A Question for Calvinust here (Part 2)

[BobRyan]

Bob,

Calvinists do not believe that people fail to believe because God has failed to do something. Unbelief is the fault of sinful mankind, not God

To be more precise Calvinists do NOT believe that any sinner may choose believe or come to God UNLESS God arbitrarily selects them and regenerates them before that choice.

Thus in Calvinism it is impossible for God to lament the lost by the inexplicable 'what more could I HAVE done that I DID not do?". It could be a lament said by the lost in Calvinism but not by God Himself.

That entire scenario cannot exist according to the principles of Calvinism - it would be total nonsense.

. "And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil." John 3:19

Brian

We all agree that some people make bad decisions and some make good ones.

That is not the point debated.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Certainly we can find examples of people making bad choices.

Do you believe regeneration precedes the choice of the sinner to accept Christ as his Savior? Do you think that 4 and 5 point Calvinists believe in that?
Those that do believe in it - do not think the sinner can come to Christ any other way.

Steaver's post is in regard to a very specific point in 4 and 5 point calvinism.

Which is devastating when you look at "God's Lament" where HE Himself asks the question "What more could I have DONE" -- it does not say "what more could you (lost sinner) have done".

Quote:
Originally Posted by BobRyan
[FONT=&quot]God's Lament
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]“He CAME to HIS OWN and [/FONT][FONT=&quot]His OWN received Him not[/FONT][FONT=&quot]” John 1[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Matt 23[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]37“Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]38“Behold, your house is being left to you desolate![/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Luke 7[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]28 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]When all the people and the tax collectors heard this, they acknowledged God’s justice, having been baptized with the baptism of John. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]29 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]But the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected God’s purpose for themselves, not having been baptized by John.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Is 5:4[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
What could have been done more to my vineyard, that I have not done in it? wherefore, when I looked that it should bring forth grapes, brought it forth wild grapes?[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Response: [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] Well the Calvinist would have an answer for God's question on that one. An answer contrived via “extreme inference” in places like Deut 5:29. Calvinism would inform the world – and God Himself of just what God did to cause the lamentable result that God is complaining about in t[FONT=&quot]he verse above[/FONT].

[FONT=&quot]I[FONT=&quot]n Calvinism i[/FONT][/FONT]f the result is wrong if it is to be lamented if the question [FONT=&quot]is to be asked "What more could have been done" w[FONT=&quot]ell [/FONT][/FONT]then Calvinism argues He [FONT=&quot]knows exactly what He failed to do [/FONT] - [FONT=&quot]in effect [/FONT] sabotaging His own plans - the cause of His own "lament" - or at the very least - being forgetful to "do the necessary" as the saying goes in India.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

Bob, yes, I do believe that God must regenerate a man if that man is to believe. That is very clear to me, and I'm sure you know the proof texts, so I won't list them.

I understand your question a bit better now, and there is a good answer for it.

You will be the first to give it a serious shot then.

Most will avoid the problem entirely.

The answer is: Christ. "What more could I have done?" is answered this way: I can send my Son as a child to live a perfect life on behalf of them. In their place He will live and fulfill all righteousness, and in their place He will die a death that they deserve.

The OT is an exhaustive history lesson that proves Calvin's points are an accurate summery of biblical truths. The history of the nation is Israel shows that there is no other way for men to be redeemed. Every method they tried fell short.

The text does not say "what more could you have done that you have not done" -

you do not say "Every method that GOD tried fell short"

But when God says "what more could I HAVE DONE " He asks a question you are not addressing - because you start off in your post admitting to the exact action God "could have done" to get a different outcome.

Bob, yes, I do believe that God must regenerate a man if that man is to believe. That is very clear to me

How are we not supposed to see that??

God's law, His prophets, His Kings, the peoples various leaders, and the multitude of other things could never change the heart of man.

Indeed - you have already stated "what more" GOD could do to get to a different outcome.

So then saved people of faith that pleased God in the OT like Heb 11 - Enoch, Moses, Elijah, Abraham -- all saved - but lost people in the OT -- lost and God lamenting the lost.

The heart of man is not changed, as in moral reform, it is made new as in rebirth. Man cannot be made better, he must be "born again". The Good News is that Christ, by His life and death, has fulfilled the demands of the law for us. Praise be to God!

Indeed but not all people alive since then are saved - we have the same "some saved and some lost" state as we had in the OT.

God's question "what more could I HAVE DONE" in addressing the lost remains without an answer in Calvinism because it cannot exist in the Calvinist model.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Side question for you, Bob. How are you not bothered by God calling the nation of Israel His "Chosen People" in the OT but you are in the NT? For thousands of years God not only ignored, but commanded Israel to destroy other people groups.

They are "HIS OWN" sovereignly selected out - as a Chosen Race, Royal Priesthood - "He came to HIS own and His OWN received Him not" John 1:11.

God called for the evangelism of all the lost in the OT - evangelizing the foreigners - bringing them to His house of prayer - Isaiah 56 goes through that in detail.

In Is 66:23 it is "ALL MANKIND" that is to come before God and bow down and worship.

It is before the cross that we find "God so Loved the WORLD" John 3:16.

But as with the Flood, and Sodom and Gomorrah and the Jewish nation destroyed in 70 A.D. there is a probation limit that God sets even for the wicked.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[convicted1]

Steve,

I would have to give that more thought to give an answer from scripture, but in my personal experience that's exactly what happened. After years of railing against it, I became convinced of TULIP in a supernatural way. I went from being dead set against it (even to the point of rage) to fully embracing it without effort. Of course, I've spent much time, study and conversation thinking it through after that point, but it was like a switch just flipped one day.

Brian

:thumbsup::thumbs::thumbs::thumbsup:

 

[thatbrian]

They are "HIS OWN" sovereignly selected out - as a Chosen Race, Royal Priesthood - "He came to HIS own and His OWN received Him not" John 1:11.

God called for the evangelism of all the lost in the OT - evangelizing the foreigners - bringing them to His house of prayer - Isaiah 56 goes through that in detail.

In Is 66:23 it is "ALL MANKIND" that is to come before God and bow down and worship.

It is before the cross that we find "God so Loved the WORLD" John 3:16.

But as with the Flood, and Sodom and Gomorrah and the Jewish nation destroyed in 70 A.D. there is a probation limit that God sets even for the wicked.

in Christ,

Bob

To put more of a point on it, are you OK with God choosing some and not others?

 

[thatbrian]

Bob, Are you saying that God wants to save all people, all the people who ever lived, yet He is incapable of doing so? He is somehow limited? Is that how you read that passage?

Brian

 

[BobRyan]

To put more of a point on it, are you OK with God choosing some and not others?

How does God address that point?

God "is not willing for any to perish but for ALL to come to repentance" 2Peter 3

Christ is the "Atoning Sacrifice for OUR sins and not for our sins only but for the sins of the WHOLE WORLD" 1John 2:2 - NIV.

"God so LOVED the World that He gave" .. "yes really" John 3:16

"He is the light that coming into the world - enlightens EVERY man" John 1.

"But men loved darkness rather than light - because their deeds were evil" John 3

 

[BobRyan]

Certainly we can find examples of people making bad choices.

Do you believe regeneration precedes the choice of the sinner to accept Christ as his Savior? Do you think that 4 and 5 point Calvinists believe in that?
Those that do believe in it - do not think the sinner can come to Christ any other way.

Steaver's post is in regard to a very specific point in 4 and 5 point calvinism.

Which is devastating when you look at "God's Lament" where HE Himself asks the question "What more could I have DONE" -- it does not say "what more could you (lost sinner) have done".

Quote:
Originally Posted by BobRyan
[FONT=&quot]God's Lament
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]“He CAME to HIS OWN and [/FONT][FONT=&quot]His OWN received Him not[/FONT][FONT=&quot]” John 1[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Matt 23[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]37“Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]38“Behold, your house is being left to you desolate![/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Luke 7[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]28 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]When all the people and the tax collectors heard this, they acknowledged God’s justice, having been baptized with the baptism of John. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]29 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]But the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected God’s purpose for themselves, not having been baptized by John.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Is 5:4[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
What could have been done more to my vineyard, that I have not done in it? wherefore, when I looked that it should bring forth grapes, brought it forth wild grapes?[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Response: [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] Well the Calvinist would have an answer for God's question on that one. An answer contrived via “extreme inference” in places like Deut 5:29. Calvinism would inform the world – and God Himself of just what God did to cause the lamentable result that God is complaining about in t[FONT=&quot]he verse above[/FONT].

[FONT=&quot]I[FONT=&quot]n Calvinism i[/FONT][/FONT]f the result is wrong if it is to be lamented if the question [FONT=&quot]is to be asked "What more could have been done" w[FONT=&quot]ell [/FONT][/FONT]then Calvinism argues He [FONT=&quot]knows exactly what He failed to do [/FONT] - [FONT=&quot]in effect [/FONT] sabotaging His own plans - the cause of His own "lament" - or at the very least - being forgetful to "do the necessary" as the saying goes in India.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]




You will be the first to give it a serious shot then.

Most will avoid the problem entirely.



The text does not say "what more could you have done that you have not done" -

you do not say "Every method that GOD tried fell short"

But when God says "what more could I HAVE DONE " He asks a question you are not addressing - because you start off in your post admitting to the exact action God "could have done" to get a different outcome.



How are we not supposed to see that??


Indeed - you have already stated "what more" GOD could do to get to a different outcome.

So then saved people of faith that pleased God in the OT like Heb 11 - Enoch, Moses, Elijah, Abraham -- all saved - but lost people in the OT -- lost and God lamenting the lost.

Indeed but not all people alive since then are saved - we have the same "some saved and some lost" state as we had in the OT.

God's question "what more could I HAVE DONE" in addressing the lost remains without an answer in Calvinism because it cannot exist in the Calvinist model.

Bob, Are you saying that God wants to save all people, all the people who ever lived, yet He is incapable of doing so? He is somehow limited? Is that how you read that passage?

Brian

I assume you are talking about these texts - that calvinism finds to be so radioactive.

[FONT=&quot]Matt 23[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]37“Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]38“Behold, your house is being left to you desolate![/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Luke 7[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]28 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]When all the people and the tax collectors heard this, they acknowledged God’s justice, having been baptized with the baptism of John. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]29 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]But the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected God’s purpose for themselves, not having been baptized by John.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Is 5:4[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
What could have been done more to my vineyard, that I have not done in it? wherefore, when I looked that it should bring forth grapes, brought it forth wild grapes?[/FONT]

Calvinism has a certain "model" of how the Gospel works, how salvation works - how any of the lost are ever saved at all.

So also does Arminianism have a certain "model" or explanation for how the plan of salvation works, what are the ground rules that God has setup, how does a lost person ever get saved at all.

Both have a description and explanation of how this works.

But the statements in the texts above - flatly contradict Calvinism's model.

They only fit the Arminian model of a God that Sovereignly chose the system of "Free will" -

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Both the Arminian and Calvinist models allow that God is smart enough and powerful enough to turn all mankinnd into perfectly obedient robots. Same for the angels - He could have made them such that they could not ever have a thought out of harmony with sinless perfect obedience to God.

That is not where we have the "debate".

The debate comes from the fact that God did not choose that all too simplistic model.

God chose that intelligent life should have free will.

There was war in heaven Rev 3- and the fallen angels were booted out. This means that although God gave them free will - He did not allow them to do "unlimited damage". So God shows that His design determines limits - even on evil. While not destroying free will he still limits evil.

In Job 1 Satan complains that he cannot get access to Job because God placed a hedge about Adam. In Gen 3 - God boots Adam and Eve from Eden.

In all cases God sets a limit on evil - while still supporting His choice for free will.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[thatbrian]

Bob,

If you cannot number yourself with those who love the darkness, then I can see I have my work cut out for me in convincing you of even the T in TULIP, and I would beg you to think again.

Are you saying that you are a Christian because you made a better choice than your neighbor who is not a Christian?

Brian

 

[BobRyan]

Are you saying that you are a Christian because you made a better choice than your neighbor who is not a Christian?

Brian

I am saying that God describes it as conditional salvation, conditional forgiveness


Romans 10
“The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart”—that is, the word of faith which we are preaching, 9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; 10 for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.

The very sequence Calvinism forbids - the Bible affirms!

Calvinism is often expressed as an exact negation of scripture.

God sovereignly chose - free will and conditional salvation, conditional forgiveness.

The Bible never claims that to repent, or to confess, or to receive Christ is "salvation by works" --

Rather the Bible says "IF WE Confess our sins HE is faithful and just to Forgive" 1John 1:9

it never says "And such would be salvation by works"

The Bible says "I STAND at the door and knock - IF anyone hears My voice AND OPENS the door - I will come in" Rev 3

It never says "and such would be salvation by works"

In Calvinism there is no such thing as "He came to HIS OWN and HIS OWN received Him not" John 1:11 no matter what the Bible says to the contrary because in Calvinism the way that the lost person is saved is that first "HE comes to His OWN" those whom He abitrarily selects out from among the lost - causes "His own" to be born again - regenerated - THEN compels them to accept the Gospel for they are already regenerate - already born-again already saved, already the New Creation old things passed away all things become new.

In that form of Calvinism - no such thing as "He came to HIS OWN and HIS OWN received Him not" John 1:11

=========================

Both Romans 10 and Rev 3 are stated in the form of a "response" to the choice that man makes.

God "Draw all mankind unto Him" John 12:32.

God "convicts the World of sin and righteousness and justice" John 16.

God "knocks on the door" such that if "ANYONE" hears and opens the door - He will come in.

God sends Christ as the "Atoning Sacrifice for OUR sins and not for OUR sins only but for the sins of the WHOLE World" 1 John 2:2.

Yet stops short of forcing the will - of changing the nature of man prior to the free will choice of man to accept the Gospel.

HE does not "bust down the door and let Himself in"

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Bob,

If you cannot number yourself with those who love the darkness, then I can see I have my work cut out for me in convincing you of even the T in TULIP, and I would beg you to think again.

That is not the hard part. 3 Point Calvinists and Arminians are very close on this.

Both can accept the "T" in the Tulip but what is debated is the use of God in John 12:32 "DRAWing ALL mankind" -- drawing that even Calvinists would admit in John 6 "enables all the depravity disables' when it comes to accepting Salvation.

I agree that the Drawing of God enables all the choice that depravity disables -- and that John 12:32 is correct that instead of "drawing the FEW of Matt 7" - God "draws ALL mankind to Him".

But He does not force the will or change the nature -- He simply enables the choice while drawing mankind.

Once the choice is made ... the door is opened... well then Christ comes in and the nature is changed according to Rev 3.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[thatbrian]

"But He does not force the will or change the nature -- He simply enables the choice while drawing mankind."

Bob,

How do you explain how He enables the choice without changing the nature? Are you saying that God enables man to see clearly in order for him to make the right choice?

Brian

 

[BobRyan]

"But He does not force the will or change the nature -- He simply enables the choice while drawing mankind."

Bob,

How do you explain how He enables the choice without changing the nature? Are you saying that God enables man to see clearly in order for him to make the right choice?

Brian

The Holy Spirit - being infinite God can cause lost sinful man to be "convicted of sin and righteousness and Judgment" John 16 (in fact He does that with the entire world)

Is it your view that the Holy Spirit is incapable of doing that without first making the entire world born-again?

 

[kyredneck]

....it was like a switch just flipped one day....

...yea, same here....

 

[steaver]

The Holy Spirit - being infinite God can cause lost sinful man to be "convicted of sin and righteousness and Judgment" John 16 (in fact He does that with the entire world)

Is it your view that the Holy Spirit is incapable of doing that without first making the entire world born-again?

All your post here have been very spot on! :thumbsup:

 

[steaver]

You may have misunderstood me, Steve.

First, no one was trying to sway me. When I say that I railed against it, it was from my own looking into the subject, which is completely natural because this question has come up in every thinking person's life. I'm a thinker, so the puzzle of who is saved or not and why bothered me, as it does many.

Without knowing the term, I was already a Palegian, so I needed no outside influence to stay one; however, I wanted to understand the other side, so I went to Sproul's Chosen By God. After a few minutes of listened to the CD I yanked it out of the CD player and threw it against the wall. There were some other articles I read very sporadically, but with the same result. The Calvinist position seemed almost demonic to me, but several years later I woke up a Calvinist, and I am eternally grateful that I have.

Second, I did not say that God showed me. I said that I fully believed it. One day I could not and would not believe it, and the next I did, and I gladly did, as it at last made sense of the scripture.

Lastly, I believe with my mind, not my gut. I'm no Charismatic - far from it. I heard no voice. I was simply able to comprehend what I could not prior.

That is basically what happened to me as well. After a couple of years of study and prayer, I fully believed Calvinism was flawed and freewill choice made perfect sense as elaborated from the scriptures. I believed with my mind and spirit, I heard no voice, I was simply able to comprehend what I could not prior.

I suppose I could say it was Divine Enablement which caused me to believe God's plan was freewill choice. I suppose those who do not believe in freewill choice fall under Matt 13 and John 10. Afterall, it is God who must Enable folks to believe via the Holy Spirit. Not Cause, but Enable, the choice then falls in the lap of every individual to either surrender themselves to Jesus Christ as Lord, or continue rejecting His offer of Salvation.

 

[Rippon]

All your post here have been very spot on!

A spot can also be considered a stain.

 

[steaver]

A spot can also be considered a stain.

Let's be honest here. The only way Calvinism can answer the scriptures Bob posted is to say they do not mean what they are clearly stating.

 

[BobRyan]

All your post here have been very spot on! :thumbsup:

Thanks -- as I recall you have been posting in the Arminian POV for a long while here - is that correct?

in Christ,

Bob