5 Things This Calvinist Believes

So salvation is not offered to unbelievers?

Come on, Hardsheller.

Neal

 

No. God sovereignly chooses to take a position. He is God - He can do that.

God also declares He is faithful AND true to His Word. He is sovereign - He can do that.

But then the Calvinist model is to climb inside God's head and try to "guess" how it works - speculate how the infinite mind deals with His own sovereign choices.

The Arminian model is simply to accept those statements as "true" without trying to "be god" - without speculating on all the implications that "might" be true if only we had God's mind.

Only Calvinism views that as "a limit".

It is like saying "God chooses not to sin - how limited".

God has enabled man to CHOOSE "right" something God DOES posses even by Calvinist standards.

The problem is that to speculate correctly about all that "might be true if only you had God's mind" - you would first need to BE God.

Arminians never take that route - we pefer to just take the truths I listed above - as God stated them and "believe" that He is telling the truth - rather than believing He is trying to weasel out of His own freely chosen sovereign statements.

In Christ,

Bob

 

I Think I am still waiting for the answer to this one.

In Christ,

Bob

 

"Whosoever will" and "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ" are included in calvinism, too, you know. The simple gospel is part of calvinism, and that's what's included in and evangelistic appeal.

The doctrine of election and so forth are pastoral doctrines. I bet there are lots of things you believe are true, too, but you don't use them in an evangelistic appeal, do you? When's the last time you mentioned that Christ was a priest after the order of Melchizedek and explained what that meant in an evangelistic appeal?

 

So salvation is not offered to unbelievers?

Come on, Hardsheller.

Neal </font>[/QUOTE]I didn't say that. What I said was that if you make a list of all the times choices are offered to people in the Bible the vast majority of them are made to God's People.

Of course Salvation is preached to unbelievers. That is a given. </font>[/QUOTE]Do you mean by "God's People" Israel or "the elect" of Calvinism's system? God's people were the Israelites and yes choices were presented to them throughout the OT, but as we can see a large majority of them did not choose correctly therefore you would say they were not "elect". The choice was still presented to them was it not?

If you take "God's people" to mean "the elect" or if you take "God's people" to mean "Israel," either way this statement is false.

 

No. God sovereignly chooses to take a position. He is God - He can do that.</font>[/QUOTE] God chooses to take a position? Please cite this scripture where God chose to be moral... talk about presuming upon God.

Nope. Not necessary. All you have to do is read the scriptures in context and determine which system explains the whole of scripture in the best way. Your accusation is simply false. Calvinists, like Arminians, are attempting to read the scriptures and formulate a coherent doctrine.

Again not necessary. God has told us what He willed to in the Bible. Calvinists simply look at texts like Romans 8-9, John 6, I Tim 1:9, Acts 13:48, I Cor 1:26-29, I Peter 1:2, et al. and discern that God indeed elected those who would believe.

Really? You haven't read Bill on "the hardening" have you?

Further, where does the Bible say that man's choice completes God's grace resulting in salvation?

God cannot sin. If you are saying that He chose not to sin or that He can in fact sin then please cite the scripture.

God has enabled man to CHOOSE "right" something God DOES posses even by Calvinist standards.</font>[/QUOTE] I disagree with Hardsheller here. Both God and man do have free will and will always exercise it in accordance with their nature.

However, I also disagree with you. The Bible says there are none that do good, no not one.

No. Arminians grant man divine choices... without respect to what is in God's mind.

 

Well, with all due respect, I think all other choices are secondary to this one, whether to believers or unbelievers. This is the ultimate choice one must eventually make. (Please notice that I do not believe that one can will himself to believe. But when presented with evidence one has a choice to accept or reject, and this is what I am concerned with when I say choice.)

Neal

 

Let me ask you a question. Can you will yourself to desire something? (Say, read a book, have a Coke, cut the grass, spend money getting your car fixed, etc.) Or is desire something outside the will?

(Also, I don't advocate free will. I prefer the power of choice.)

Neal

 

This is a prime example of what I mean when I speak of Calvinists who take phrases out of context to apply them as support for their views.

Hardsheller has taken the phrase "ears to hear" and applied it to his understanding of God's choosing some for salvation and passing over others heading toward damnation. The scriptural phrase "He who has ears let him hear," is not speaking toward the Calvinistic premise of the effectual calling, it is speaking toward the issue of hardening.

Look at Matt. 13, it is clear that those who cannot hear are those who are hardened, not those who are born Totally Depraved as Calvinists suggests. Hardening is a temporary condition of Israel for a unique purpose.

So, when Jesus was saying, "He who has ears let him hear," he was saying "He who hasn't has his ears hardened let him hear, " Not, "He who has been effectually called let him hear."

 

Welcome to NC Harhsheller - we are carrying on the debate here so you don't have to skip a beat.

Bob

 

Mechizedek is probably not the best example for your point - since Christ's work as our Hight Priest in the Heavenly Sanctuary - the ONE meidator between God and man - is a very good theme for evangelism and does get used a lot in that respect.

However the Very Point of the Gospel message on God's Willingness to save all and "Not will that Any Should Perish" is central to an evangelistic appeal (rather than a side point not worth discussing in Evangelism).

If this were some esoteric point like how tall is an angel or how many people lived on earth prior to the flood - we could easily dispense with it in evangelism as you say.

But this IS the point of evangelism - that God Does love the World and Does draw all mankind and Does call you to repentance and Does want both you and your family and friends to come to repentance etc etc. These Very Points that Calvinism so rejects - is the Very Point of Evangelism.

The argument that "we don't happen to expose what Calvinism says on these points since it doesn't work in Evangelism" is combined with "in fact we make the evangelistic appeals of the Arminian pastors" and there you find a "Result" that Arminians would be loathe to accept were the tables turned.

How hard it would be for the Arminians on this board to be "forced to use Calvinist appeals in evangelism since those are the only ones that actually work". And yet this is precisely the lot of our Calvinist bretheren. And on top of that - "we notice it" so they have to somehow turn that back and get "Arminiansm to be ok in Calvinism".

I could not imagine a more difficult task. Fortunately the Arminian Evangelist does not have that problem.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Bob wrote --
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No. God sovereignly chooses to take a position. He is God - He can do that.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Indeed Titus 1 tells us that we HAVE the promise of the Gospel from "God who CAN NOT LIE". The Bible DOES present God as moral - just - righteous and true. As much as this may goad the Calvinist position that would presume upon that Bible position to be "limiting" - it is in fact - sovereignly "chosen" by God.


quote:Bob said
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But then the Calvinist model is to climb inside God's head and try to "guess" how it works -
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well at least we agree on that part.

quote:Bob Said
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Calvinists speculate how the infinite mind deals with God's own sovereign choices.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The point was to address God saying "He is not willing for ANY to perish but for ALL to come to repentance" and to accept that as God's own "sovereign choice" NOT just Romans 9 as "God own sovereign choice". By pushing the boundary out as far as scripture describes it - we are not left with the narrowly defined arbitrary selection model that Calvinism 'supposes' that God must be adopting to get to Romans 9.

Rather - the bounds are set outside of that - even as far as "God so Loved the World" as His own sovereign choice.

quote:Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Arminian model is simply to accept those statements as "true" without trying to "be god" - without speculating on all the implications that "might" be true if only we had God's mind.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Calvinism speculates that "man's choice completes God's grace IF God allowed man to have a choice".

Arminianism does not need that speculation. Rather the arminian position is that God's Sovereign choice to PROVIDE Grace - allows man to choose. God is not threatened or weakened or inhibited by His Own Sovereign choice to enable mankind to choose.

God sovereignly chose to allow Lucifer - the perfect sinless Angel to "choose" and it "cost him 1/3 of the Angels".

God sovereignly chose to allow sinless Adam and Eve to "choose" and it cost him the entire planet.

God Sovereignly chose to "so love the World that He gave His only begotten Son" and "to NOT be willing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance" and it cost Him the suffering and death of His Son.

Each of these "Choices" came with a cost - but God is big enough and infinite enough to endure the cost and stick with His own sovereign choice in the matter.

quote:Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Only Calvinism views that as "a limit".

It is like saying "God chooses not to sin - how limited".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

God cannot sin. If you are saying that He chose not to sin or that He can in fact sin then please cite the scripture.

"With God ALL things are possible".


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hardsheller
But yet you say that God has given to man a Free Will something He Himself does not possess.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob said --

God has enabled man to CHOOSE "right" something God DOES posses even by Calvinist standards.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Actually - I also agree that man "when isolated from God drawing ALL mankind to Himself" can be described in his sinful nature as "not doing good".


quote:Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arminians never take that route
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Arminian show from scripture that God sovereignly chose to "Draw all mankind to Himself" and to "CONVICT the World of sin and righteousness and judgment" - that God "sovereignly chose to So love the World that He GAVE His only Son" that God "sovereignly Chose to BE the Light that coming into the world is the Light of Every one of mankind". Mankind has choice - only supernaturally provided by God who "Draws ALL mankind to Himself".

EVEN Calvinism is forced to admit that those who are "supernaturally Drawn by God" can choose. So arguing as you do - against that choice - is inconsistent EVEN for Calvinism.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Actually, Hebrews tells us that the subject of Melchizedek is not an basic teaching, but a difficult one, but you are right, in that it is not the best example. But there are other examples--the gifts of the Spirit, for instance, or the role of suffering in the life of the believer. The main focus ot those teachings is to those who are already believers. Same thing with the doctrines of grace--their main focus is to those who are already believers and as such they are usually not part of a simple evangelistic message.

No it isn't. God is not willing to save all, but all who believe, or all who come to Him. And if you think that message is somehow contradictory to Calvinism, you are mistaken.

The very point of evangelism is that God calls everyone to repentance. And the universal call to repentance, the universal call of the gospel is a calvinistic teaching. If you think Calvinism rejects that, you are mistaken again.

Who made that argument? I didn't make the argument that the doctrines of grace wouldn't work in evangelism, but that they aren't necessary. Don't you usually keep evangelistic messages to the brass tacks, so to speak? To the things that are necessary for salvation?

Those evangelistic appeals may be the same sort of appeals that Arminian pastors make, but they did not originate with Arminian pastors. The reasons the appeals are similar is because both Calvinist and Arminians believe we are saved in the same way: through faith. We both believe that anyone who comes is saved; anyone who believes is saved; whosoever will is saved.

This is a problem in your own mind only, really, because of your misunderstandings of Calvinism. There is no turning back and getting Arminianism to be ok in Calvinism--the universal gospel call has always been part of Calvinism. There is much Armininians and Calvinist have always agreed on, and this is one of them. You are wasting your time putting so much energy into arguing this, because you are arguing against a position that doesn't exist within Calvinism, and never has.

 

Bob,

You might find the first post in this conversation started by Pastor Larry to be helpful.

Rebecca

 

These are difficult scriptures to reconcile by any measure. However, Romans 9 does not stand alone. It is a continuation of Romans 8 which likewise declares God's sovereign plan for "the called." Reading 2 Peter 3 in context reveals that it is written to believers. God is long-suffering to "us-ward". The interpretation that this verse applies to the non-elect in any way is not a foregone conclusion.

I have no idea what "arbitrary selection model" you are talking about. I don't think God does anything arbitrarily. He does things according to His own will and purpose.

Again, in the context of John 3, Jesus also says that one must be born again to enter into the kingdom. Unless you would accuse Christ of not considering the implication of this analogy as some have done, it should be acknowledged that no one has ever chosen physical birth. By direct analogy, no one chooses spiritual birth either.

Note that the non-interpretive examples you gave were of creatures that chose rebellion. You did not demonstrate you point by showing one acting in unfettered free will choosing God over themselves.

But he does not "draw all mankind" which invalidates your interpretation. Millions have died never hearing the gospel and therefore never having been drawn by it.

Read John 1 in context also. How does vs 13 fit into it?

I agree that man has choice and is responsible for his own sin. What I disagree with is that any man without God's intervention will ever use his free will to choose God.

I am not arguing against choice. In fact, if you follow my posts through this forum you will see that I have consistently maintained that man does have a genuine choice to make... but that his independent choice will always be to reject God and deify himself.