A Basic Question to all Calvinists

Thanks, but you're missing the point of my question. Nobody says that we are responsible for predestination.

Whether any given person will believe or reject the gospel has already been determined by God, who perfectly knows the future. This is what we mean by predestination. Does this mean that people are not responsible to believe, since whether they will believe or not has already been determined and will surely come to pass? We say that each person is still responsible to believe. Arminians (and most other non-Calvinists) say that if predestination in this sense is true then no one can be held responsible for not believing. That's what 'icthus' was getting at in the OP. The question for you (or anyone else) is, can you prove this assertion? </font>[/QUOTE]If EVERY PERSON is responsible to believe, yet only those who are predestined actually get saved? What actually happens to those who were not predestined yet believed? You see, their names, according to YOUR doctrine, were never written in the book of life from before the foundation of the world. Revelation 20:15 tells us that ALL whose names were not found in the book of life are cast into the lake of fire. So you are saying that believers whose names are not found in the book of life are cast into the lake of fire. Wow! that's heavy judgment dude!

Are they saved? OR, Is it impossible for those who are not predestined to be saved?

How would one know the difference between being predestined and not being predestined, if everyone who believes is saved? Do the predestined ones have a big purple "P" emblazoned on their chest for "Predestined Man"?

How would one know they are elect?
How does one know that he/she is elect? Is it merely because one thinks that God has given them some "special flavor of grace"?

If being elect means that one has faith in God, then being elect is no different than getting "born again", because being born again means you have changed from having NO FAITH in God to HAVING FAITH in God, especially God's son Jesus. Therefore, there is nothing to "the vaporous doctrine of Election". It is a hoax!

An oxy-moronic statement! "Been determined" and "Perfectly Knowing the future" are not related. "Been determined" implies that there is no reason for any man to have to come to faith by hearing the word of God, because as you say, he will be regenerated INTO FAITH!

"Perfectly knowing the future" expresses the timelessness of God, meaning that there is no 'future', or 'past' for God because in eternity there is no time.

So you are saying that God has already from before the world was made, selected all of the world's inhabitants that HE HAS SAVED! So what is the purpose of living this natural life if it has already been established before "time" began. The creation being the beginning of time.

There must be some other explanation that is not included in "predestination" and "election"! And that is what Calvinism refuses to acknowledge!

 

Coming from a Calvinist - this is a circular argument in the extreme.

God arbitrarily selects those HE WILL CAUSE to believe - to believe. Then Christ makes provision for ALL HE arbitrarily selects. But of course they don't want to SAY that so they say it as "God makes provision for all who WILL believe" and by "WILL" we mean "Who GOD WILL MAKE Believe".

After all it is the ultimate "make believe" view of the Gospel that we find in Calvinism has.

(And "yes" I know that where I say "arbitrarily selects" above the Calvinist WANT to say "innexplicably selects and so we say elects")

 

The information has been given many times. YOu know that. You in fact have never, not even one time, answered that information and it has been out there for over a year. YOu have distorted what we believe, distorted what the Bible teaches, and then whine when we don't repeatedly refute it. We have already refuted it.

 

Use hte quote function properly.

I am not pretending. You and I both know that the Bible teaches what we believe.

YOu keep bringing it up though, which is strange since you say that there is no issue. If there is no issue, then why bring it up? The "extent" of the atonement is clarified by the sufficient/efficient distinction. You want to play little games with the words but it won't work.

Yes, absolutely. That is what Calvinism teaches.

I am not kidding anyone. The Bible says that they must come. Those who won't come will not be saved. How much more simple does it get?

That's not the issue here. Their inability is moral ... It is because of their own sin, not because of God's decree. They are, as Christ said, "unwilling to come" and that is why they cannot come.

God did not make it impossible for them to come. Their own sin makes it impossible.

This is evidence of your dishonesty. YOu admit you know what Calvinism teaches, but you repeatedly distort it. Why?

Then you should have no problem demonstrating this from Scripture. But you can't. YOu are completely unable to demonstrate it, sa you have shown many times. You do not even have basic answers to the problems your position has created, much less a reasonable explanation. In fact, I am not sure you know what the questions are. You keep repeating the same stuff over and over again. That does not indicate someone who is engaged in a conversation. It does not indicate someone who understands the issues.

Unless you are an open theist, you believe hte same thing, as I have shown before. Even if you say that foreknowledge is not determinative of causative, but merely reactive, God's foreknowledge of who will believe and who won't renders that number fixed and nothing will change it. You have never answered this problem, and i know why. YOu don't have an answer.

That was plain old dishonest. YOu have read enough of Boettner and others to know better. Why repeat this stuff that you know is not true, especially when you quote Calvinists who tell you it isn't true? Do you really think no one is paying attention to this dishonesty on your part?

The atonement is not hte barrier. They can come if they will. But as Christ said, They are unwilling. Their wills are in bondgae to their sin so that they freely choose to sin and reject Christ. They do not want to do anything else.

The challenge for you would be to take what Calvinism actually believes, and show it to be a distortion. For all your rantings, you rarely (if ever) deal with what we actually believe. You make it up and then call it a distortion. It is laughable.

[ June 06, 2005, 09:11 AM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

Coming from a Calvinist - this is a circular argument in the extreme.</font>[/QUOTE]Not at all. YOu just don't know what you are talking about.

Problem 1: The selection is not arbitrary. God selects for his own glory. That is not arbitrary in the least.

Problem 2: The provision is for all; the application is not. Again, if you took, the time to learn what we actually teach, you would readily recognize the difference between provision and application. The provision is limited only by the infinitude of Christ.

Problem 3: We don't "want to say that" becuase it isn't true. Given our aversion to dishonesty, it is easy to reconcile our refusal to say something that isn't true.

Problem 4: God does not "make" anyone believe. If you knew Calvinism you would know that. God creates in them a heart that wills to believe by givign them a new will.

In the end, there are four major problems with your view, all based on faulty understanding or faulty representation. As with your future scenario, you distort what we believe, and distort what the Bible teaches about God, and then act like you have nailed the coffin shut. Yet even a short three minute reply suffices to show how inadequate your comments are.

Like you have done before, you will likely accuse me of not responding in detail. You will do that, likely, because you have no answer. That is what you did what the future sceanrio. I responded in detail to the details and you simply ignored it and kept posting it. Eventually, I got tired of refuting the same nonsense. You have way too high an estimation of your own thinking ability. You need to rely on Scripture as we do, rather than on your ability to come up with these ideas.

 

I think plenty has been said here to demonstrate that you are the one who doesn't understand. But so as not to let us down, you demonstrate it yet again. (You really should stop ... this is way too easy.)

Because the wages of sin is death, not a decree. The Bible plainly teaches that man goes to hell because of sin that he willfully commits against God. The Bible never attributes hell to the lack of God's decree for salvation. God simply allows man to do what he is doing.

Again, I am not hard of understanding. The Bible clearly declares that God ordains all things that come to pass. The Bible clearly declares that man willfully sins and goes to hell of his own sinful choices. If you have a problem with that, it is because you insist on using your logic to understand God's work. That is why your system of logic is a bad ground for developing theology. We need a revealed theology from God's word.

How can it not be sincere? It is sincerely offered to all who will accept.

But as I have pointed out, unless you are an open theist, you have the same problem.

It is because of what the Bible teaches that I believe what I believe. It is because of what the Bible teaches that I reject your beliefs. God spoke differently than you, and given that choice, I will go with God every time.

I agree. This verse doesn't show my beliefs to be wrong. I can't imagine why you would say something so absurd.

 

*sigh*

God creates man
God loves man
man screws up - OF HIS OWN FREE WILL
man is now corrupted and sinner
baby NOT sinner
baby IS corrupted and biased towards sin but baby has the ability to choose not to sin - however corruption all but makes that impossible - not impossible - just pretty close

God loves man
God wants man back
God sends Jesus
Jesus is born human - just as we are
This means we as corrupted human beings not some uber-human being that ceased to exist once sin was introduced
Jesus doesnt sin
Jesus is therefore sinless and an acceptable sacrifice
Jesus is killed
Jesus' corrupt body surprisingly doesnt pop back to life - rather it is refashioned into incorruptible - or is given new body - whatever floats your boat

Salvation is offered to us by grace and is accessible to us by the act of faith

___________

Post edited to remove inappropriate comment.

[ June 06, 2005, 04:07 PM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

Icthus,

You do not understand because you will not accept the Bible for what it says.

1. The Bible says God ordains all things that come to pass.
2. The Bible says that man is responsible for his sin.

I am not at liberty to deny either. You apparently are. I refuse to deny what Scripture says in order to please your own thinking.

Secondly, I have dealt with your point about the offer being sincere. It was dishonset of you to say that I haven't. You didn't like how I dealt with it, and that is fine. In fact, taht is your problem. Again, the Bible says that the offer is to everyone, elect and non-elect alike, and I am not at liberty to deny that.

The bottom line is apparent that you have placed your mind and your thinking about Scripture. I refuse. I don't understand how it all fits together, but I am not about to tell God what he can and cannot do. I accept his word for it. You should do the same.

 

This is Pelagianism. It is not even arminianism yet. At least arminianism acknowledges that man is defiled. The Bible teaches that all are born sinners, not simply biased toward sin.

 

First, I have shown many verses where the Bible says that God ordains all things.

Second, a person becomes a sinner when they come into existence because of Adam's sin.

These things are not new. Why keep asking? Did you forget already?

 

I will not continue to repeat myself. If you want to know them, go look them up. You know as well as I do that I have given.

Your citation of verses was inadequate theologically and contextually. You should spend more time studying and less time trying to support your bad doctrine. Not knowing the difference between right and wrong doesn't mean that someone is not a sinner. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. The truth remains that people are born sinners. That is why they sin.

 

Fine you want to label me Larry - Ill accept your worthless label - and label you one as well - Ignorant - so the son is guilty of the sins of the father? - Larry your argument doesnt hold water - nor does it hold with Biblical teaching. We have no sin from Adam - we have a corrupted nature from Adam and a curse

We are born corrupted - this pretty much guarantees that we will sin - now what moment that sin is held against us - what moment are we considered aware enough to be held guilty differs for each person

Ezekiel 18:2-3,19-20
Deut 24:16
2Kings 14:6 - refers to above
2Chron 25:6 - refers to same
Jeremiah 31:29-30

As for practical principle I refer to the children of Israel having to wander in the desert until the faithless generation died off - not generations - not everyone who was alive at that moment - generation!

Perhaps Larry one should read one's Bible more often - especially if one has the word "pastor" in one's name

Oh I almost forgot to deal with your "UNBIBLICAL" statement that ignorance of the law is no excuse

Numbers 15:24-31 - look carefully at 29
Romans 4:15
Romans 5:13
Romans 7:7-25

Ignorance of the Bible is no excuse Larry - especially for a "pastor"

 

It is not my label, nor is it worthless. It is the label that has existed for your beliefs for more than a thousand years, and one that the early church labeled heresy. I don't make it up, I just report it.

Label's aren't bad necessarily. They mean things. Most people object to labels because they don't want to recognize what they actually believe.

Nothing like going personal. I think it is fair to say that out of everything you might legitimately call me, ignorant is not one of them. Why not deal with the substance of the matter rather than stooping to name calling?

That is not what Romans 5 says. You pick and choose a few verses, don't read and study them in the larger biblical/theological context, and you arrive at error.

Again, a useless personal attack. I imagine that I read my Bible more than you do, but that's beside the point. Your attack is wrong and out of place. Next time you make them, against me or anyone else, you will be completely edited. The whole post will be removed. Stay on topic; do not resort to off topic personal attacks.

So please, study those passages and then we will talk. When you study them in their context, there won't be any discussion. You will agree with me. Rom 5:13 is a great one ... It reminds us that unknowing children are charged with sin. How do we know that? They died. The only reason people die is because of sin. If they are not sinners, then death has no power over them. Romans 7 is another great passage that completely refutes your notion. We have discussed that here before.

 

I meant to be a pastor? No, I didn't mean to be. I am one.

That is dishonest. You know that I have provided many Scriptures in support of that, as have others. You have even discussed them with me before. Then you come and say that I have failed to provide "even one."

Again, dishonest. I haven't run from any Scriptures. I haven't run to any theology books. In fact, you quote more than anyone else here (and then deny what they actually say, incidentally). What we believe is found int he Bible and you have been shown that.

Fautly by whose standards? We have shown where you misuse Scripture, contradict Scripture, ignore Scripture, and make up your own ideas. That doesn't make our theology faulty.

Are you saying that a baby perfectly reflect the glory of God in every aspect of his life? David says he was conceived in sin. Paul says that babies die (somethign we really didn't need divine revelation for). Both indicate that babies are sinners.

I have begged you to do this. You keep ignoring it.

That is not what Paul said. He is talkign about something that completely refutes your point. He is talking about election, and showing that election is in eternity past, not rooted in the works or things that man does. It is interesting that you cite a verse that completely refutes your theology, ignore what it is talking about, use it to support something that contradicts other Scriptures, and then pretend like you have solved the problem. I don't even think you take yourself seriously.

I have dealt with all of those verses. That is why I am a Calvinist. The verses teach what Calvinism believes.