How do Calvinists respond when someone asks....

Mike, you can get from that a doctrine that teaches mankind cannot believe or even understand when confronted with the powerful words of the gospel brought by the Holy Spirit through His chosen messengers? I don't get that!!!

I agree that these are the reasons that men don't know God and don't seek God and don't please God, but I don't see anywhere in scripture where it teaches that these are the reasons that mankind cannot believe the gospel message. That is the issue here!!!

 

Mike,

Thanks for the verses. They go right along with what I just said. I don't deny that man is sinful and defiled by sin. I'm still looking for verses that tell us man is unable to believe the gospel. None of these verses talk about man's ability or inablity to believe the gospel. That is just something you assume from passages that talk about our sinfulness. There is a big jump from saying a man is sinful to saying that he doesn't have the ability to believe and repent when confronted by the Holy Spirit inspired gospel message.

Keep looking. Thanks.

 

The bible also says, "With faith all things are possible."

And it says, "Without faith it is impossible to please God."

Again, we both agree that without God Salvation would not be possible.

This passage, like the others, falls short in suppling support for your assumption that man is unable to believe when confronted by the Holy Spirit inspired gospel message.

I'll save you some time. It's not there. The only time in scripture that it speaks of men's inability to believe, see, hear or understand the gospel is in regard to hardening as seen in John 12, Acts 28, Matt. 13 or Romans 11.

 

Plus, Mike I think it should be noted that your example of the Rich Young Ruler falls short on another point.

Notice that Jesus credits his unwillingness to come to Christ to his being rich. What does a man's wealth have to do with his being saved if he is "effectually called" as Calvinism assumes? Why would it be any more or less difficult for a rich man to enter the kingdom if Calvinism was the doctrine Christ was teaching here?

The reason it is difficult for a rich man is because the riches cloud ones ability to make the right choice. You can't serve two masters. Remember how Christ call those he spoke with to "consider the cost" and decide if they are willing to follow him. For a rich man the costs seem much higher so its a much more difficult decision to make. Calvinism doesn't leave room for that.

 

It's statements like this that only make me more convinced that what I'm saying here is true. You totally ignore my arguments and resort to demeaning personal remarks. If we are to know truth by the fruit of those proclaiming it then we can now dismiss the possiblity of you being the bearer of that truth.

Mike, have you even thought about your claims. Do you actually think that we believe salvation is possible with man alone? This statement from Christ simply means that without God's work of redemption salvation would be impossible. By the works of the law it is impossible with man, but with God it is possible. Why? Because he provided for our substitutionary atonement which is applied to those with faith in Christ. Any of us on this board can truly say, "WITH MAN IT IS IMPOSSIBLE, BUT WITH GOD ALL THINGS ARE POSSIBLE." To assume that this one statement conclusively proves that God chooses to save some and pass over others to be damned is absurd. Move on and lets debate the issues instead making deaming remarks.

What gospel is that preacher preaching? Where did the words of that gospel come from? The gospel is the power of God unto salvation. There is power in the Word. Why? Because they are not words from man but words of God. Your problem is that you don't see the Holy Spirit's work of inspiration in bringing us the gospel that we preach as being enough of a work to save lost souls. Instead you have to add an additional secret work of the Spirit, an irresistable working only for a select few. This is unsupported in the scripture.

You never address my objection. If a rich man is effectually called why would it be "difficult" for him to enter the kingdom of heaven?

 

I'd probably answer it exactly how Apostle Paul would.

Romans 9:19-21
"Thou wilt say then to me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Nay but, o man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thouh made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?"

These are not my words </font>[/QUOTE]There is the answer I had expected.

This is exactly the error that I have been pointing out in my posts.

Paul is not responding to the objection that Arminians raise to Calvinists as you assume here. Paul is not answering the objection, "Why would God still blame us for not doing that which he, our creator, hasn't enabled us to do?"

Instead, if you read the context you will clearly see that Paul is answering the objection, "Why aren't God's people (Israel) being saved and why would he blame them if they are hardened?"

You must understand that hardening doesn't mean to condemn as some seem to assume. The judicial hardening of Israel was temporary and purposeful as Romans 10 and 11 explain. These passages also show us that some of those who are hardened later believe. So, when a Calvinists quote, "he has mercy on whom he wants and hardens whom he wants," as if that explains why God saves somes and condemns others they are taking this passage out of its intended context thus giving it an unintended meaning.

 

I agree that we are condemned from birth.

I was objecting to your using Romans 9 as a defense for my objection, a point that you failed to address. Specifially the idea that God has mercy on whomever he wants to have mercy and he condemns the rest as Calvinists seem to interpret this passage.

 

Your words are in bold:

1. Your original quote came across that man was condemned on the basis of his or her rejection of Christ. That is why I clarified that man is born condemed

Let me clarify then. Man remains condemned or not based upon his or her rejection or acceptance of Christ. Is that better?

2. All man is commanded to come to Christ, however it does not mean that all men will be able. God often gives commands that man cannot keep or fullful. We are commanded to be holy, yet we ourselves cannot be holy, this illustrated that God does not lower His standard.

Wrong!!! God NEVER unjustly commands that which he does not provide the means to be accomplished. Your illustration of God's demand for us to be Holy falls flat on its face when you consider the fact that God provided the means through faith in his Son to become Holy in the sight of God. God commanded the impossible, then He made it possible. The means through which it is possible is faith. You want to try and make that means impossible as well, but scripture never does that. Only Calvinists do that.

3. Romans 9 is basically a lesson on the old testiment passage of 'jars of clay'. Romans 9 details God's soveriegnty over the 'clay', which is man, it shows that God can make 'vessels of wrath fitted for desctruction' (sounds like condemnation to me ) or 'dishonor' and also make 'vessels of mercy' which are 'prepared unto glory' and make them all out of the same lump.

Notice that the "vessels of wrath fitted for destruction" that Paul refers to here is Israel, whom he has just said God had bore with great patience and longsuffering. What was God being patient and longsuffering for? According to Romans 10:21 God has "held out his hands all day long" to these disobedient people. God has "longed to gather them under his wings" as Matt. 23:37 tells us "but they were unwilling." This rebellion is what made them "fit for destruction" not God's unwillingness to save them. Hardening was deserved because they had continually rebelled against God's patient endurance. And yes, if they remain in that hardened state, unmoved by God's appeal through his servant Paul they are fit for destruction, however, it is quite clear in Romans 11 that those who are hardened may be provoked to jealousy and saved. (Rom. 11:13-15)

4. So God does ask of us things we cannot fulfull. Many may raise the objection that 'it's not fair', and I would agree, it's not fair, but we are not equal with God.

Yes, God does ask of us things we cannot fulfill, but he then provides the means for us to fulfill it, thus He is just in condemning us for not utilizing those means.

He commands us to cross the canyon and He builds the bridge, but we must cross. He would never command us to cross an insurmountable canyon and then judge us with eternal damnation for not doing that which he knew we couldn't do, that is unjust by anyone's standards, much less the standards of a righteous, loving and merciful God.

The fact that you seen this as being an unjust act should cause you to at least be willing to question your intepretation of this text. God is not unjust in his dealings with man.

 

Eric is right, you never addressed what I said. What do you mean it's not biblical. You don't agree that God commands us to be sinless and then provides the means through faith?

God never demands that which He doesn't provide the means to accomplish. To do so would be unjust by anyones standard, especially the standard of a loving and merciful God.