A Basic Question to all Calvinists

[Soulman]

Man was origionally created a child of God. When Adam chose not to serve God the human race became condemned already as Jn. 3:17 states.

Calvanists beleive that when given the same choice Adam was given that we would naturally choose to reject God therefore being responsible and inexcusable before God. Only by divine intervention to our heart will we be enlightened to accept the finished work of Christ.

Hogwash!

The bible says whosoever will!! God gave us a second chance and we have a choice to accept or reject. The reason we are condemned already prior to accepting Christ is because that is how the creation was left. Jesus was the second adam and those that accept His work on the cross are reborn into the family of God and restored.

 

[Bro. James]

A second chance--in the casino of eternal life. What are the odds man will make the right choice?

50-50? Some would say 0-infinity( like a snowball surviving in Hell). Man's will is in bondage--to his sin nature. He knows not how to make the right choice.

Selah,

Bro. James

P.S. I am not a follower of Chauvin or Arminius.

 

[Wes Outwest]

Well said Soulman, welcome to the discussion

 

[russell55]

Russell, you quote from 2 Thes. 2:13, where the reading is disputed in the Greek manuscripts. Many Mss. have here, "God chose you as first-fruits (first converts)...". So, it is not safe to build a doctrine on an uncertain reading.

And how would that destroy my point? If firstfruits is the correct reading, then the point still stands. Chosing some for salvation (first CONVERTS) and holding those who don't believe responsible for not believing are COMPATIBLE in the scriptures.

This is more of the blowing smoke tactic: Produce a lot of smoke and hope no one notices you've got no argument.

Given all of your examples, you have yet to show where God would have caused all things, including our sinful actions.

If what the King of Assyria did wasn't sinful, then why was God punishing him? If what the men of Israel did wasn't sinful, then why are they admonished to repent?

I can give you a whole lot more examples, too, but I'm not sure you're even reading the ones I do give, because if you were, I don't know how you could respond the way you do.

Here, answer these questions for me:

Was the action of the King of Assyria sinful? Did God send him to do what he did?

Were those who crucified Christ doing something sinful? Were they acting according to God's predetermined plan?

For God to cause us to sin, can only mean that He comples us to sin.

So Isthus says. I don't buy it. Scripture uses the words send" "intend" "predetermined plan" in relation to God and the sinful acts of men. It also tells us that for every temptation, there is a way out. That means that according to scripture, God can predetermine sinful acts without compelling them.

There, I responded to every point you made to me. I will not be responding back again until you at least respond to those questions I've put in italics in this post. I'm tired of doing the hard work of responding to you, and then having my questions back to you ignored.

It's easy enough to blow smoke. Lets see the fire behind the smoke sometime. Answer the questions, please.

 

[RodnStaff]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
Why haven't you believed us the many other times we have answered this question? Why waste the bandwidth asking something that has been asked and answered time after time after time? If you didn't believe it then, will you really believe it now?

And why waste bandwidth with silly insults when some people are looking for substantive posts? What are you saying, that the Bible is not worth repeating over and over? I agree that Calvinism should only have to be explained once, then forever rejected, but for someone who actually believes it is Bible, your logic reveals your low regard for what you supposedly believe to be true.

 

[whatever]

Originally posted by RodnStaff:
And why waste bandwidth with silly insults when some people are looking for substantive posts?

There aren't many here who want substantive posts which is the point. This question about responsibility has been asked and answered many, many times before, and the answers are consistently ignored by those who repeatedly ask the same things. These comments were not directed to those who do want substantive posts.

 

[Pastor Larry]

And why waste bandwidth with silly insults when some people are looking for substantive posts?

Who made silly insults? I certainly didn't. I commented on the tactics of someone who isn't the least interested in substantive answers. He has been given substantive answers for a very long time and has constantly rejected them. Now he repeats the same old stuff, apparently hoping the answers will change. They won't.

In my 13,000 posts here, I have repeated Scripture many times. It is the heartbeat of my life. I can't stand it when people insult it and reject in favor of their manmade ideas. When God speaks, we ought to shut up and listen. Some people unfortunately don't, so we end up with questions that God clearly answered being asked over and over again. It is sad.

 

[Wes Outwest]

Originally posted by whatever:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by RodnStaff:
And why waste bandwidth with silly insults when some people are looking for substantive posts?

There aren't many here who want substantive posts which is the point. This question about responsibility has been asked and answered many, many times before, and the answers are consistently ignored by those who repeatedly ask the same things. These comments were not directed to those who do want substantive posts. </font>[/QUOTE]You are an example of what you say in your first sentence. You simply cannot tolerate those who do post substance because that substance directly opposes and refutes your own theology, and you don't like that.

Responsibility? God set the standard, we are responsible for meeting that standard!

 

[whatever]

Originally posted by Wes, Outwest:
You are an example of what you say in your first sentence. You simply cannot tolerate those who do post substance because that substance directly opposes and refutes your own theology, and you don't like that.

I'd love some substance. I'd love for some Arminian to prove that predestination and responsibility are incompatible. Instead, Arminians here try to refute Calvinist beliefs by making assertions without proof, as if everyone should believe what they say because they said it. So please, please, give me some substance. Why are predestination and responsibility incompatible?

Responsibility? God set the standard, we are responsible for meeting that standard!

Of course we are responsible for meeting the standard that God has set. The question is whether we can meet that standard, and if so, how?

 

[Wes Outwest]

I'd love some substance. I'd love for some Arminian to prove that predestination and responsibility are incompatible.

Let me remind you I am not Arminian, but to answer your challenge:
Only the one knowing what is predestined is responsible to predestination.
and
Only the one having a responsibility is obligated to that responsibility.

Predestination is not a human responsibility because it has not been revealed to us who is predestined to what! EXCEPT! Believers in the Christ shall have everlasting life, while unbelievers will be cast into the lake of fire.

At best, all we can do is speculate as to whom is predestined to what. Therefore we have NBLIGATION TO PREDESTINATION! Our ONLY obligation is to our own individual Salvation! Once we are assured through faith that we will receive what is promised, we then have an obligation to help other's to gain the same assurance about their own salvation!

God is not responsible for our salvation, we are!
God is responsible for making salvation possible for mankind, and He already HAS!

If Predestination of individuals exists, it has not been revealed in any other manner than the promises of God and Prophesies God has provided to us! Those promises and or Prophesies, require that we have individual FAITH in the Promise maker!

Instead, Arminians here try to refute Calvinist beliefs by making assertions without proof, as if everyone should believe what they say because they said it. So please, please, give me some substance. Why are predestination and responsibility incompatible?

I'm relatively sure that you will have a differing opinion, but I have just given you substance.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Where was the substance? You did not quote one verse of Scripture. You did not give any biblical explanation. Everything you said is the product of your own mind. That is hardly substantive.

 

[BobRyan]

I notice that when Calvinism actually HAS an argument -- they suddenly wake up and want to start talking about "substantive" responses, "details" and a focus "on the text" and "what it actually says"...

What a refreshing "contrast" to their tactics when their view is on the ropes and they have nothing to offer in response but "glossing over details" and then "proclaiming victory anyway".

I salute the Calvinists on this particular thread for using a "different approach". I was beginnig to think they had lost the ability.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Pastor Larry]

That was pretty incoherent there Bob. Calvinism has always had substantive responses. We have shown time and time again that your details are wrong. We haven't glossed over them. They are bad details on which to formulate a fictional story, much less a theological position.

 

[icthus]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
That was pretty incoherent there Bob. Calvinism has always had substantive responses. We have shown time and time again that your details are wrong. We haven't glossed over them. They are bad details on which to formulate a fictional story, much less a theological position.

Larry, when will you Calvinists wake up?

How can any of you guys think that your position can really be defended from Scripture? This basic "offer of the Gospel" to all without exception that even the Calvinists agree to, is foolishness in your view, which allows for the indiscriminate offer to all, but then discriminates against those who can , not do accept it, but discounting that Christ would have had to made provision of all those to whom the Gospel is offered, so that this offer can be sincere indeed. The way things stand at present in your system, the "offer" cannot be genuine since Christ as not made it possible for all those who hear the offer to come to Him, seeing that there is no provision of all in His Atonement.

All arguments against this are noting but to the wind. You cannot Biblically support this nonsense, so you will try the old line, that we don't really understand Calvinism.I suppose this gives you something to hide behind.

Let us suppose Larry, that you are in a deep well, and there is no way out for you. Then I come along and say that I can rescue you from there, and offer to throw down a rope for you to climb out with. However, the rope is only able to reach half way to where you are in the well, and there is no way that you can get to it. Yet, I did say that I could get you out. This is exactly what Calvinism does with the offer of the Gospel to everyone without exception. They say that it is a "way out" for everyone from the bondage of sin, but, yet this "way out", though offered to one and all, is really only for the "elect of God". If this is not deceitful, then what is it?

 

[Pastor Larry]

Larry, when will you Calvinists wake up?

Usually about 6:30 or so, depends on the day and night before.

How can any of you guys think that your position can really be defended from Scripture?

Because we can read and think.

This basic "offer of the Gospel" to all without exception that even the Calvinists agree to, is foolishness in your view, which allows for the indiscriminate offer to all, but then discriminates against those who can , not do accept it, but discounting that Christ would have had to made provision of all those to whom the Gospel is offered, so that this offer can be sincere indeed. The way things stand at present in your system, the "offer" cannot be genuine since Christ as not made it possible for all those who hear the offer to come to Him, seeing that there is no provision of all in His Atonement.

When will you learn? I have told you many many times that Christ made a provision for all who would believe to be saved. People are not saved only because they do not believe. All who "will" believe are saved by Christ. His atonement is not limited in its sufficiency in anyway. You, in the past, have quoted Calvinists who told you exactly that, but for some reason, you think you know what we believe better than we know what we believe.

The offer of the gospel is sincere in Calvinism. The Bible offers the gospel to all without exception. There is nothing new there.

All arguments against this are noting but to the wind. You cannot Biblically support this nonsense, so you will try the old line, that we don't really understand Calvinism.I suppose this gives you something to hide behind.

IT is quite funny to see you keep coming back for more. You have been told, time and time again, what the truth is and you keep rejecting it. We have biblically supported our arguments and you know it. You just disagree with our explanation. That is fine, but you can't claim that we haven't used the Bible to support our view. The Bible clearly teaches what we teach, and the sooner you submit your mind and theology to Scripture, the better off you will be.

Let us suppose Larry, that you are in a deep well, and there is no way out for you. Then I come along and say that I can rescue you from there, and offer to throw down a rope for you to climb out with. However, the rope is only able to reach half way to where you are in the well, and there is no way that you can get to it. Yet, I did say that I could get you out. This is exactly what Calvinism does with the offer of the Gospel to everyone without exception.

Several problems.

1. You assume that I want out of the well. I might be enjoying the water, and the darkness. It is cooler down there, to me. Your analogy fails on that point. If you read your Bible, you see that people "in the well" don't want out.

2. You have confused arminianism and Calvinism. Arminianism has a rope that only goes half way. The atonement, in arminianism, is not effective. It provides for all, but nothing else. That is a halfway atonement. In the Bible (and therefore in Calvinism), the rope goes all the way to the bottom, and all who desire it can use it. In fact, God ties the rope around them and brings them up so that they do not even have to "hang on" to it.

You preach a gospel that they can get out, but apart from Calvinism, you have no way to get them out. Fortunately, the gospel is not limited by your theology.

They say that it is a "way out" for everyone from the bondage of sin, but, yet this "way out", though offered to one and all, is really only for the "elect of God". If this is not deceitful, then what is it?

Well, your statement is deceitful, unfortunately. You again are trying to deceive people about what Calvinism believes. You aren't very good at it, because you keep getting caught. The "way out" is for all who "will" believe. Those who won't believe have no way out. That is what the Bible teaches, and that is what Calvinism teaches. What good is a road that is a mile wide if no one drives on it? That is your conception of salvation. God has provided a road a mile wide, but then leaves dead people on their own to get oup and drive on it. It will never work. If your understanding was correct, no one would be saved. Fortunately, you can preach teh Calvinistic gospel without telling people you believe in it.

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
That was pretty incoherent there Bob. Calvinism has always had substantive responses. We have shown time and time again that your details are wrong. We haven't glossed over them. They are bad details on which to formulate a fictional story, much less a theological position.

I can't believe you will pretend not to see the difference in this thread and the "perfect scenario" thread where all the Calvinists do is "complain" without actually saying anything of substance (when it comes to the "Calvinist Future Scenario" and ALSO the Job 1 and Job 2 scenarios). All they seem to muster is "I cling to Calvinism anyway" on that thread.

Surely you can not claim that the appeal here on this thread BY Calvinists to "substance" And "detail" is an example of their same tactic on that "perfect scenario" thread of fleeing from those VERY things (Substance, attention to detail - etc)??!!!

I am truly amazed that this Calvinism-at-any-cost approaoch of yours would lead you to such an exposed statement.

It is left as an exercise for the reader to "see" how blatant this contrast is between these two threads.

So to Calvinists I say "pretend away"!!

In Christ,

Bob

 

[whatever]

Originally posted by Wes, Outwest:
Predestination is not a human responsibility because it has not been revealed to us who is predestined to what! EXCEPT! Believers in the Christ shall have everlasting life, while unbelievers will be cast into the lake of fire.

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 responsibile 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?

 

[Pastor Larry]

One of the main differences I see, Bob, is that your future scenario is not based on anything outside your own mind. It is not based on Scripture. It, in fact, is a contradiction of Scripture, in the details and in teh big picture. Of course, you know that. We continually give substantive answers, to the point of being repetitive. We have spent way longer on this topic than we should have. Things that are continually repeated and still fall on deaf ears is casting pearls before swine. The biblical truth that we have shown you time and again from Scripture remains the biblical truth. Go tell your little stories, and include all the details you like, but never forget that you have started from a faulty foundation.

 

[BobRyan]

It, in fact, is a contradiction of Scripture, in the details

Wonderful - another "claim" without any actual information to go with it.

So its "back to the old tactics" for Calvinism again?

How unnexpected.

In any case - my commendation of your "change in tactics" on this thread (because you actually have something like a leg to stand on in this one by comparison to the other thread) -- remains. (Though you pretend the Calvinists here are still using the same vaccuous responses here as on that other thread - you are in fact not doing that and I applaud the change "anyway")

 

[icthus]

Larry, you say

"When will you learn? I have told you many many times that Christ made a provision for all who would believe to be saved. People are not saved only because they do not believe. All who "will" believe are saved by Christ. His atonement is not limited in its sufficiency in anyway. You, in the past, have quoted Calvinists who told you exactly that, but for some reason, you think you know what we believe better than we know what we believe.

The offer of the gospel is sincere in Calvinism. The Bible offers the gospel to all without exception. There is nothing new there."

Don't try to pretned that Calvinism is what the Bible teaches. That Christ's death is "sufficient" for the whole world is not the issue with anyone. The "extent" of the atonement does not concern itself with whether Christ' death was "sufficient" or not for the sins of the world. We have no issue here. What are are concerned about, is the "extent" of the atonement. Could everyone without exception, should they wish to come to Christ for salvation, be saved? The Calvinist, lie you have shown above, will try to deceive us by their clever word-games. "all who 'will' believe are saved by Christ". Who are you trying to kid with this insincere statement? Because you know full well that the Calvinistic position is that all "cannot believe" since all are not given "believing faith". So, again I ask. How can the offer of the Gospel be sincere, when God knows full well, that He has not made it possible for the majority to believe. This is something that He has predetermined, and nothing can ever change this. On the basis of this, the offer to everyone without exception is not sincere, since God know that all "cannot", NOT "will not" come to Jesus.

This is exactly the same unbiblical nonsense that Dr Boettner says, when he writes;

"The Gospel is, nevertheless, to be offered to all men, with the assurance that it is exactly adapted to the needs of all men, and that God has decreed that all who place their faith in Christ shall be saved by Him. No man is lost because of any deficiency in the objective atonement, or because God has placed any barrier in his way, but only because of subjective difficulties, specifically, because his own evil disposition and his freely exercised wicked will prevent his believing and accepting that atonement." (Studies in Theology; pp.323-324)

This is deception and goes against the teachings of scripture. "God has decreed that all who place their faith in Christ shall be saved by Him". But, what we are not told here, that these "all", to whom the Gospel is to be preached, simply CANNOT place their faith in Jesus, since God, according to Calvinism, as not given to all this saving faith. So, this is complete nonsense to say that this is even possible. God, according to Calvinism, has "decreed" that a certain number will be going to heaven, and the rest are to be damned. These numbers have been fixed, and not subject to change. To say that God has placed no "barrier" in the way of the lost, is, again according to Calvinism, very deceitful. The "barrier" is "Limited Atonement". This is also known as "Paricular Redemption", that Jesus actually paid the price only for the "elect". Then, to say to those who are non-elect, that this Gospel of salvation in Jesus is also for us, is very misleading, since Christ did not die for them. Also, the fact that God has fro eternity past already "predestined" some to eternal life, is also a "barrier"; as is "saving faith", which is not available to all. To say that man's wicked free will (I thought the will was in bondage?) will prevent them from believing the Gospel, is yet another falsehood. Scripture is very clear in two places, the enemy "takes away the word" from those who hears the Gospel, and that he "blinds them" to the truth about Jesus Christ.

No, Calvinism is very much at fault by its clear distortions of what the Bible actually says.