Featured The BEST argument against Calvinism . . .

You seem willing to compare two completely different things as if they were not completely different.

Certainly, but even babes in Christ cannot receive some of the things of the Spirit of God, 1 Cor. 3:1-3.
There is no distinction between a "natural man" as used in 1 Corinthians 2:14 and a lost person.

God's revelation of His gospel is His gift, and if our faith in that revelation is credited by God as righteousness, then our salvation is His gift, as well! The claim we are instilled with faith via irresistible grace is unbiblical nonsense. ​

Salvation is the gift of God, completely by God's grace. To suggest I might believe otherwise is without merit. If God does not choose to credit our faith in God's revelation of the gospel, then we will not nor cannot be saved.

1) Here is the biblical view: God credits (or not) the faith those who embrace the gospel. Scripture would not indicate this action if God's faith was instilled in us, it would already be righteous. I have yet to have a naysayer agree with this fundamental truth.

2) There is no difference between a "natural" person, a "lost' person and "a person of flesh." In all three causes we are talking about an unsaved, thus unregenerate, not indwelt person, just as all humans are when conceived. Paul spoke to new born Christians just as he spoke to people who had not been born anew, using spiritual milk, because that is what they could understand. I have yet to have a naysayer agree with this fundamental truth.

 

In the overall result - that it be according to God's plan - that is true, but it is completely different in how it works. In other words, although the end result is the same, God using the cruelty and sinfulness of Joseph's brothers to get him to Egypt, is totally different than if God made his brothers to sin against their "will" and then blamed them, as some free willers charge.

Well, who caused that "problem". The TULIP as awkward as it is, was an answer to the Arminian 5 points of Remonstrance. And it is awkward. Sproul even changed 3 of the letters in his little book which became the handbook of modern Calvinists. He didn't even like it. The best thing about the TULIP is that it makes an easy tattoo for the Young, Restless, and Reformed, who are into that for some reason.

No, you don't have to but you could. Just like if we really need a work of the Holy Spirit on us in addition to just the gospel information being provided - then you could argue from that, all the way to 5 point Calvinism. You don't have to, and I don't, but one could. And so I admit that it is possible that all of Calvinism is true. I don't adhere to all of it, but I see where they come from, and I admit they might be right. But you might even be right.
One thing I have not settled in my own mind is this: Is it possible that we do have a free enough will to be able upon hearing the gospel propositions to be able to at least call out for help. The Puritan theologians seemed to concede this, at least in the sense that we have sufficient ability to be considered guilty of rejecting the gospel. And also, is the nature of the work of the Holy Spirit, even if it is essential, of a persuasive nature of influence, rather than creative or regenerative. And if so, is it also possible that God, in his wisdom is evaluating and judging our response to the drawing of the Spirit and is it possible that we can refuse it to the point of God judicially withdrawing further influence, thus leaving us without further possibility of coming to Christ. These things I truly don't know. I study them carefully and when I read Edwards it seems crystal clear he was right, yet when I read Arminius, he makes a lot of sense too.

 

You say you see John 6:44 teach parts of TULIP
"No one can come to Me [Total Inability] unless the Father who sent Me [Unconditional Election] draws him [Irresistible Grace]; and I will raise him up on the last day [Preservation of the Saints].”

But this raises the question of how do you view John 12:32
Joh 12:32 "And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself."

By your stated view Christ will draw via [Irresistible Grace] all men.

When you use John 6:44 to prove unconditional election, you are saying that all whom God draws will come in faith, yet that can only be true if man has no free will to resist God’s drawing. Also, if all are drawn, then all must come if there is no free will. So, without free will, you have locked themselves into a universalist salvation logic. Please think carefully on this!

In John 6:44 it is clear from the language that no one can come unless drawn (i.e. drawing is necessary for coming be it by creation, the Holy Spirit, the gospel message, etc) and that the one who “comes” as a result of that drawing will be raised up.

The problem is that the passage does not say that the drawing guarantees the “coming”. That is something that must be read into the passage.

 

What I have noticed with many on here that disagree with free will will hold to calvinism but not all of calvinism because they actually understand what that looks like.

Some will deny determinism or others part of the DoG. But they still claim that the part they believe is biblical.

I think many of the older calvinists were actually more honest with themselves than the modern ones. We now see they have a cafeteria theology. Pick the part I like and discard the rest.

You say you adhere to compatibilism. but then say man has a free will to choose.

You said that Joseph’s brothers were not forced against their wills. Their actions were in line with their wills.” Okay, but why did they want to do what they did? Many Calvinists say that God causes people to want X and the want then determines them to do X. You have opted for the compatiblistic view but that does not solve your problem. The problem is merely kicked upstairs. Man did X because he wanted to do X, but the reason he wanted to do X was that God caused him to want to do X. So, God is still the determining factor.

Compatibilism (also known as soft determinism), is the belief that God's predetermination and meticulous providence is "compatible" with voluntary choice. In light of Scripture, human choices are believed to be exercised voluntarily but the desires and circumstances that bring about these choices about occur through divine determinism (see Acts 2:23 & 4:27-28). It should be noted that this position is no less deterministic than hard determinism - be clear that neither soft nor hard determinism believes man has a free will. Our choices are only our choices because they are voluntary, not coerced. We do not make choices contrary to our desires or natures. Compatibilism | Monergism

The two comments that I put in bold are not logically consistent. If God determines all things then man can not make voluntary choices. All the choices are pre-made by God. One can not have a determined free choice.

 

As goes the type, so is the antitype - jealousy. A recurring theme throughout the scriptures.

 

I cannot think of any higher form of freedom as a human than to be able to do what I most want to do. I think you guys that demand that you must always have the ability to do otherwise are the ones who are illogical. What possible reason could you have for doing otherwise than what is is that you are choosing to do? It is a made up fantasy on the part of anyone who says that. It's a hypothetical thing that in reality has no meaning. Now the question comes up, "What is this for". Here's how I would explain it. You can hear the gospel and understand the facts and propositions with your natural mind. But what is it that makes that information attractive to you or worthy in your mind of attention. I mean we all agree that you already have a natural tendency to be ambivalent to such things or even to consider them foolishness, as scripture says. You really don't have a chance at coming to Christ without a "divine and supernatural light being imparted" to your soul, enabling you to "see" as it were, the value of Christ and the gospel.

Now a free willer would say that it's no different than being informed of any set of propositions. You hear it and then you can make an informed choice. So it is with the gospel. But I say no. With any other proposition, you have a natural God given mindset consisting of natural appetites, hormones, or hard wiring, that sets up the desires in you of these various things. With the gospel, you start out with an impaired will and a natural animosity toward things spiritual. On your own, your free will will cause you to reject the gospel. The Holy Spirit intervenes, so say all the Calvinists and also the Arminians (originally, according to Arminius) and the Wesleyans, and the 4 point Baxterians. Personally, I leave open the idea that it may be possible for a natural person to at least realize they need help and maybe it works in such a way that God then starts convicting and giving grace. I can't speak for anyone else but such a plan does not offend me. It's just that having looked into this, I think that in the area of the way our wills operate, the Calvinists like Edwards have it right. Some of the other Calvinists that flat out deny even Edwards concept of free will I think go too far. I don't know that it really matters that much in the end.

 

So God cause them to be jealous. Strange that He would do that don't you think?

 

I am a Particular Baptist.

As a BAPTIST, I honor your right to believe whatever you choose within the reasonable bounds of “what Scripture states”.

As PARTICULAR, I view it as the job of God and His Holy Spirit (not my oratorical skills) to convince you of the truth and change your heart or mind.

Therefore, I will gladly speak of what I believe, but I care not one iota whether you embrace or reject my opinions. My responsibility ends at speaking the truth. Changing hearts and minds is above my pay grade.


So to answer your comment: Jesus does draw all men.

• And they sang a new song, saying, "Worthy are You to take the book and to break its seals; for You were slain, and purchased for God with Your blood [men] from every tribe and tongue and people and nation.” - Revelation 5:9 [NASB]

… all men without distinction, not all men without exception.

 

That is the point that you continue to ignore or just do not grasp. Free will is the ability to choose otherwise. The mere fact that they choose to do what they chose proves free will. They looked at the options and made a choice. How is it that you can not grasp this simple concept?
Every time you comment on this you look at it from the perspective of them already having made their choice. But you ignore the fact they made the choice of two or more options and choose one, Free Will.

Now you are just reading your preconceived ideas into scripture. You are forgetting that God says man has the ability to make logical choices based on the information they have been given, the gospel message in this case, and they will be held responsible for the choices they make. Now from your perspective if it requires God, as you say, to provide "divine and supernatural light" then all those that do not get such have the best excuse going, God did not give it to them. Now if you say He gives it to all men then you have to fall back to the person using their free will to accept or reject the gift offered.

Actually it is the bible that shows that man is responsible for how they respond to the gospel message. I do find it odd that for the calvinist man has a free will in everything except the most important thing, his salvation. Do you not find it strange that God disagrees with your view.
I am sure you have read this before
Act 16:30 ...."Sirs, what must I do to be saved?"
Act 16:31 They said, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved,....."

Calvinists keep throwing up roadblocks to salvation and try to narrow down those that can actually be saved. The calvinist DoG/TULIP is an anti-salvation text.

The grace of God is available to all but each man has to respond to the offer of salvation via his God given free will.

 

So after all is said and done you hold to a limited possibility of salvation in disagreement with scripture. So we will agree to disagree. As it has been so it will continue.

Joh 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.
1Jn 2:2 and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.

So while your view wants to limit those that can be saved God has expanded to all mankind those that can be saved.

It is not a matter of whether you accept or reject my opinions, it is a matter of whether you accept or reject the truths of scripture.

 

Sure there are options. But the one you choose if you have free will is the one you desire most. If something affects your desire then it will indeed affect your choice. The ability to choose otherwise makes no difference because you will always choose your choice. How could it be otherwise? Why would you demand it be otherwise?

There are some in a debate situation that seem to relish in the idea that you shouldn't just think you can come to Christ. I think they are in error but I don't think it's any worse of an error than the atrocious "soul winning" techniques I was involved in with a non-Calvinist pastor. He told me himself that he thought 1 in 1000 of his "converts" actually ended up serving in a church as an active member since they got "saved". You can do a lot of damage with any theology.

Who is the determinist now? I don't think for a minute my natural free will is God's fault. It is the result of my own sinful nature. If God enlightens or quickens your free will then you can respond to the gospel.

 

@Silverhair. Following up, understand that I have no problem with you or anyone else looking at this with the idea that you are making your own decision. We can go round and around for ever. These are well known positions that Edwards and Arminius debated and they didn't resolve it either.

But in practice, do you see any difference in practical preaching, based on these differences in theology? I mentioned soul winning "techniques" above and what I mean is that in Calvinistic preaching there is plenty of admonishing, warning, reasoning and so on - appealing to people's sense of reason and will, but not the emotion driven techniques I found in non-Calvinist preaching. And I admit, there is a branch of Calvinism that will not preach like above but only will preach Christ and him crucified, and they figure the Holy Spirit does the rest or it's all really just a matter of the elect discovering who they are. I don't go that far and neither did the great Calvinist preachers like Whitfield, Spurgeon, Owen and Bunyan. They preached some serious fire and brimstone and then said you better decide which way you are going to go.

 

I don't even know why I bothered to comment on your post, you're so dishonest in your replies. In no way shape, fashion or form did I ever insinuate that "God caused them to be jealous".

Your dishonesty repulses me more than you know, or even care I suppose. It's why I mostly just ignore you.

[add]

Now I remember WHY I bothered; to call attention to the magnificent type of Joseph as pertains to Christ. But that's waaaay above your understanding or intent on this board. You just want to bash and slander Christians that believe scripture that you reject.

 

There is no limit to the POSSIBILITY of salvation, God is capable of showing mercy on WHOMEVER (that means anyone) HE will show mercy on [as stated in scripture]. I merely acknowledge that it is God that chooses to show mercy and not men that decide who will receive mercy. There is no possibility of unlimited salvation … God has stated that HE will not save all.

You would have all men without exception believe that God has chosen to save everyone without exception and WE have thwarted the plan of God. THAT is in disagreement with scripture.

 

Dave I am not demanding it be otherwise. I am pointing out that the choice they made was made with their free will which is what you fail to understand. You are just proving free will Dave. They choose their choice, get it.

We have all seen some "techniques" used that would make one shudder. How they can think that is a scriptural approach is beyond me.

God has given man a free will with which he can make real choices. By the way free will is a gift of God not His fault. So those that God does not enlighten have the excuse for rejecting God, He did not enlighten them. That does not sound very biblical Dave.

 

As you have indicated and as you see when you listen to various calvinist preachers today. You must make a choice.

 

Read in context you see that he is talking about your new life as a servant of righteousness. So it's not at all about a libertarian free will choosing how to behave but rather explaining what has happened to you as a saved person. At least that's what Hodge thought in his commentary on Romans.

 

Your post KY
"As goes the type, so is the antitype - jealousy. A recurring theme throughout the scriptures."

How was my post dishonest? I just responded to your nothing post.

 

IMO, 'Dave the waffler' lacks the 'intestinal fortitude' to take a stand and make a choice. He's a bonafide mugwump with no business ever claiming to belong to the 'Calvinist camp'. But, you two seem to derive great satisfaction and fulfillment from your endless bloviations on this board, so, who am I to judge? So, have at it, bloviators.