A Question Calvinists must Answer REVISITED

[Van]

Reply to TCassidy

"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.

Here is a partial quote from the NASB, "because God has chosen you, from the beginning, for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth." In order for us to have "faith in the truth" we must have heard the gospel and trusted in Christ.

Now lets turn to "from the beginning." When was the beginning? To answer we must ask "the beginning of what?" Does this refer to the creation week as the beginning, so starting with creation? Might be but I think not. I think it refers to the beginning of the New Covenant. That is when we could hear the gospel and be chosen through faith in the truth. Either way, from the beginning does not refer to before creation, demonstrating this is not the election described in Ephesians 1:4 which occurred before creation.

 

[Skandelon]

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.


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.

You may not be familiar with the concepts associated with libertarian free will versus compatibilistic free will, which is fine, I wasn't familiar with it either at one time.

You may not realize it, but by merely pointing to the idea we are "different people" you have affirmed libertarian free will, defined as, "A choice to act is free if it is an expression of an agent's categorical ability of the will to refrain or not refrain from the action." Or the ability to do otherwise than what the agent ends up actually doing.

For example, if you chose to where a red shirt yesterday, if all circumstances were equal to do over again, could you have willingly chose to wear a different shirt? Could you have chosen otherwise? Libertarian freedom says "yes," where as compatiblistism (Calvinists) typically say "no." Why? Because the act was determined by your desire which was determined by you nature which was determined by the creator of that nature, which is God.

In Calvinism: If you lied yesterday at noon, then you could not have resisted that temptation to lie. You could not have done otherwise. If I reject Calvinism then it must be because that is my desire, which was determined by my nature which was determined by God. So, the reason I'm not Calvinistic is because God made me that way...same reason some are saved and others aren't. See the problem?

For a compatibilist a choice is free if it is according to one's desire, but that doesn't mean much in a world where God determines even the desires of men in such a way that they couldn't do otherwise than what they end up doing. Make sense?

 

[Winman]

That last post was well written and very informative Skan, Thanks!

You know, one of the greatest proofs that we have LFW is regret. Nearly all of us have done something we regret, or failed to do something we regret. Why? Because deep in our heart we know we could have done otherwise, we know we made the wrong choice when we could have made the right choice. We know this instinctively.
If a man cannot truly make a free choice, there would be no such thing as regret.

 

[Andy T.]

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.

Skan, correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought you denied that God gives any kind of inward grace to anyone, lest it violate their LFW? I've seen you post a few times that the only grace God gives us is revelation - either natural or special. Is that the kind of grace you refer to in the above model?

 

[Andy T.]

CALVINISM'S MODEL:
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.

Really? That's how you choose to represent it? Such lovingkindness and understanding.

 

[Skandelon]

Skan, correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought you denied that God gives any kind of inward grace to anyone, lest it violate their LFW? I've seen you post a few times that the only grace God gives us is revelation - either natural or special. Is that the kind of grace you refer to in the above model?

Two ways I can respond to this:

1. Nothing in that model says that the grace is inward.

2. Even outward means (i.e. the preaching of the gospel) has an inward impact, so my view doesn't deny that God gives inward grace. I just deny that He does so "prior to" or "in addition to" the means clearly revealed...the gospel. Does that make sense?

 

[webdog]

Really? That's how you choose to represent it? Such lovingkindness and understanding.

Actually, it's the way many here from your side present it.

 

[Andy T.]

2. Even outward means (i.e. the preaching of the gospel) has an inward impact, so my view doesn't deny that God gives inward grace. I just deny that He does so "prior to" or "in addition to" the means clearly revealed...the gospel. Does that make sense?

Ok, so it appears you acknowledge some kind of inward grace by God toward man. I guess I'm curious what your theology of inward grace is. Does it only occur after man exercises faith? When and to whom does God impart inward grace?

 

[Skandelon]

Really? That's how you choose to represent it? Such lovingkindness and understanding.

First, I noted that this was taken from an article written by Eric Landstrom.

Second, I do not read any animosity or ill will in the presentations of this model. If you feel it is a misrepresentation then make that case, but please refrain from speculating as to the intent of others who you do not know.

Let's look at the first statement: "As such, when people sin, they sin because God withheld the grace they needed to resist temptation."

Is this true or false? For example, when Frank refused to believe the gospel (which is sin) did he do so because God withheld the grace needed? Yes or no?

What about the sin of Adam and Eve? Could they have resisted the temptation? Why did they sin?

 

[Andy T.]

Actually, it's the way many here from your side present it.

Actually, if we wanted to be fair, it's how we all could present it, assuming we all believe in an omnipotent and omniscience God. But I just saw it as yet another attempt to paint other people's beliefs that God is the author of sin.

And I would like to add as an aside that the bolded phrase above should be avoided in these discussions. I think it contributes to further unnecessary divisions.

 

[Andy T.]

Let's look at the first statement: "As such, when people sin, they sin because God withheld the grace they needed to resist temptation."

Is this true or false? For example, when Frank refused to believe the gospel (which is sin) did he do so because God withheld the grace needed? Yes or no?

What about the sin of Adam and Eve? Could they have resisted the temptation? Why did they sin?

It's more nuanced that what you are making it out to be. But my simple answer is no, when people sin, they choose to sin.

Look, both of us agree that God can stop sin any time he wants to, right? Since you believe that, then you must also believe that sin is the result of God not intervening to stop said sin. You've even admitted the problem of evil is something both the C and A have to deal with. I just see this as another attempt to create division and rancor among the brethren.

 

[Skandelon]

Ok, so it appears you acknowledge some kind of inward grace by God toward man. I guess I'm curious what your theology of inward grace is. Does it only occur after man exercises faith? When and to whom does God impart inward grace toward man?

How can they believe in what they have not heard? I ask this to show that the grace of sending the gospel appeal must precede a response of faith. Faith comes through hearing.

So, the outward means God has chosen by His gracious kindness and love for us is to send the gospel through Holy Spirit indwelled messengers and inspired scriptures. That message is powerful and effective, but still resistible. In other words, it has the power to introduce the appeal of reconciliation with God to a lost man by which that lost man can respond.

Now, I recognize that some Arminians believe that God does do some extra inward working equally upon all men making their totally depraved and otherwise "unable" wills able to respond to the gospel appeal. Eric, the author of this article, may actually be one of those types of Arminians. But, I don't see the necessity or scriptural backing for such a view. I believe the gospel itself contains that power and there is nothing in my view of scripture that indicates otherwise, but either way the models hold their value equally.

 

[Andy T.]

How can they believe in what they have not heard? I ask this to show that the grace of sending the gospel appeal must precede a response of faith. Faith comes through hearing.

So, the outward means God has chosen by His gracious kindness and love for us is to send the gospel through Holy Spirit indwelled messengers and inspired scriptures. That message is powerful and effective, but still resistible. In other words, it has the power to introduce the appeal of reconciliation with God to a lost man by which that lost man can respond.

Now, I recognize that some Arminians believe that God does do some extra inward working equally upon all men making their totally depraved and otherwise "unable" wills able to respond to the gospel appeal. Eric, the author of this article, may actually be one of those types of Arminians. But, I don't see the necessity or scriptural backing for such a view. I believe the gospel itself contains that power and there is nothing in my view of scripture that indicates otherwise, but either way the models hold their value equally.

Ok, so you don't believe in any inward grace from God. You seemed to indicate otherwise a couple posts ago, but here you have stated what I've seen you post other times - that the only grace God gives is revelation. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[Skandelon]

It's more nuanced that what you are making it out to be. But my simple answer is no, when people sin, they choose to sin.

It's not THAT nuanced...they choose to reject the gospel because...???

We both know the reason in Calvinism Andy, and its not that difficult to answer. They weren't unconditionally elected and Irresistibly Called. In other words, God withheld from them the needed grace, period. See, not that much nuance.

Look, both of us agree that God can stop sin any time he wants to, right?

Why would God stop something he himself has casually determined to happen (through second causes etc) in the way many Calvinists teach?

Yes, I believe God permits sin that he has the power to stop, but that in itself presupposes that God didn't originate or cause the sin to begin, but only foreknows it and allows it, with which many of the Reformed persuasion would take issue with...(see my discussion with Luke in the other thread)

Since you believe that, then you must also believe that sin is the result of God not intervening to stop said sin.

Before I had kids I KNEW beyond any doubt they would sin. Did my choosing to have kids knowing they would sin, even though I could have stopped it by choosing not to reproduce, make me culpable for their sin? Of course not. Mere foreknowledge of sin and the permitting of it to continue does not necessarily mean culpability.

You've even admitted the problem of evil is something both the C and A have to deal with.

Sure it is, but clearly I also believe our responses to that problem are more biblical and consistent, which is why I present my arguments.

I just see this as another attempt to create division and rancor among the brethren.

Sounds like your problem is with a forum with the purpose of debating soteriological and theological issues, not with me personally. I can't help you with that except to advise not coming to a debate board if you don't wish to engage with those who have differing views. I strive to be respectful and kind in my views while avoiding personal attacks or speculations about others intent. I would ask that you extend to me that same courtesy by not presuming that my intent must be a negative one. Thanks.

 

[Andy T.]

Yes, I believe God permits sin that he has the power to stop, but that in itself presupposes that God didn't originate or cause the sin to begin, but only foreknows it and allows it, with which many of the Reformed persuasion would take issue with...(see my discussion with Luke in the other thread)

Actually, I think Luke would take issue with the bolded part above, as I've seen him contradict this claim you've tried to pin on him - that God originates or causes sin.

Mere foreknowledge of sin and the permitting of it to continue does not necessarily mean culpability.

If you see another man about to kill another man, and you have the power and means to stop it, but you do nothing, are you culpable?

Sounds like your problem is with a forum with the purpose of debating soteriological and theological issues, not with me personally. I can't help you with that except to advise not coming to a debate board if you don't wish to engage with those who have differing views. I strive to be respectful and kind in my views while avoiding personal attacks or speculations about others intent. I would ask that you extend to me that same courtesy by not presuming that my intent must be a negative one. Thanks.

Ok, as long as your conscience is clear.

 

[Skandelon]

Actually, I think Luke would take issue with the bolded part above, as I've seen him contradict this claim you've tried to pin on him - that God originates or causes sin.

Well, it depends on what day and post you are reading. He can sometimes be a bit ambiguous with his choice of terms.

Luke has argued with regard to sin, and I quote verbatim: "Not ONLY did God permit it but ultimately he caused it."

He defends this by saying that for God to commit a deed with a right motive makes that deed non-sinful regardless if that deed would be sinful for anyone else. So, if God deceives for a right motive its not sinful, so in that manner He can be the ultimate cause of sin while not being sinful because He did it for a good motive.

If you see another man about to kill another man, and you have the power and means to stop it, but you do nothing, are you culpable?

I noticed how you just changed the analogy instead of responding to mine. But if you insist on using this analogy let me change it up to more accurately represent what Calvinists actually believe. If you created a man (or robot) with the nature and desire (programming) to kill another man in such a way that he could not have done otherwise, and you have the power and means to stop it, but you do nothing, are you culpable? Yes, much more so than in the analogy you presented, which is the distinction of our views.

Ok, as long as your conscience is clear.

Why would my conscience be less "clear" than yours? We are both representing what we believe is true of scripture and God on a theological debate board. I have done so without speculating about your intent, while you have continually impugned mine. Whose conscience should be in question here?

 

[Andy T.]

I noticed how you just changed the analogy instead of responding to mine. But if you insist on using this analogy let me change it up to more accurately represent what Calvinists actually believe. If you created a man (or robot) with the nature and desire (programming) to kill another man in such a way that he could not have done otherwise, and you have the power and means to stop it, but you do nothing, are you culpable? Yes, much more so than in the analogy you presented, which is the distinction of our views.

You are the one who brought up "culpability" first, so I think you need to defend your view first. You said that God is not culpable of sin merely because he has foreknowledge and permits it. So I ask again, are you culpable if you allow another man to murder someone else, if you had the full power and means (and even foreknowledge) to stop it? And how is this different from your view of God?

Why would my conscience be less "clear" than yours? We are both representing what we believe is true of scripture and God on a theological debate board. I have done so without speculating about your intent, while you have continually impugned mine. Whose conscience should be in question here?

You continually try to paint other people's beliefs in the worst possible light. You are the master of framing the debate to malign the beliefs of others. Just my opinion; take it for what it's worth, which probably isn't much by your quips against me here.

 

[Andy T.]

So, the outward means God has chosen by His gracious kindness and love for us is to send the gospel through Holy Spirit indwelled messengers and inspired scriptures. That message is powerful and effective, but still resistible. In other words, it has the power to introduce the appeal of reconciliation with God to a lost man by which that lost man can respond.

Following up on this, the word "effective" generally means "to produce a decided, decisive or desired effect" (Merriam-Webster). I'm curious as to how you can use the word effective in light of your theology? And powerful how? Power implies force, and God does not force anyone, nor does he even do anything inwardly to the person - just gives them information to decide upon. I don't see how the words "power" and "effective" fit within your system.

 

[Skandelon]

Following up on this, the word "effective" generally means "to produce a decided, decisive or desired effect" (Merriam-Webster).

Correct. Our desired effect is a free reponse, not a sure positive response. See the difference?

 

[Andy T.]

Correct. Our desired effect is a free response, not a sure positive response. See the difference?

So in your view, the Gospel is only effective in that it bows down to LFW? Which is why I've said before that the LFW view of God has God loving man's free will more than he loves to save man. Granted, he loves both, but LFW always trumps, in your view.

Again, I don't see how you can call the Gospel effective, since there is no guarantee that anyone will be saved, and if they are saved, it hinges upon their response - so their LFW may be effective, but not the Gospel itself.