Calvinism needs to add words to scripture

[Ben1445]

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.

I see no contradiction. Jesus said come unto me and I will give you rest.

Come to Jesus is what He said.
We recognize that Jesus saves us where we are and that we made up none of the distance between ourselves and God.
But Jesus said come. I don’t think it is wrong to use the word come or to say I came to Christ. There is no other way. Jesus is the starting point.

 

[Ben1445]

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.

But for Christ, we would not know where to go. We have the Christ. There is no more inability. There is Christ.

 

[Ascetic X]

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.

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.

I just described how I have seen Calvinists on this board add words to scripture verses routinely.

All of us born again believers are far above theology, for we are seated in the heavenlies with Christ.

Ephesians 2:6

He also raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus.

There is no theology in heaven, just pure, true, direct knowledge of God without surly, pompous scholars bickering back and forth. What a joy it will be when we go to our peaceful eternal home! I look forward to seeing you there, brother!

Sorry if I have ever seemed sarcastic or abrasive! We must all treat each other as family, not debate opponents.

 

[Psalty]

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


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.

This is the breakdown though. You cant have God decreeing inability, and then say he is meaningfully giving humans choice.

Its not a mystery. Its not a secondary cause so it doesnt count. You are correct that if you or any calvinist can say that God causes inability but has really given choice, it truly is an impasse- it’s a logical contradiction unless you definition manipulate. It is pointless to converse if calvinists believe that… and I think that most of them do.

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.

High calvinists that believe Eph 1:11 to mean every molecule are just like secular determinists: what will happen will happen and you cant do anything about it because what happens would have happened anyway. Usually you cant even discuss anything with them because at a base level it is already fixed and meaningless anyway.

 

[DaveXR650]

@Ben1445. I have to go for now and didn't want you to think that I was ignoring your responses above, which look complete and thoughtful so if the thread does not get closed before I get back I will try to answer.

Sorry if I have ever seemed sarcastic or abrasive! We must all treat each other as family, not debate opponents.

Amen. and I really do appreciate that. You guys do bring up one good point that I agree with wholeheartedly. That being that it is indeed true that what happens is that you are a person going along, living your life, and you somehow hear the gospel. If you respond by believing in Christ and repent you will be saved. All the other issues of why some believe and others don't, what does the "elect" consist of whether regeneration precedes faith, whether faith precedes repentance, and so on, are I guess important in the sense it might influence the way people conduct their evangelism or worship but it is not essential for salvation for sure.

 

[DaveXR650]

This is the breakdown though. You cant have God decreeing inability, and then say he is meaningfully giving humans choice.

Like I said, I have to go for now. Just let me say that if the inability is due to the fact that you could but won't it becomes blameable, and is to my knowledge not decreed in an active way by God but more stated as a fact. Look over the Westminster Confession of Faith under Effectual grace and they try to explain that somewhat, although I am not completely satisfied with it either.

But just let me close for now by saying I obviously touched a nerve and caused an explosion of posts by challenging your theological presuppositions on your theology rather than just letting you dish it out to the Calvinists.

 

[Ascetic X]

We did not wish to destroy Calvinism. We wanted to challenge some Calvinist doctrines and watch Calvinists scramble to try to justify them. The truth may reside in the middle zone between Calvinism and Anti Calvinism.

 

[Psalty]

Like I said, I have to go for now. Just let me say that if the inability is due to the fact that you could but won't it becomes blameable, and is to my knowledge not decreed in an active way by God but more stated as a fact. Look over the Westminster Confession of Faith under Effectual grace and they try to explain that somewhat, although I am not completely satisfied with it either.

But just let me close for now by saying I obviously touched a nerve and caused an explosion of posts by challenging your theological presuppositions on your theology rather than just letting you dish it out to the Calvinists.

Naw, you havent posted any scripture. ;D

Maybe if you had a scripural argument I would be concerned.

I post because much of what I hear is unsubstantiated… like Martin and Yourself. Im not trying to be mean, just trying to call it as I see it.

For Instance, no detailed scripural exegesis defending glorification to Eph 1:4-5, 5, and Colossians; dropped.

No answers to Inability but able to choose, dropped.

No answers to 2 Thess 2 exegesis. Dropped.

Everything gets dropped as soon as it gets specific… and I keep bringing it up, and you all call me rabid because I keep calling you out.

I recognize at this point that if I follow a calvinist argument and try to get them to answer the next part of the argument, they view it as hateful. Maybe I have a thicker skin than that, but I only hold views that play out in the long run. If they cant stand an extended CX, they arent worth keeping.

Such is life.

 

[DaveXR650]

We did not wish to destroy Calvinism. We wanted to challenge some Calvinist doctrines and watch Calvinists scramble to try to justify them. The truth may reside in the middle zone between Calvinism and Anti Calvinism.

That's alright. But you have to admit I started a freakout when I did the same to you guys. I don't think the truth of everything always has to lie in the middle, but I do think it is best to look at all these theologies as guardrails to keep us from straying too far rather than using them as the view of the absolute last word and total truth. Theology is man made and it has a history. In other words it came from some situation that people perceived as needing to be addressed, and in the case of Calvinism vs Arminianism, secular politics was involved too.

 

[DaveXR650]

Naw, you havent posted any scripture. ;D

I have had this come up before. No. When the reason you have different theologies is because smart people have come up with different interpretations of the exact same scriptures you should see why that is useless. Besides, this type of comment shows me you have never even looked at documents like the WCF. You do realize that it is completely foot noted with scripture references. Every single point. You just don't agree with the interpretation. So don't demand I throw verses at you when you started from the point of different interpretation of the same verse.

You know, there is a verse in the Bible where Jesus just tells a prospective follower re salvation "You've heard what the law says. Just keep the commandments". So. I guess we're done here.

 

[Ben1445]

But you have to admit I started a freakout when I did the same to you guys.

I’m going to disagree with you here. All I saw was that you asked for a response and then got it.

…Let me ask you and all you guys who…

So I don’t think you got a scramble of answers. Folks just happened to be available to answer the question you asked them when you asked them.

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

I’m not against all things associated with the name Calvinism. We also believe in grace.
There is just enough wrong with what may be called Calvinism that I choose not to associate myself with the name of it. Spurgeon lived in a different time. What was then called Calvinism was not always hyper Calvinist though it did exist and as has been pointed out previously, was called out as incorrect by Spurgeon. It may not be always hyper now, but it is close enough for me to step back from it.

 

[DaveXR650]

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.)

In what you are saying here you are close to the concept that you find in Calvinism and in scripture I believe regarding our salvation. When Calvinist theology says that the cross really did save people they are not saying that nothing else needs to happen - but like you said, there is an inevitable series of things that do happen in the case of the elect. And, since it is an attempt at a complete theological system you have to look at it as such and not logically separate one thing from another. Those he calls he knows, and it is those for whom Christ dies, and the same one's will respond to the gospel and the same ones will be born again and persevere until they finish life on this earth.

Speaking now just as a fellow Christian I can say that this being true does not render inoperative any of the separate things that happen in the life of a person who gets saved. You really do have to decide to be saved, repent and so on. And you will do it by the decision of your rational mind. The fact that in Calvinistic theology it is said that the one who comes to Christ is the one who Christ died for and the one who refuses is one who Christ did not die for is only a reflection of known qualities of God and knowing what God knows. It no way is intended to diminish the importance of passionately calling on everyone to repent, and it in no way means that there are those who might repent and mess everything up so to speak because now you have someone who repented whom Christ did not die for.

If one wishes to only focus upon our role in this, which I whole heartedly agree is to repent and believe the gospel, and be silent and not make any conclusions or comments on God's perspective on such things - I find that totally acceptable and do not think such a person is in any way less complete as a Christian. However; some of the perspectives. even though from God's point of view, like his sovereignty, ability to not only "see" the future, but have it come out as he wishes, are in scripture, and I do object when someone who doesn't want to look into those areas and is not curious about those areas, tries to downplay and pretend that those things are not in scripture and aren't really in effect. People don't have to do theology, and many shouldn't. But that doesn't mean they should come up with goofy, incomplete theology or try to tear apart the work that serious people have done.

 

[Ascetic X]

 

[DaveXR650]

I see no contradiction. Jesus said come unto me and I will give you rest.

Come to Jesus is what He said.
We recognize that Jesus saves us where we are and that we made up none of the distance between ourselves and God.
But Jesus said come. I don’t think it is wrong to use the word come or to say I came to Christ. There is no other way. Jesus is the starting point.

That's a nice argument against what I did not say. You had said in an earlier post that Calvinists say something like "Yea, I'm elect" as if that was a source of pride. I was saying, after it was mentioned that your coming to Christ is a meritorious action in his eyes, an action that in a sense is the thing that convinces Christ to save you - isn't that a contradiction with the first sentence that says "no personal merit accrued". Below is the original quote. That is my complaint. I did not say there is anything wrong with stating that you came to Christ. I imagine that there indeed are Calvinists who believe that they are somehow better than others because they are elect. And I know because I have been told, that some free willers openly say "Well, at least I had sense enough to believe". Calvinists do not have a monopoly on total depravity, just the theology behind it.

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.

 

[Ben1445]

In what you are saying here you are close to the concept that you find in Calvinism and in scripture I believe regarding our salvation. When Calvinist theology says that the cross really did save people they are not saying that nothing else needs to happen - but like you said, there is an inevitable series of things that do happen in the case of the elect. And, since it is an attempt at a complete theological system you have to look at it as such and not logically separate one thing from another. Those he calls he knows, and it is those for whom Christ dies, and the same one's will respond to the gospel and the same ones will be born again and persevere until they finish life on this earth.

Speaking now just as a fellow Christian I can say that this being true does not render inoperative any of the separate things that happen in the life of a person who gets saved. You really do have to decide to be saved, repent and so on. And you will do it by the decision of your rational mind. The fact that in Calvinistic theology it is said that the one who comes to Christ is the one who Christ died for and the one who refuses is one who Christ did not die for is only a reflection of known qualities of God and knowing what God knows. It no way is intended to diminish the importance of passionately calling on everyone to repent, and it in no way means that there are those who might repent and mess everything up so to speak because now you have someone who repented whom Christ did not die for.

If one wishes to only focus upon our role in this, which I whole heartedly agree is to repent and believe the gospel, and be silent and not make any conclusions or comments on God's perspective on such things - I find that totally acceptable and do not think such a person is in any way less complete as a Christian. However; some of the perspectives. even though from God's point of view, like his sovereignty, ability to not only "see" the future, but have it come out as he wishes, are in scripture, and I do object when someone who doesn't want to look into those areas and is not curious about those areas, tries to downplay and pretend that those things are not in scripture and aren't really in effect. People don't have to do theology, and many shouldn't. But that doesn't mean they should come up with goofy, incomplete theology or try to tear apart the work that serious people have done.

But I find error in the statement that Jesus did not make payment for the sins of those who do not believe.

We are described as bought with a price
1 Corinthians 6:20
For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.
1 Corinthians 7:23
Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men.
The purchase is of blood and not anything else.
1 Peter 1:18-19
Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:



What I find in Scripture is that the unsaved are also bought.

2 Peter 2:1
But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

Payment for all sin has indeed been made and that makes the offense of refusing the Saviour that much more egregious. If I were to reject a Saviour who is not my Saviour, then I have not rejected anything. I would have never had anything close enough to reject.
It would be like saying I declined the airline in New York to accept free air fare from New York to London while I was in Los Angeles. I was never in a place to refuse it.
How then could someone deny the Lord that bought them if He never bought them?

In my perspective, Calvinism diminishes the work of Christ and says that Jesus did not die for as many people as are sinners.
I contend that it is Scriptural that Jesus Christ has paid for all sin, yet does not impute His righteousness to the unbelieving.
But the righteousness of Christ is not limited to a certain predetermined fatalism. The choice is real.

 

[DaveXR650]

But I find error in the statement that Jesus did not make payment for the sins of those who do not believe.

I don't think we are far apart on this, Ben. I don't believe the atonement is limited in any "functional" way. I'll go as far as to say that God, knowing everything, had in mind those who would be saved when Christ died. And, I don't see, even as a moderate Calvinist, any problem with the idea that since even the "elect", are lost until they are saved, therefore the atonement could be thought of as potential for everyone, and effectual for those who at some point come to Christ and believe.

Payment for all sin has indeed been made and that makes the offense of refusing the Saviour that much more egregious.

That's what John Owen said in regard to refusal to believe. He said that it was the worst sin man can do, and in a sense even a worse sin than demons commit because salvation was never offered to them. Which brings us back to the point that while I do have sympathy for your view on the extent of the atonement, I have to point out that true 5 point Calvinists also feel like you do about the sin of unbelief so you really can't say that you must believe this as a logical consequence of believing that.

That has been happening on here for over 200 posts, and when I turn it around some of you are offended.

In my perspective, Calvinism diminishes the work of Christ and says that Jesus did not die for as many people as are sinners.
I contend that it is Scriptural that Jesus Christ has paid for all sin, yet does not impute His righteousness to the unbelieving.

While I personally don't have any problem with the idea that Christ died for everyone and as I have said earlier, I have no problem telling someone who I am witnessing to that Christ died for them - it still gets old if you keep trying to say that the work of Christ is diminished when Calvinists fully agree that everyone and anyone who comes to Christ will be saved and that the offer is open to everyone who hears. Is there really any practical difference? You are set on demonizing the theology and nothing anyone can say will change that.

 

[Ben1445]

I don't think we are far apart on this, Ben. I don't believe the atonement is limited in any "functional" way. I'll go as far as to say that God, knowing everything, had in mind those who would be saved when Christ died. And, I don't see, even as a moderate Calvinist, any problem with the idea that since even the "elect", are lost until they are saved, therefore the atonement could be thought of as potential for everyone, and effectual for those who at some point come to Christ and believe.

That's what John Owen said in regard to refusal to believe. He said that it was the worst sin man can do, and in a sense even a worse sin than demons commit because salvation was never offered to them. Which brings us back to the point that while I do have sympathy for your view on the extent of the atonement, I have to point out that true 5 point Calvinists also feel like you do about the sin of unbelief so you really can't say that you must believe this as a logical consequence of believing that.

That has been happening on here for over 200 posts, and when I turn it around some of you are offended.

While I personally don't have any problem with the idea that Christ died for everyone and as I have said earlier, I have no problem telling someone who I am witnessing to that Christ died for them - it still gets old if you keep trying to say that the work of Christ is diminished when Calvinists fully agree that everyone and anyone who comes to Christ will be saved and that the offer is open to everyone who hears. Is there really any practical difference? You are set on demonizing the theology and nothing anyone can say will change that.

I think you misunderstand my tone and my position.
I responded this way because I find that I am always challenged about taking credit for my salvation and diminishing the work of Christ. I just mentioned that I find it the opposite way around. And then I got the response that you say you got when you flipped the other coin.
It goes both ways.
But I am objectively speaking of our theology as we discuss it. I’m not dug into the trenches and loaded for bear as it must appear to you. I don’t know how else to interpret your responses except that you think I am a walking Calvinist slayer. I’ve been called that a few times by some Arminian slayers and provisionist slayers.
But I am not intent on “demonizing” any theology. I agree that you and I are not that far apart. I don’t even know that we disagree about anything but semantics.

 

[Ben1445]

That's a nice argument against what I did not say.

Sorry, I answered what I heard. You would have to take what you said and explain what you meant.

You had said in an earlier post that Calvinists say something like "Yea, I'm elect" as if that was a source of pride. I was saying, after it was mentioned that your coming to Christ is a meritorious action in his eyes, an action that in a sense is the thing that convinces Christ to save you - isn't that a contradiction with the first sentence that says "no personal merit accrued". Below is the original quote. That is my complaint. I did not say there is anything wrong with stating that you came to Christ. I imagine that there indeed are Calvinists who believe that they are somehow better than others because they are elect. And I know because I have been told, that some free willers openly say "Well, at least I had sense enough to believe". Calvinists do not have a monopoly on total depravity, just the theology behind it.

You are going to have to run that past me again. What I can see in the quote you provided, it says that coming to Christ is not meritorious.

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.

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.

Again I say that I don’t see any contradiction. If salvation is not of works, not my own merit, then God does not view faith as meritorious. Looking is not a work in the look and live scenario either.
If God does not view faith and looking and calling and coming as meritorious means, you will not be able to make me change my mind and say that they are.
I think that is where I am hung up here.

 

[DaveXR650]

Again I say that I don’t see any contradiction. If salvation is not of works, not my own merit, then God does not view faith as meritorious. Looking is not a work in the look and live scenario either.

I see what you are saying and I agree. I do not hold to or use the Calvinist argument that changes faith somehow into a work if it is required that it be something that you do. Faith involves ceasing from works, acquiescing to the salvation provided for by Christ and in scripture is always contrasted directly with works. But the quote I used, which was originally written by someone else, said that faith was "an obedience which God respects and rewards". That is a misuse of the concept faith in regards to salvation, an attempt, maybe inadvertently to make it into a work. Here you get into semantics for sure, because faith is also something that God wants to use this life to build in us, it is something that God looks for, likes and rewards. But in your salvation God does not say "I know you have failed in my first method of salvation so I'm giving you a second chance in which I now require faith, and then an honest intention to obey as best you can. Do this, and live." That was Richard Baxter's Neonomian error and it sounds right if you don't really look at it. (I really like Baxter by the way.) It's just that if you're going to do theology you want to get it right.

If God does not view faith and looking and calling and coming as meritorious means, you will not be able to make me change my mind and say that they are.

So, I am not saying that God looks as saving faith like that. But I am saying that we can easily begin to look at it like that. And thus in our own minds it can become a work.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

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?

I don't care what you do, but here's some Scripture for you. Romns 1:28. 'And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which arenot fitting.....' Where exactly is your 'ordained inability' in that extract?

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

In post #230, I quoted you Scripture, without any comment, but you don't seem to like that, or at least, you have completely ignored it. So now I'm going to quote some parts of the 1689 Baptist Confession. I don't suppose that you will like that any better, but too bad. I have included various proof-texts. Please include those in any comments you may make.

9:1. 'God has indued the will of man, by nature, with liberty and the power to choose and to act upon his choice. This free will is neither forced, nor destined by any necessity of nature to do good or evil.' Matthew 17:12; James 1:14; Deut. 30:19.
9:2. 'Man, in his [original] state of innocence, had freedom and power to will and to do that which was well-pleasing to God...' Eccl. 7:29. '...but he was unstable, so that he might fall from this condition.' Genesis 3:6.
9:3. 'Man, by his fall into a state of sin, has completely lost all ability of will to perform any of the spiritual good which accompanies salvation...' Romans 5:6; 8:7. '... As a natural man [the opposite of a spiritual man] he is altogether averse to spiritual good, and dead in sin...' Ephesians 2:1-5. '...He is not able by his own strength to convert himself, or to prepare himself for conversion [either to desire or seek it].' John 3:19; 6:44; Titus 3:3-6.

The way to heaven is wide open; all who will may enter. Therefore your 'second group' does not exist. People do not come to salvation unless God opens their hearts to do so. It's not because they can not, but because they will not. You will ask, perhaps, why God does not open everybody's heart. That question can be asked of the Arminian just as well as it can of the Calvinist.