" who delights in the law of God is not a description of being born again then what is?

And if that is the case, the passage is a perfect example of the total inability of man to follow God. Remember, the argument is about the defects in our own will, not that we don't have one of our own. The worst thing to happen to us is to be left to follow our own natural inclinations, without the restraints of God or his Spirit. Being "given over" to follow our own lusts and desires. That is the result of our free will, and all Calvinists teach that that is our default, primary, natural inclination. We still have natural conscience and a common grace or the species would kill itself off but on your own you have no inner man that delights in the law in a true and pure manner.

 

And following up, I think that we, in our natural selves don't have the ability to conjure up, or reason our way or make a proper, lasting decision to somehow make ourselves delight in following the laws of God. Something has to be given to us beyond the knowledge of the propositions of the gospel message. There is actual work of the Holy Spirit upon us in some way. And to claim that if we can't explain that logically according to our high view of "free will" then the concept is false to me means that you need to cut our the third chapter of John, where it says the Spirit moves as he wants and is like the wind - all we can really know for sure is the effects.

 

First of all Dave let me say that I have appreciated your comments and the attitude you have maintained on this board over time and I like you. However, I believe you have allowed the Reformed teaching to warp your thinking. So, I am going to answer your questions above from a non Reformed belief of the scriptures.

Question #1 - Rom 7:1 sets the context for Rom 7: through Rom 11:12 as being a Jewish context, after which Paul begins speaking to gentiles in his letter he wrote in 58 AD and who did not have any experience to draw from the 1500 years of OT history of the Mosaic law and the covenants God began making with this family, beginning with Abraham. - Rom 11:13 For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office: It is important what he says here going forward to gentiles. No one believes what he says. I beseech you that you be not one of them.

Question #2 - When the law of Moses was the operative principle of Divine dealing, Israel, the nation, were the only people who were under it's constraints. This means there was no such thing as a Christian during those days. The gentiles were never under the Law of Moses as an operative principle of Divine dealing either then or now. The law of the conscience, knowing good and evil, was their compass towards God. This all changed for both groups but not at the same time when Jesus Christ died for the sins of the world and rose again thus making the way for sins to be separated from the sinner by his gospel. As a Reformed 5 pointer, I do not expect you to understand this or to believe it, but one cannot be saved unless they do.

I am saying that when I grieve the Holy Spirit who indwells me since becoming a Christian because of my words or actions then I am troubled because sweet fellowship is broken until confession. But this presupposes that I have the Spirit indwelling me. This is not the context of one under the law of God. All Jews under the operative principle of the law for their guide to godliness would experience the same frustration of Paul in Rom 7. They would understand that the law is the spiritual agency that makes them approved of God but it would constantly condemn them because they would always fall short no matter how hard they tried to keep it. This is Paul's dilemma.
Romans 7:14 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.
So the context of Romans 7 has nothing to do with the Christian faith. Romans 8 has everything to do with it. Romans 8 is the answer to Paul's dilemma.

He says he is, Dave. Look what he says that can not be true of you or me or Paul after he is born again by the Spirit of Christ. Read it and do skip over it.

Ro 7:20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.

Ro 7:23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.

This is the failing doctrine of the Reformed. If sin is dwelling in you then the Spirit of God is not dwelling in you. God does not dwell with sin. Why do you think that Jesus Christ had to shed his blood? It was to wash away sin of the individual who receives him by faith.

These verses I am going to quote are real and true.

Hebrews 9:22
And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.



Titus 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
THIS DID NOT HAPPEN UNDER THE LAW!
This next one might not be in your Bible and shame on you if it is not;

Re 1:5 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,

You have missed what it means to be a man among the sons of men. This is a reason the Reformed should not be followed. The inward man he is referencing here is the "soul." The soul is the part of man that knows. It gives him his personality. It is who he is. It is the eternal person who will exist forever. The body, the second part of a man is where the soul abides. It is that which we receive from Adam. It is weak and carnal and is called a tabernacle for the soul. Paul says this in Romans 7;
Romans 7:18
For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.

Ask yourself, if the Holy Spirit dwells in his tabernacle, would he say such a thing? Do you see his point?

That is not the case. I am sorry Dave, but someone made that up and you have bit into the same apple. The argument has absolutely nothing to do with defects in our own wills. It is dealing with a Jew under the law of Moses as the operative principle of God's dealing with his nation with whom he has made covenants and has given his law. Now the purpose of his law is clearly stated as the agent to bring them to Christ who can empower them to live pleasing to God, having imputed the righteousness the law required of them.

You as a gentile have never been under the law of Moses and required to keep it as an expression of you faith. What the scriptures have is context, something all Reformed kick to the side God has made himself and his ways known through this Jewish nation. We know of his holiness because of the law and we know of his long suffering and mercy because of how he dealt with his imperfect people, and his plan to provide them his own perfect righteousness as his gift to them. We now know as gentiles of his marvelous grace in that he has opened the door of faith to us and allowed us to be made partakers of these unsearchable riches in Christ Jesus even though he made no promises of salvation to any of us and is under no obligation to us until his promise through Peter first, then Paul, that he would receive as many as will come to him in repentance and faith in the work his Son Jesus did on the cross of Calvary and give them the righteousness of Christ as well. Now he has obligated himself to us.

There is no doctrine in the Bible that the Reformed does not skew to some degree IMO. You need to seriously re-think your Reformed position I think.

 

I appreciate that. In all fairness I should mention that my former pastor, who is Reformed, and Dr. Martin Lloyd-Jones, who was reformed, both take a similar position to you on the meaning of this passage. And Lloyd-Jones pointed out that most of the early church fathers, prior to Augustine, agreed that this is not about a Christian. His sermons are on line.

What I was trying to show was Paul's consciousness of difficulty with his will. Martyn Lloyd-Jones agrees with you on the idea of Paul explaining this to Jews who were familiar with the law but he viewed Paul as describing, not a normal Christian experience but as a person who has come under conviction and enlightening and has started understanding his own sinfulness and inability to change things. So, relating to the degree of impairment of the human will, without the direct action of the Holy Spirit, my position is that a passage like Romans 7 and with the lead in to Romans 8 bolsters the case of the Calvinists that we are helpless without the help of the Holy Spirit.

So my point would be this. Knowing, as Paul clearly states in Romans chapter 7 and especially in chapter 8, about the necessity of the Spirit, how do you handle the idea insisted upon by many non-Calvinists, that you have a perfectly sufficient ability in your self, in your natural state to reverse this and begin to "walk after the Spirit"? In other words, can a person simply hear the gospel message and decide to do this. (This is not strictly a Calvinist vs non-Calvinist argument. G. Campbell Morgan, who was Martin Lloyd-Jones's predecessor and not a Calvinist, and Wesley, and Arminius himself all said that the work of the Holy Spirit, acting directly upon the person hearing the gospel message, was needed in order for a person to come to Christ.) In other words, while they would all have said that the grace provided was resistible, unlike a Calvinist, they all believed it was essential, and they had the same basic view of what free will is as some of the Calvinists, at least they had the belief that our will was depraved to the point of a natural inability to come to Christ. That is all I am arguing in this thread.

To summarize, my problems with Reformed theology are with the limited atonement, which I reject, and I think that the grace of God drawing us, though essential for us to ever come to Christ, can be resisted to a point where God judicially decides to leave us to ourselves.

A final note. If you have time, listen to Martyn Lloyd-Jones sermon on the last half of Romans 7. Not only will you find that he, though reformed, basically agrees with you on this, but in the first 10 minutes he talks a little about how every theological system has flaws and we need to understand that as we look at these issues.

 

So, what do YOU think Dave? Is it a 'conflict' common to all Christians or not?

Would love to see you take a stand.

 

The conflict is common to every Christian at times if they are honest, and you are completely correct in the post you linked to. It has also at times been what I have personally experienced. But was that the primary exegesis and primary intention of Paul when he wrote that portion of Romans? And should it be the constant pattern of a Christian's life? I hope not. I think that portions like that have a primary purpose but then I also think they have secondary uses that can benefit us by being there.

Ky. I think you are being unfair here. You should go to MLJ's sermon website and listen to what he said about adhering rigidly to various theological positions in his sermon on Romans 7. I honestly don't think it is important whether you are a Calvinist or an Arminian, which is why I don't "take a stand". When it comes to defending the idea, which happens to coincide with Calvinism, that we are totally unable to come to Christ without the aid of the Holy Spirit working directly on us - who on here has defended that more than me. I take a stand where I think it's important but I think you are just foolish if you take a stand for no other reason than to impress the group you want to belong to.

When it comes to the proper exegesis of Romans 7 I know good men who come down on both sides (there are actually 3 sides but that's another debate).

 

Quit beating around the bush. Tell us what you really think