A Question Calvinists must Answer REVISITED

[Skandelon]

A While back I posed this question to Calvinists:

Why do you accept the "truth" of Calvinism while so many other believers throughout history didn't? Here I'll give you multiple choice:

1. Those "believers" who rejected Calvinism weren't really saved. (In other words, the reason they didn't accept Calvinism was because they weren't really believers. This is NOT saying that salvation comes through correct doctrine)

2. Those believers who rejected Calvinism weren't as good (smart/humble etc) or were too sinful (prideful etc) to accept it. I on the other hand was better (smarter/humble)...

3. Those believers who rejected Calvinism weren't given the Grace by God to understand Calvinism for some reason unknown to us...

So, which is it: 1, 2, or 3; Or add the correct answer if you don't believe I've provided all the options. Let's stay civil please. Thanks

Those of you who didn't go with #1 by saying non-Calvinists reject because they aren't really regenerated, typically picked some form of #3. However, this is the problem with #3. Because you don't believe God's grace is resistible, you leave God as being culpable for the sinful choices of man (i.e. not holding to "correct" doctrine). Allow me to demonstrate:

CALVINISM'S MODEL:
1. God gives grace prior to any positive response and this grace is not resistible.
2. As such, people are already lifted up higher by grace before they respond positively.
3. As such, people don't lift themselves up, God does.
4. As such, when people sin, they sin because God withheld the grace they needed to resist temptation.
5. Hence, God does the lifting and also brings to fruition the sin he hates.

Compare that to Arminianism which allows God's grace to be resisted:

ARMININISM'S MODEL
1. God gives grace prior to any human response.
2. As such, people are already lifted up higher by grace before they respond.
3. As such, people don't lift themselves up, God does.
4. As such, when people respond negatively, they jump off of the higher place God had lifted them to.
5. Hence, God does the lifting and people do the sinning.

Thus, in the Arminian model God gets the glory for lifting men to a higher plane to be able to make the right choice and men get the blame for resisting and jumping off into sin. Whereas, the Calvinistic model does give credit to God for the lifting but also leaves God to blame for those who sin because he never gives them what is needed to respond (that would include the choice of Adam to sin or resist...was he given the grace to resist the temptation or not?) (The two models are taken from Eric Landstrom's article)

 

[Van]

Reply to Skandelon

If a person rejected Calvinism because they had not been regenerated, then folks like me are still dead in my sins.

If the T, U, L, and I of the Tulip were true, but I was too prideful to alter my views, even though I thought they were viable alternatives, then that puts me very close to being a False Teacher. But I rejected TULI because I believe they are not viable and to my way of thinking wrong interpretations of scripture.

All of us must deal with the light God has given us, but it seems weak to me to say those that embrace Calvinism have been given more light, and those who reject it less light. I would say why not the other way around?

So I believe we must come back to the careful and prayer study of scripture and insight provided by other believers. One key for me, i.e. why I rejected rather than accepted the TULI, is being a minimalist, what is the meaning with the least extrapolation. I like to think this is more like a man who walks by faith, rather than helping with the wisdom of men.

 

[TCassidy]

One key for me, i.e. why I rejected rather than accepted the TULI, is being a minimalist, what is the meaning with the least extrapolation. I like to think this is more like a man who walks by faith, rather than helping with the wisdom of men.

Please answer some questions regarding TULI for me.

What part of yourself do you believe was good enough to come to God without the sacrifice of Christ?

What condition of godliness did you meet that caused God to just have to save you?

Do you believe that everybody will eventually be saved, including Satan and all his demons?

Did you resist God's grace unto perdition?

Thank you.

 

[jbh28]

A While back I posed this question to Calvinists:



Those of you who didn't go with #1 by saying non-Calvinists reject because they aren't really regenerated, typically picked some form of #3. However, this is the problem with #3. Because you don't believe God's grace is resistible, you leave God as being culpable for the sinful choices of man (i.e. not holding to "correct" doctrine). Allow me to demonstrate:

CALVINISM'S MODEL:
1. God gives grace prior to any positive response and this grace is not resistible.
2. As such, people are already lifted up higher by grace before they respond positively.
3. As such, people don't lift themselves up, God does.
4. As such, when people sin, they sin because God withheld the grace they needed to resist temptation.
5. Hence, God does the lifting and also brings to fruition the sin he hates.

Compare that to Arminianism which allows God's grace to be resisted:

ARMININISM'S MODEL
1. God gives grace prior to any human response.
2. As such, people are already lifted up higher by grace before they respond.
3. As such, people don't lift themselves up, God does.
4. As such, when people respond negatively, they jump off of the higher place God had lifted them to.
5. Hence, God does the lifting and people do the sinning.

Thus, in the Arminian model God gets the glory for lifting men to a higher plane to be able to make the right choice and men get the blame for resisting and jumping off into sin. Whereas, the Calvinistic model does give credit to God for the lifting but also leaves God to blame for those who sin because he never gives them what is needed to respond (that would include the choice of Adam to sin or resist...was he given the grace to resist the temptation or not?) (The two models are taken from Eric Landstrom's article)

Or, none of the above

 

[Skandelon]

Or, none of the above

I invite you to supply another option. I think you won't because there is no other viable option...

 

[jbh28]

I invite you to supply another option. I think you won't because there is no other viable option...

What other option. I don't think that the salvation of one is determined by his theology. And I did give another viable option.

Those "believers" who rejected Calvinism weren't really saved.
that's not true

2. Those believers who rejected Calvinism weren't as good (smart/humble etc) or were too sinful (prideful etc) to accept it. I on the other hand was better (smarter/humble)...Not at all

3. Those believers who rejected Calvinism weren't given the Grace by God to understand Calvinismagain no

It's called, we interpret the Scriptures differently. We are responsible to interpret the Scriptures the best we can. Each of us will answer to God.

 

[Van]

Reply to TCassidy

Please answer some questions regarding TULI for me.

What part of yourself do you believe was good enough to come to God without the sacrifice of Christ?

What condition of godliness did you meet that caused God to just have to save you?

Do you believe that everybody will eventually be saved, including Satan and all his demons?

Did you resist God's grace unto perdition?

Thank you.

No one is good except God so I do think any part of me was good enough to come to God without the sacrifice of Christ.

I met no condition of godliness that caused God to just have to save me. God chose me based on crediting my faith, as wretched as it was, as righteousness.

Everyone will not be eventually saved, Satan and his co-horts will suffer in the Lake of Fire forever and ever. Those whose names are not written in the Lamb's book of life will suffer eternal punishment in eternal darkness, eternally separated from God, and they will be tormented for their misdeeds.

I may have resisted God's grace until about 15 years of age, but then I put my trust in Christ alone.

 

[Skandelon]

What other option. I don't think that the salvation of one is determined by his theology. And I did give another viable option.

Those "believers" who rejected Calvinism weren't really saved.
that's not true

You made this same misinterpretation of this first option the last time I posed this question and I corrected you then....which is why I put the disclaimer right beside it this time saying, "In other words, the reason they didn't accept Calvinism was because they weren't really believers. This is NOT saying that salvation comes through correct doctrine."

#1 is not saying salvation is determined by his theology, it is a possible response as to why someone might reject Calvinism. Understand now?

It's called, we interpret the Scriptures differently.

Why?
Are you smarter or better in some way or did God give you something he didn't give to us? It's one or the other, isn't it?

We are responsible to interpret the Scriptures the best we can. Each of us will answer to God.

So we are libertarianly free to accept or reject the "truth" of Calvinism?

 

[annsni]

Or, none of the above

Exactly. Maybe it's that they didn't study enough, had their own sinful lives that shaded their interpretation of the Scriptures on this subject or else had teaching that prevented them from accepting the truth that they read.

Yeah, those are some other options.

 

[Skandelon]

Exactly. Maybe it's that they didn't study enough, had their own sinful lives that shaded their interpretation of the Scriptures on this subject or else had teaching that prevented them from accepting the truth that they read.

Yeah, those are some other options.

Actually, that would fit right in with option 2: Calvinists are "better" in some way...i.e. they studied more, less sinful lives that didn't shade their interpretation...etc.

So, you now have room to boast and you have removed glory from God, by the standards of Calvinistic reasoning. Congratulations.

 

[TCassidy]

No one is good except God so I do think any part of me was good enough to come to God without the sacrifice of Christ.

I will assume you meant to include a "not" between "do" and "think."

In that case you believe in Total Depravity, the "T" of TULI which you claim to deny. Total Depravity simply means that no part of man escaped the effects of the fall. All of man is fallen, body, soul, and spirit. No part of man is sufficiently good to merit salvation.

I met no condition of godliness that caused God to just have to save me. God chose me based on crediting my faith, as wretched as it was, as righteousness.

You say you met no condition then you say you met the condition of faith which cased God to chose you for salvation. Does that not indicate you DID meet the condition of faith?

Everyone will not be eventually saved, Satan and his co-horts will suffer in the Lake of Fire forever and ever. Those whose names are not written in the Lamb's book of life will suffer eternal punishment in eternal darkness, eternally separated from God, and they will be tormented for their misdeeds.

So you agree that the Atonement is limited to believers. Well, that is what Limited Atonement, the "L" in "TULI" which you claim to deny, means. The Atonement is limited to believers, it is sufficient to save all but is only applied to those who believe.

I may have resisted God's grace until about 15 years of age, but then I put my trust in Christ alone.

So you did not resist His grace unto perdition, but found His grace to be irresistible and came to Christ.

It sounds to me like you agree with "T", "L", and "I". It is only the "U" you have trouble with. Care to discuss Election and what conditions may or may not apply?

 

[Van]

"In that case you believe in Total Depravity, the "T" of TULI which you claim to deny. Total Depravity simply means that no part of man escaped the effects of the fall. All of man is fallen, body, soul, and spirit. No part of man is sufficiently good to merit salvation."

The "T" refers to total spiritual inability as a characteristic of fallen man. Only God is good.

Yes, I met the condition of faith, but my wretch faith did not merit or earn salvation. And it certainly was not good or godly. My faith was a filthy rag. It does not depend on the man that wills (to be saved) but upon God who has mercy on whom He has mercy, Romans 9:16.

Lets drop the reference to atonement, and say I believe Christ died for the whole world, all of fallen mankind, but only those whose faith God credits as righteousness receive the reconcilation provided by Christ's sacrifice, once for all.

Just because all of us "in Christ" did not resist God's grace, does not demonstrate God's grace was irresistible. Just because all dogs are animals does not demonstrate all animals are dogs.

Care to discuss Election and what conditions may or may not apply?

It would be my pleasure. 2 Thessalonians 2:13 says God chose us through...faith in the truth.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Exactly. Maybe it's that they didn't study enough, had their own sinful lives that shaded their interpretation of the Scriptures on this subject or else had teaching that prevented them from accepting the truth that they read.

Yeah, those are some other options.

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

 

[TCassidy]

It would be my pleasure. 2 Thessalonians 2:13 says God chose us through...faith in the truth.

"But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:"

Help me out here. How does this verse support your position that God elected you on the basis of your faith? It seems to me that verse says God chose these people to salvation from the beginning using the means (through) sanctification of the Spirit and faith (belief of the truth).

It seems to me that sanctification and faith were the means of bringing the elect one to Christ rather than the other way around.

 

[annsni]

Actually, that would fit right in with option 2: Calvinists are "better" in some way...i.e. they studied more, less sinful lives that didn't shade their interpretation...etc.

So, you now have room to boast and you have removed glory from God, by the standards of Calvinistic reasoning. Congratulations.

How have I removed glory from God and can boast in anything? I learned of the doctrine of grace by seeing the Word of God. It's only to God's glory. I cannot boast in anything.

Once again, I see a nice snide comment. It must be going around today.

See, the doctrine of grace has absolutely nothing to do with me. It would be if I said that I had anything to do with my salvation that I'd be able to boast. I have to say that I'm getting really tired of your attacking those who believe in the doctrine of grace. I'm going through a difficult time right now and these arguments are just absolutely insanely stupid and Satan is having a ball. I hope you are too.

 

[Winman]

"But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:"

Help me out here. How does this verse support your position that God elected you on the basis of your faith? It seems to me that verse says God chose these people to salvation from the beginning using the means (through) sanctification of the Spirit and faith (belief of the truth).

It seems to me that sanctification and faith were the means of bringing the elect one to Christ rather than the other way around.

Your interpretation cannot be correct, because it would have God choosing a man outside of Christ. This has no support in scripture whatsoever and would contradict verses showing we are chosen in Christ (Rom 16:13, Eph 1:4).

 

[jbh28]

You made this same misinterpretation of this first option the last time I posed this question and I corrected you then....which is why I put the disclaimer right beside it this time saying, "In other words, the reason they didn't accept Calvinism was because they weren't really believers. This is NOT saying that salvation comes through correct doctrine."

#1 is not saying salvation is determined by his theology, it is a possible response as to why someone might reject Calvinism. Understand now?

I didn't misinterpret anything. I didn't say you said one get saved by believing in a doctrine. I said that one's salvation isn't determined by which doctrines you believe. IN OTHER WORDS, believing in an incorrect doctrine doesn't mean you are not saved...or " the reason they didn't accept Calvinism was because they weren't really believers."

Again, the answer is no. There are good Christians on both sides of the issue.

Why?
Are you smarter or better in some way or did God give you something he didn't give to us? It's one or the other, isn't it?

NO, how many times must I say it?

So we are libertarianly free to accept or reject the "truth" of Calvinism?

You have the ability to interpret Scriptures. This isn't an issue of Calvinism. It sound much like a straw man especially when I have to answer the same question over and over again.

 

[Skandelon]

How have I removed glory from God and can boast in anything? I learned of the doctrine of grace by seeing the Word of God. It's only to God's glory. I cannot boast in anything.

Correct. And that is the same answer Arminians give when asked why we believed in Christ unto salvation, yet many Calvinists insist that by suggesting that the gospel lead us to Him that we are somehow reducing God's glory by claiming credit for our salvation. Thank you.

I'm going through a difficult time right now and these arguments are just absolutely insanely stupid and Satan is having a ball. I hope you are too.

Ann, with all love and respect, you may not want to participate in a debate forum about soteriology. It's like going to a bake sale when you are sick of cakes. I have no intention of angering you or adding to your difficulty, but there is nothing "insanely stupid" about these arguments. Many of them have been and are still debated in theological journals and seminaries by scholars all over our nation. Did you expect to come to a theological debate forum and find everyone in perfect agreement with your views?

Again, I wish you all the best. I'm sure you are a very nice person and I'm truly sorry you are having a bad day...I pray it goes better for you.:godisgood:

 

[Skandelon]

I didn't misinterpret anything. I didn't say you said one get saved by believing in a doctrine. I said that one's salvation isn't determined by which doctrines you believe. IN OTHER WORDS, believing in an incorrect doctrine doesn't mean you are not saved...or " the reason they didn't accept Calvinism was because they weren't really believers."

Good, making sure you understood the answer. Some here actually do believe that all true believers would accept Calvinistic doctrine.

Again, the answer is no. There are good Christians on both sides of the issue

Well, for clarity, its not about if good people are on both sides, its about why some believe correctly while others don't. Is one better than the other at "interpreting scripture" (smarted/educated) and thus able to accept Calvinism?

NO, how many times must I say it?

There must be a reason Jbh. If it's not because you are better in some way, then God must have given you something he didn't give to non-Calvinists. There is no other possible reason.

You have the ability to interpret Scriptures. This isn't an issue of Calvinism. It sound much like a straw man especially when I have to answer the same question over and over again.

Calvinists maintain that every choice has a cause, right? I'm merely asking you what the cause is for your being Calvinistic and others not being Calvinistic. It is an issue because it gets to the root of the problem with Calvinism's claims about man's free will.

 

[jbh28]

Good, making sure you understood the answer. Some here actually do believe that all true believers would accept Calvinistic doctrine.

And that's sad when it happens.

Well, for clarity, its not about if good people are on both sides, its about why some believe correctly while others don't. Is one better than the other at "interpreting scripture" (smarted/educated) and thus able to accept Calvinism?

Not necessarily. Obvioulsy, I'm going to agree with those that agree with me and think they are "better." But I don't think they are any smarter or any more educated.

There must be a reason Jbh. If it's not because you are better in some way, then God must have given you something he didn't give to non-Calvinists. There is no other possible reason.

Sure, we are different people. Different people look at different things. Calvinism doesn't teach that men don't have will nor that they don't make choices. So there is no reason for me to believe that after a person is saved, that Christians won't disagree over interpretations of Scripture.

Calvinists maintain that every choice has a cause, right? I'm merely asking you what the cause is for your being Calvinistic and others not being Calvinistic. It is an issue because it gets to the root of the problem with Calvinism's claims about man's free will.

It appears as though you seem to think(I may be wrong) that one either believes in totally free will or no will at all. That isn't the case at all. Every person has a will. They make choices. This will is actually more "free" after one is saved. Christians are not promised that they will never have incorrect doctrine.

So why do you and I believe differently? Because you and I are different people.