Calvinism needs to add words to scripture

[Alan Dale Gross]

Are we going to apply the same metric to Martin Luther and rejoin the Catholic Church?

What metric? Throwing out the baby with the bathwater?

I'm not suggesting to throw a man's life work out because he acted out in a portion of his life things that we only experience by breaking those Laws, Spiritually.

We just know that those portions of our lives lived sinning deeply, are not being Led by the Holy Spirit.

 

[Alan Dale Gross]

If you reject Calvinism, are you really prepared to go with the logical necessity of a hypothetical situation where God says to Jesus something like " Well, you have atoned for everyone. Now let's see if anyone is willing at this point to come aboard and accept our invitation".

The end logic of that scenario includes the possibility that after Jesus Came, died, was buried, and rose again, that NNE WOULD EVER COME TO CHRIST AND HE WOULD HAVE UTTERLY DIED IN VAIN.

 

[Alan Dale Gross]

My understanding of Calvinism is that they couldn’t be turned away because they were never called, never regenerated, never elected or chosen, never been given the opportunity to reject a God that they never were given the opportunity to come to. According to Calvinism they couldn’t believe in Christ because they are not elected to.

Certainty, Not Innocence: ​

Divine Decree and Human Responsibility​

"Saying it’s unjust for God to Judge sinners because they can't help sinning is like saying a man who borrowed $20 million, squandered it in Vegas, and now claims he shouldn't have to repay because he’s broke is being treated unfairly.

"Our inability is Moral, not Mechanical. We will not come to God, not because we lack the faculties,
but because we love darkness rather than Light (John 3:19). God is not holding us back.

"That’s precisely why Grace is Grace, God Gives what we would never choose on our own.

Visitor:
I’m confused by your response. Is it not true that we have a Sin Nature because God Decreed it would be so?

"And isn’t it true according to your system that one cannot Repent unless God Regenerates them first?

"Isn’t it also true that God Judges us for not Repenting of our sin?

"If the above are all true, then definitionally God would have to be unjust. 

"To my knowledge, all orthodox segments of Christianity agree that we have a Moral Inability.

"The difference is, reformed thought says
that you can’t even believe in the One Who can Save you, unless God Allows you to.

Response:
The confusion here comes from collapsing God’s Decree into Moral Culpability, which Scripture never does.

"A clear Biblical example is the crucifixion itself. Acts 2:23 and Acts 4:27–28 explicitly declare
that Jesus was Delivered up according to the Definite Plan and Foreknowledge of God, Predestined by the Father.

"Yet the very same passages identify the human actors as lawless and wicked men
who are held fully accountable for what they did.

"Scripture affirms both without hesitation.

"God’s Sovereign Decree establishes certainty, not innocence.

"We hold both to be True because the Bible does.

"The inability to hold them together is not a Biblical problem, but a theological one.

"God did not coerce those actors. They carried out the crucifixion willingly and voluntarily.

You said, “Reformed thought says that you can’t even believe in the one who can save you unless God allows you to.”

"Again, Scripture never treats Inability as an excuse when that Inability is rooted in a Corrupt Will.

"Jesus says plainly that sinners cannot come to Him, not because they lack faculties, but because they will not (John 5:40).

"They love darkness and hate the Light (John 3:19).

"This is why Christ says, “No man can come unto me, unless the Father Who Sent Me Grants it” (John 6:65).

"That is not a theological system. That is Christ’s Own Explanation of unbelief.

"The Giving of the Father to the Son precedes their coming to Faith in Him, according to our Lord Himself.

"And in the same context Jesus Declares,
“All that the Father giveth me shall come to me” (John 6:37).

"Not some of those Given, but all."

 

[Alan Dale Gross]

And ‘this is why your conference speaker must publicly justify his decision to evangelize. Because in spite of teaching that salvation is limited to those who God chose, he now offers a wide invitation which is right for him to do. I commend him for it. But I don’t understand how a Calvinist can justify living in both worlds at the same time. I gathered, in spite of his own declaration, that he doesn’t really understand it either.

"Does Calvinism Kill Evangelism? ​

A Conversation About Faith, Grace, and the Gospel Call"​

Objection:​

"Calvinism, in practice, teaches that there’s “nothing you can do” to be saved.

"This leaves people thinking they must wait passively for God to Act.

"It undermines the clear Biblical call to respond in Faith, as though Faith isn’t necessary or isn’t something we ourselves must do. But Scripture presents Faith as imperative—the means by which we access God’s Grace.

Response:​

"Thank you for your thoughtful concern.
But I must respectfully clarify that this is a misrepresentation of what Calvinism actually teaches.

"You suggest Calvinists believe there's "nothing I can do" and therefore downplay the necessity of Faith.
That’s simply false.

"The heart of the Gospel we Preach is this:
we are Saved by Grace alone, through Faith alone, in Christ alone (Ephesians 2:8–9).

"No one is Justified without Faith. No one is Saved who does not Repent and Believe the Gospel.

"The Apostle Paul said it clearly: “Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be Saved” (Acts 16:31).

"Calvinists affirm this unapologetically, because Scripture does.

"As for the concern about passivity: the idea that the Doctrine of Election leads to Spiritual Inactivity is also untrue.

"Even John Calvin addressed this when he said:

“How do we know that God has Elected us before the Creation of the World? By believing in Jesus Christ.”

"We do not teach that people are Saved apart from Faith and Repentance.

"Rather, we insist that everyone who Repents and Believes the Gospel will be Saved, without exception.

"If someone claims that Faith and Repentance are unnecessary, they’re not representing Calvinism.

They’re denying the Gospel.

Objection:​

"But this is exactly what I was taught, over and over from pulpits: “There is nothing you can do.”

"It may not reflect technical theology, but in practice,
Calvinism teaches that we are passive, even in responding to the Gospel.

"According to Calvinism’s first point, we can’t even choose to believe.
So, practically speaking, there is nothing we can do.

"Faith in that system becomes something done to us—not something Commanded.

"And yet in Scripture, Faith is almost always in the imperative.

Response:​

"Thank you again for pressing the issue. This is important.

"But your critique doesn’t account for what historic, confessional Calvinism actually teaches, (nor what we do in practice) especially regarding Preaching and the necessity of Faith.

"You ask: Why Preach if man can do nothing?

"Because Preaching is the very Means God has Ordained to bring the Spiritually dead to Life.

"As Paul writes:

“How will they believe in Him of Whom they have not Heard? And how will they hear without a Preacher?” (Romans 10:14)
“Faith comes by hearing, and hearing through the Word of Christ.” (Romans 10:17)

"The Doctrine of Election is not a substitute for the Gospel, it’s the reason the Gospel Succeeds.

"No one is Saved by Election alone. Election is God’s Eternal Decree,
but it is through the Gospel that He Brings His Elect to Faith (2 Thessalonians 2:13–14).

"What Confessional Reformed Theology Actually Teaches"​

“Faith, thus Receiving and Resting on Christ and His Righteousness, is the alone Instrument of Justification.”
— Westminster Confession of Faith 11.2

“The Grace of Faith... is the Work of the Spirit of Christ in their hearts, and is ordinarily Wrought by the ministry of the Word...”
— Westminster Confession of Faith 14.1

"Every true Calvinist preaches and calls sinners to Repent and believe. It’s not optional, it’s essential.

"I do this every time I proclaim the Gospel: “Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved.”

"We believe God uses that very Call to Awaken Faith in dead hearts (James 1:18; 1 Peter 1:23).

"As Paul says in 2 Corinthians 4:6, “God, Who said ‘Let Light Shine out of darkness,’ has Shone in our hearts...”

"What You Described Is Not Calvinism, It’s Hyper-Calvinism"​

"Denying the need to Preach or the need to call sinners to Faith is not Calvinism.

"It's a distortion that historic Reformed churches have always condemned, just as we reject Arminianism.

"Anyone who says we shouldn’t call sinners to believe and repent has misunderstood Christianity itself.

Note:
"Anyone who says we shouldn’t call sinners to believe and repent", by Preaching the Gospel, HATES THE GOSPEL
AND THE GOD WHO COMMANDS HIS MINISTERS TO PREACH THE GOSPEL,
BY THEM BEING DISOBEDIANT TO THAT SAME GOD THEY THEMSELVES PROCLAIM TO BE SOVEREIGN.

"That is a denial of the Gospel, not a faithful application of Election.

"We Preach to everyone, because God has Chosen to Save His people through the Preaching of the Gospel.

Note: Election is not Salvation.

Election doesn’t make Preaching unnecessary, Election makes Preaching Effective.

"And everyone who turns to Christ in Faith will be Saved.

“God now Commands all people everywhere to Repent.” (Acts 17:30)
“Whoever believes in Him shall not Perish but have Eternal Life.” (John 3:16)

"God Holds no one back from Believing."

 

[Ben1445]

Certainty, Not Innocence:​

Divine Decree and Human Responsibility​

"Saying it’s unjust for God to Judge sinners because they can't help sinning is like saying a man who borrowed $20 million, squandered it in Vegas, and now claims he shouldn't have to repay because he’s broke is being treated unfairly.

"Our inability is Moral, not Mechanical. We will not come to God, not because we lack the faculties,
but because we love darkness rather than Light (John 3:19). God is not holding us back.

"That’s precisely why Grace is Grace, God Gives what we would never choose on our own.

Visitor:
I’m confused by your response. Is it not true that we have a Sin Nature because God Decreed it would be so?

"And isn’t it true according to your system that one cannot Repent unless God Regenerates them first?

"Isn’t it also true that God Judges us for not Repenting of our sin?

"If the above are all true, then definitionally God would have to be unjust. 

"To my knowledge, all orthodox segments of Christianity agree that we have a Moral Inability.

"The difference is, reformed thought says
that you can’t even believe in the One Who can Save you, unless God Allows you to.

Response:
The confusion here comes from collapsing God’s Decree into Moral Culpability, which Scripture never does.

"A clear Biblical example is the crucifixion itself. Acts 2:23 and Acts 4:27–28 explicitly declare
that Jesus was Delivered up according to the Definite Plan and Foreknowledge of God, Predestined by the Father.

"Yet the very same passages identify the human actors as lawless and wicked men
who are held fully accountable for what they did.

"Scripture affirms both without hesitation.

"God’s Sovereign Decree establishes certainty, not innocence.

"We hold both to be True because the Bible does.

"The inability to hold them together is not a Biblical problem, but a theological one.

"God did not coerce those actors. They carried out the crucifixion willingly and voluntarily.

You said, “Reformed thought says that you can’t even believe in the one who can save you unless God allows you to.”

"Again, Scripture never treats Inability as an excuse when that Inability is rooted in a Corrupt Will.

"Jesus says plainly that sinners cannot come to Him, not because they lack faculties, but because they will not (John 5:40).

"They love darkness and hate the Light (John 3:19).

"This is why Christ says, “No man can come unto me, unless the Father Who Sent Me Grants it” (John 6:65).

"That is not a theological system. That is Christ’s Own Explanation of unbelief.

"The Giving of the Father to the Son precedes their coming to Faith in Him, according to our Lord Himself.

"And in the same context Jesus Declares,
“All that the Father giveth me shall come to me” (John 6:37).

"Not some of those Given, but all."

I have never said that God is unjust to judge sinners.

And all of the saints delivered to Christ will come to Him. So will all the sinners come to Him. So will all the things in heaven and in earth.
When the saints come into His possession, they are adopted.
When the sinners come into His possession they are judged.
When heaven and earth come into His possession, He will do with them whatever is just.
This is the meaning of all things shall come to me. If it meant only elect persons coming, you would find a colon instead of a semi colon

 

[Ben1445]

"Does Calvinism Kill Evangelism?​

A Conversation About Faith, Grace, and the Gospel Call"​

Objection:​

"Calvinism, in practice, teaches that there’s “nothing you can do” to be saved.

"This leaves people thinking they must wait passively for God to Act.

"It undermines the clear Biblical call to respond in Faith, as though Faith isn’t necessary or isn’t something we ourselves must do. But Scripture presents Faith as imperative—the means by which we access God’s Grace.

Response:​

"Thank you for your thoughtful concern.
But I must respectfully clarify that this is a misrepresentation of what Calvinism actually teaches.

"You suggest Calvinists believe there's "nothing I can do" and therefore downplay the necessity of Faith.
That’s simply false.

"The heart of the Gospel we Preach is this:
we are Saved by Grace alone, through Faith alone, in Christ alone (Ephesians 2:8–9).

"No one is Justified without Faith. No one is Saved who does not Repent and Believe the Gospel.

"The Apostle Paul said it clearly: “Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be Saved” (Acts 16:31).

"Calvinists affirm this unapologetically, because Scripture does.

"As for the concern about passivity: the idea that the Doctrine of Election leads to Spiritual Inactivity is also untrue.

"Even John Calvin addressed this when he said:

"We do not teach that people are Saved apart from Faith and Repentance.

"Rather, we insist that everyone who Repents and Believes the Gospel will be Saved, without exception.

"If someone claims that Faith and Repentance are unnecessary, they’re not representing Calvinism.

They’re denying the Gospel.

Objection:​

"But this is exactly what I was taught, over and over from pulpits: “There is nothing you can do.”

"It may not reflect technical theology, but in practice,
Calvinism teaches that we are passive, even in responding to the Gospel.

"According to Calvinism’s first point, we can’t even choose to believe.
So, practically speaking, there is nothing we can do.

"Faith in that system becomes something done to us—not something Commanded.

"And yet in Scripture, Faith is almost always in the imperative.

Response:​

"Thank you again for pressing the issue. This is important.

"But your critique doesn’t account for what historic, confessional Calvinism actually teaches, (nor what we do in practice) especially regarding Preaching and the necessity of Faith.

"You ask: Why Preach if man can do nothing?

"Because Preaching is the very Means God has Ordained to bring the Spiritually dead to Life.

"As Paul writes:

"The Doctrine of Election is not a substitute for the Gospel, it’s the reason the Gospel Succeeds.

"No one is Saved by Election alone. Election is God’s Eternal Decree,
but it is through the Gospel that He Brings His Elect to Faith (2 Thessalonians 2:13–14).

"What Confessional Reformed Theology Actually Teaches"​

"Every true Calvinist preaches and calls sinners to Repent and believe. It’s not optional, it’s essential.

"I do this every time I proclaim the Gospel: “Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved.”

"We believe God uses that very Call to Awaken Faith in dead hearts (James 1:18; 1 Peter 1:23).

"As Paul says in 2 Corinthians 4:6, “God, Who said ‘Let Light Shine out of darkness,’ has Shone in our hearts...”

"What You Described Is Not Calvinism, It’s Hyper-Calvinism"​

"Denying the need to Preach or the need to call sinners to Faith is not Calvinism.

"It's a distortion that historic Reformed churches have always condemned, just as we reject Arminianism.

"Anyone who says we shouldn’t call sinners to believe and repent has misunderstood Christianity itself.

Note:
"Anyone who says we shouldn’t call sinners to believe and repent", by Preaching the Gospel, HATES THE GOSPEL
AND THE GOD WHO COMMANDS HIS MINISTERS TO PREACH THE GOSPEL,
BY THEM BEING DISOBEDIANT TO THAT SAME GOD THEY THEMSELVES PROCLAIM TO BE SOVEREIGN.

"That is a denial of the Gospel, not a faithful application of Election.

"We Preach to everyone, because God has Chosen to Save His people through the Preaching of the Gospel.

Note: Election is not Salvation.

Election doesn’t make Preaching unnecessary, Election makes Preaching Effective.

"And everyone who turns to Christ in Faith will be Saved.

"God Holds no one back from Believing."

Thank you for that exercise in mental gymnastics.
I am not a fan though, of word games and mental contortion.

Do you have any of your own thoughts? From what source do you copy and paste all of your material? Surely you would like others to read what you have since it is important enough for you to share.

But I usually pass over your posts because they lack any clear difference of who says what.
Your posts seem to be a hodgepodge of information that you intend to be stepping stones, but they are disjointed enough to make them leaps too long to make. You don’t supply enough context.
It may be merely your format that makes it difficult to make sense of, but I don’t often find any help in your content. Because of this I usually pass over it oftener as I do with Oseas3.
Concise answers are better.


And hypercalvinism is just someone taking Calvinism seriously.
I understand that there are different definitions. I may be able to make different definitions for tulip that make it conformable to Scripture.

I would like for once to see a Calvinist straiten out what they call a hyper Calvinist. I think that if they did more of this, it would help the non Calvinist understand the difference.
I don’t have the credentials to start that thread.

 

[DaveXR650]

Its about quite a bit more than that, even for a compatibalist! I have listened to you and many others quite a bit and if this defined calvinism, everyone would be one.

No there are far more severe differences. That was clarified for me in this thread.

That could account for Spurgeon being popular with Calvinists as well as fundamentalists. The same thing could be said of Horatius Bonar and John Bunyan. And it could account for Martyn Lloyd-Jones cautioning fellow Calvinists not to let discussions of determinism overwhelm everything else.

And yes, since what we call Calvinism is broad, it could also account for the less than flattering things some Calvinists on this board have said about Spurgeon, and even John Owen. In fact, the most viscous attacks I have had on this forum have been from Calvinists, especially the time when a Calvinist came on and blasted some Baptist for using Rev. 3:20, "I stand at the door and knock" for evangelism and I pointed out about 4 different Calvinist Puritan preachers who did the exact same thing with that passage.

I recommend reading the Puritans and the later guys like Spurgeon and Bonar and look for how often deterministic philosophy is put forth compared to just basic good teaching. You have undoubtably already read the Calvinist book in largest circulation, Bunyans' "Pilgrims Progress". How much of that is devoted to converting you to a deterministic philosophy? I promise you if you visit a Reformed Baptist church you will feel comfortable and probably not notice much of a difference in practice.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Do you have any of your own thoughts?

He certainly does, but sometimes he copies and pastes from various blogs, which can be very helpful.

From what source do you copy and paste all of your material?

All you have to do is to click on the blue title of the post and you will find out.

 

[Psalty]

.

"God Holds no one back from Believing."

He just ordains that they will have Total Inability to believe. But He’s not holding people back because He just makes them never want to believe in the first place… no problem!

 

[Martin Marprelate]

He just ordains that they will have Total Inability to believe. But He’s not holding people back because He just makes them never want to believe in the first place… no problem!

You still don't get it, even after all this time! If God did not ordain some to salvation, nobody would be saved. You have had John 3:19 and Romans 3:11 waved under your nose so many times, but you are never one to let facts get in the way of your prejudices, are you?
But who exactly are you to tell God what He ought to do?
'But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, "Why have you made me like this?" Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honour and one for dishonour?
What if God, wanting to show His wrath,and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?'

 

[Ben1445]

He certainly does, but sometimes he copies and pastes from various blogs, which can be very helpful.

All you have to do is to click on the blue title of the post and you will find out.

Thanks

He uses so many colors I overlooked that.

 

[Psalty]

You still don't get it, even after all this time! If God did not ordain some to salvation, nobody would be saved. You have had John 3:19 and Romans 3:11 waved under your nose so many times, but you are never one to let facts get in the way of your prejudices, are you?

So God ordains that everyone has Total Inability and that no one wants Him, but He then ordains some to be saved.

And you want me to just look at the second group and forget the first group that God has ordained Inability for on your system?

Im not talking about your Saved group… Im talking about the first one. Your the one that refuses to talk about the first group.

 

[DaveXR650]

And hypercalvinism is just someone taking Calvinism seriously.
I understand that there are different definitions. I may be able to make different definitions for tulip that make it conformable to Scripture.

All you have to do is get a copy of R.C. Sproul's "Chosen By God". He changes almost all the letters in TULIP. But then it's harder to remember. As a matter of fact I don't remember, but I can find it if you really want to know.

Ben. Let me ask you and all you guys who hate Calvinism because God choosing some for salvation and not others seems "unfair". Why in the world are you a believer at all? I'm sure you are like me in that I pray for say a good report when I go in for a screening, or that I might have a safe trip when traveling - knowing full well that many people, just as worthy as me, will not have a good report or a safe trip at all and they pray too. Do you just accept God's grace or do you immediately set out to find out why he is so unjust to others. If you do just accept God's grace in these other matters, as I'm sure you do and I do too, then why the big problem when all truly guilty sinners who are not pursuing righteousness or God's will are not all saved, or even as it should be obvious, not even given an equal chance at it. This is especially puzzling to me when in the case of salvation, we all believe that everyone without exception who does petition God will indeed have that request granted whereas in the other areas, the request is not always granted and yet you don't go after God in those cases.

Since some of you non Calvinists like to impugn the Calvinists for creating a false view of God might I suggest the same for you in that maybe it is true that in the case of salvation what you really are thinking is that the difference is that you indeed have in some way better sense or wisdom for seeing your unsaved condition than the rest of the wretches or maybe there is indeed some merit in your actual coming to Christ that contributes at least a small, but decisive element to your salvation.

I'm not picking on Ben but throw this open to all free willers who might help me understand this. Arminians and regular Baptists can also reply because although you indeed believe "grace" is needed to come to Christ since "enough" is given to everyone it seems to me that logically the same situation is the end result. Let's pick at the logical implications of everyone's theology, not just Calvinists.

 

[Ascetic X]

There is no personal merit accrued in a person for coming to Christ when they hear the gospel explained. But there is an exercise of human will involved, an obedience which God respects and rewards. If we are commanded by Jesus to repent and believe, we must, even in an unsaved state, be able to do so.

Faith comes by hearing and hearing comes by the Word. When the scriptures are heard, they instill believing in a person. The Word selects the person as the person accepts the Word.

Why one person responds to the gospel, while another does not, is a mystery that belongs to God.

To quarrel about sovereignty, total depravity, limited atonement, or free will vs. predestination, is a fool’s errand. It goes nowhere and does not make Christians look good.

Theology is often the worst thing that ever happened to Christianity.

Jeremiah 29:13

You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart.

Mark 1:14,15

Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God,

And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.

 

[DaveXR650]

@Ascetic X. I have no problem with your answer and find it perfectly acceptable, as well as predictable. Especially your comments on the problems with doing theology at all. But what you need to understand, and it shows in your answer, is that if you really believe what you say then don't come on and attack other peoples theology when in fact it turns out that not only don't you have any answers but now you don't want even to ask the questions.

You start out by flat out saying that coming to Christ is an exercise of the will that is subject to reward by God. And that is right after saying that there is no personal merit. That is a direct contradiction. Then you go on and say that if we are commanded to repent and believe then we must be able to do so. Here again, a neophyte in theology would instantly recognize that the problem of inability in Calvinistic theology is that it is a moral inability because the problem causing our inability is only that we tend to not want to repent and believe or we think we don't need to. Any beginner Calvinist would tell you that with such an attitude no indeed, you will not come to Christ, and thus because it is a sure thing it is said that you are thus "unable", yet in truth the reason you are unable is because of your own free will!

The fact is, you guys have come on here with a high sounding conciliatory tone, at first, and as the thread went on you became more and more insulting of the theology of others and have picked at perceived deficiencies, yet cannot defend the obvious deficiencies of your own theology, or in your case, your lack of coherent theology.

So, I have your answer, or non-answer. Now I will wait for anyone else who would like to explain the obvious logical inconsistencies of their theology for a change. Or, we could just admit that all theologies have difficulties and start treating one another with some level of respect.

 

[Ascetic X]

@Ascetic X. I have no problem with your answer and find it perfectly acceptable, as well as predictable. Especially your comments on the problems with doing theology at all. But what you need to understand, and it shows in your answer, is that if you really believe what you say then don't come on and attack other peoples theology when in fact it turns out that not only don't you have any answers but now you don't want even to ask the questions.

You start out by flat out saying that coming to Christ is an exercise of the will that is subject to reward by God. And that is right after saying that there is no personal merit. That is a direct contradiction. Then you go on and say that if we are commanded to repent and believe then we must be able to do so. Here again, a neophyte in theology would instantly recognize that the problem of inability in Calvinistic theology is that it is a moral inability because the problem causing our inability is only that we tend to not want to repent and believe or we think we don't need to. Any beginner Calvinist would tell you that with such an attitude no indeed, you will not come to Christ, and thus because it is a sure thing it is said that you are thus "unable", yet in truth the reason you are unable is because of your own free will!

The fact is, you guys have come on here with a high sounding conciliatory tone, at first, and as the thread went on you became more and more insulting of the theology of others and have picked at perceived deficiencies, yet cannot defend the obvious deficiencies of your own theology, or in your case, your lack of coherent theology.

So, I have your answer, or non-answer. Now I will wait for anyone else who would like to explain the obvious logical inconsistencies of their theology for a change. Or, we could just admit that all theologies have difficulties and start treating one another with some level of respect.

Your problem is you exalt theology above the Bible.

You think Christians should argue about the different theological systems and identify the one and only true theology, which to your mind is Calvinism.

Your claim that “we tend to not want to repent and believe or we think we don't need to” is completely false in my case. When I first heard the gospel as a teenager, with atheist parents, I instantly accepted it. Calvinists are so programmed to consider every human as utterly vile and hopeless. This nihilistic view is unrealistic.

You think you get to decide what is a deficiency or contradiction in a theology and what is not.

I think we have better things to do than belabor and prolong this quarreling that leads nowhere.

But your “Now I will wait for anyone else who would like to explain the obvious logical inconsistencies of their theology for a change.” is trying to provoke endless argument.

Why can’t you just take your precious Calvinism back home and be content with it?

A desire to keep hammering at it reveals an insecurity about it or a love of fighting.

 

[DaveXR650]

A desire to keep hammering at it reveals an insecurity about it or a love of fighting.

I don't know why this thread went so long either. Most of them are closed after 150 posts or so because people forget what has been said. But your comment is puzzling in that it was you who started the thread. Did you really expect to come on like you did and take down other peoples views and not have them answer you back. And, I think, since you started the thread you can request that it be closed.

Why can’t you just take your precious Calvinism back home and be content with it?

The fact is I am not really content with Calvinism. It does have some flaws or at least some things that must be left as unanswerable. But I guess I would ask why you would start a thread attempting to destroy Calvinism, then when that fails, start acting like you are suddenly above theology and don't wish to discuss it.

 

[Psalty]

@Ascetic X. I have no problem with your answer and find it perfectly acceptable, as well as predictable. Especially your comments on the problems with doing theology at all. But what you need to understand, and it shows in your answer, is that if you really believe what you say then don't come on and attack other peoples theology when in fact it turns out that not only don't you have any answers but now you don't want even to ask the questions.

You start out by flat out saying that coming to Christ is an exercise of the will that is subject to reward by God. And that is right after saying that there is no personal merit. That is a direct contradiction. Then you go on and say that if we are commanded to repent and believe then we must be able to do so. Here again, a neophyte in theology would instantly recognize that the problem of inability in Calvinistic theology is that it is a moral inability because the problem causing our inability is only that we tend to not want to repent and believe or we think we don't need to. Any beginner Calvinist would tell you that with such an attitude no indeed, you will not come to Christ, and thus because it is a sure thing it is said that you are thus "unable", yet in truth the reason you are unable is because of your own free will!

The fact is, you guys have come on here with a high sounding conciliatory tone, at first, and as the thread went on you became more and more insulting of the theology of others and have picked at perceived deficiencies, yet cannot defend the obvious deficiencies of your own theology, or in your case, your lack of coherent theology.

So, I have your answer, or non-answer. Now I will wait for anyone else who would like to explain the obvious logical inconsistencies of their theology for a change. Or, we could just admit that all theologies have difficulties and start treating one another with some level of respect.

Ill answer but Ill be busy until tomorrow pm for what you are requesting.

I personally think that the last exchange with Martin is telling and a prime example of why these dialogues break down and always will.

Calvinist says “God holds no one back from believing”.

Non-calvinist says “Except you think God makes them with Inability and to not ever want to believe”

Calvinist says “You never look at how gracious He is to save people at all!”

Non-Calvinist ”We werent even talking about the graciously saved!, we were talking about God ordaining Inability”

Literally every time it gets to this point a Calvinist can only talk about how gracious God is, and never about the inability that God ordained in the first place. It goes unacknowledged.

And the original assertion by the calvinist “God holds no one back” is still somehow secure in their mind… because they wont address God ordaining inability.

At this point I am starting to think it is a coping mechanism for logical cognitive dissonance…

 

[Ben1445]

All you have to do is get a copy of R.C. Sproul's "Chosen By God". He changes almost all the letters in TULIP. But then it's harder to remember. As a matter of fact I don't remember, but I can find it if you really want to know.

Ben. Let me ask you and all you guys who hate Calvinism because God choosing some for salvation and not others seems "unfair".

Let me stop you here and say that if that were the issue, then you and anyone else would be right in challenging me. It has nothing really to do with what is fair. What it does have to do with is that God has given salvation to all men, but some men reject salvation because they find Jesus offensive for whatever their reasons.

Romans 5:18
Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

So it is, as you have previously stated, not that God has nothing to say to the lost, it is that the lost will not hear. The difference between myself and the hyper Calvinist is that I believe that the lost will not because of his own free will.
Simultaneously, if God has to do anything extra for one man that He does not do for another, in order to bring a sinner to salvation, then salvation was not complete at the cross. It would be necessary for another saving work often called regeneration when considered as being separate from salvation. (For clarity, salvation and regeneration are inseparable. We are saved from death and sin when we are given life. It is not possible to be regenerated and living and still not have salvation, freedom from death and freedom from sin.)

Why in the world are you a believer at all?

Jesus. He called and I came. Same as anyone else who is a believer. The difference between my views and those I contend with is that I believe that I could have rejected Christ as other people do.

I'm sure you are like me in that I pray for say a good report when I go in for a screening, or that I might have a safe trip when traveling - knowing full well that many people, just as worthy as me, will not have a good report or a safe trip at all and they pray too. Do you just accept God's grace or do you immediately set out to find out why he is so unjust to others.

I certainly understand that what I consider to be evil (by description, bad fortune, though I don’t really like that definition, as opposed to wickedness) is what God uses in my life and in other peoples lives for chastening when appropriate, for His strength to be made clearly visible, for our humility and His glory. I have no problem with adversity in this world. I recognize the responsibility for the curse lies with man. But better still, the best is yet to come.

If you do just accept God's grace in these other matters, as I'm sure you do and I do too, then why the big problem when all truly guilty sinners who are not pursuing righteousness or God's will are not all saved, or even as it should be obvious, not even given an equal chance at it.

Your saying that they are not given equal chance at it, or anyone else saying it, doesn’t remove the responsibility that each person has to respond to God. If a man cannot respond to God, how may he be judged for it? If each is judged for his own sin, why does anyone think that I will be judged for my ancestors sins? But I am not judged for my ancestor’s sins. Adam will answer for his own sins, I for mine. But Christ offers the opportunity to make answer for the sins of every man.
In summary, we may disagree between ourselves about the way we think everything works based upon our interpretation of Scripture, but our interpretations don’t change reality. I recognize somewhat of the futility of the discussion.

This is especially puzzling to me when in the case of salvation, we all believe that everyone without exception who does petition God will indeed have that request granted whereas in the other areas, the request is not always granted and yet you don't go after God in those cases.

God has not promised all men a comfortable existence in this world.
God has promised the entire human race a Saviour.

In Adam, and to Adam’s descendants, a Saviour was promised.
And to the descendants, even the less appreciated ones, like Cain, personal choice and consequence of choice was given.

Genesis 4:7
If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.

Since some of you non Calvinists like to impugn the Calvinists

They take the offense onto themselves.
My contention is with those who lay the charge of the cause of men not coming to Christ at the feet of God because He did not regenerate them in order that they believe. This lack of intervention on the part of God would be God choosing who will be and will not be saved. (I do not say He is guilty of lack of intervention. It is the Calvinist belief) No man would be a liar to say he could not come to God who had never been given opportunity. No man deserves the ability to come. But God is not a respecter of persons. If one may come any and all may come.

So I don’t impugn the character of the Calvinist. If he feels slighted, it is by his own choice to impugn the character of God by calling Him a respecter of persons and associating himself with a form of Calvinism that acknowledged or not becomes any form of determinism in salvation.

Since some of you non Calvinists like to impugn the Calvinists for creating a false view of God might I suggest the same for you in that maybe it is true that in the case of salvation what you really are thinking is that the difference is that you indeed have in some way better sense or wisdom for seeing your unsaved condition than the rest of the wretches or maybe there is indeed some merit in your actual coming to Christ that contributes at least a small, but decisive element to your salvation.

Every man is aware at some point that he is insufficient. There are people who become too aware of their own insufficiency and either have put God out of their mind or reject Him when He reaches out to them. These are the people who take their own lives. Every man, to an extent, who will not come to God, is responsible for taking his own life. Would he, as Scripture says, lose his life in this world for the sake of Christ and the gospel, he would save it for eternity.
But there is not a different set of rules for any one. We all may have different circumstances. The vast majority of people do not share the same parents, household, nationality, wealth, comfort, pain etc. But each of us has temptations such as are common to man. There is not enough difference to have a different standard. Even where the law is concerned, “the gentiles who have not the law do by nature the things in the law.”
There is no difference. I do not assume that there is any difference. The reality is that those who do not come to Christ are the folks who think they are better, that they will somehow manage without Christ. They are mistaken. But for me or you to have come to the realization that we need Christ and to come to Christ makes us better off but no better than any other man.

I'm not picking on Ben but throw this open to all free willers who might help me understand this. Arminians and regular Baptists can also reply because although you indeed believe "grace" is needed to come to Christ since "enough" is given to everyone it seems to me that logically the same situation is the end result. Let's pick at the logical implications of everyone's theology, not just Calvinists.

For clarity, I am not after Calvin himself or even all that Calvin and others before him taught. Only this particular false belief that God has not called all men everywhere to repent, but only some men everywhere.

An offer of salvation given through the great commission and by the evangelism through the church must be and is a genuine offer of salvation from God through Jesus Christ.
The only way to obtain salvation in Christ is to have done with all of self and let salvation be all of Christ. The way to get to that place is to call upon the Saviour for that help. Man is commanded to call upon the name of the Lord. God is not saving those who do not and will not call upon Him.

But there is nothing that God need do to make men salvable. It has all been done at the cross. Conviction of the Holy Spirit, yes. But regeneration before salvation so that the Word of God can enter in? Salvation has been a finished work since the cross. There is nothing else to do but accept it. Every man may.

 

[DaveXR650]

@Psalty. Probably it would be wise to start another thread because they usually close them at this point because of length.

Non-calvinist says “Except you think God makes them with Inability and to not ever want to believe”

Literally every time it gets to this point a Calvinist can only talk about how gracious God is, and never about the inability that God ordained in the first place. It goes unacknowledged.

The problem I see is like what you have done above. In the past, I can show quote after quote of top Calvinist theologians like John Owen who said repeatedly that our inability is moral, that the problem is our own free will, and that "ordain" not only includes what God chooses to do as a primary desire, but also includes things he has not directly caused, but has decided to allow or permit, even though what is being permitted is not in accordance with God's primary or revealed will. I gather from your comments I quoted above that you would not be willing to concede that and if that is the case then don't bother as I see no point in engaging if we start from false premises.

And look, I admit that there is a branch of Calvinism that indeed does insist that every single thing that happens God flat out directly causes to happen. I don't believe that, and I don't think @Martin Marprelate does either. There are a couple of Calvinists on this board who do believe that but they will not engage - probably because they know you have been ordained already to believe what you do so no sense talking about it. But for my part, I am not interested in defending that view and do not consider it as my own.