Answering the major objection against Calvinism

[reformedbeliever]

Did you ever beleive, npetreley?

If so, then enjoy your portion of glory as well.

It doesn't matter if it came from you (faith) or if it came from God to you, YOU must believe and therefore by your own standards must glory in yourself as well.

Either God saved you regardless of if you ever believed in Him or not; or You believed on Him an were saved at that moment. You are the the one actively (not passively) believing, Ergo you took part in your own salvation. For unless YOU believe there is NO salvation.
Kinda sticky huh.

Howdy there brother Allan. We (most calvinists) are of the theological opinion that man can not believe until they are born again of the Holy Spirit. It is that enabling that allows us to believe. All the glory goes to God, none to man. We would not believe unless we were born again of the Holy Spirit. I don't see how you can say that we have a part in regeneration. Our salvation is dependent upon believing, but we would never believe of our own will, without that supernatural enabling.

 

[Skandelon]

The natural reading of this passage would tend to imply that not having an mind to understand, eyes that see or ears that hear is the natural state of man. Would you agree Skandalon? (BTW, love your forum name ) If not, why?

There are many quotes I'm tempted to rebut, however it appears this seems to be the one you (and Nick) have really camped out on, so I'll spend my limited time here...

You also wrote: "Christ did hide some aspect of his ministry, but these are not the things which are associated with hardening"

I think we may be talking past each other just a little bit here and you are not hearing me. When I was a Calvinist I believed (as I think you do now) that all men were born in a condition where they are "ever seeing but not perceiving," right? This is what the doctrine of Totally Depravity taught. Men are born totally unable to believe the gospel...they are blind, deaf, and spiritually dead. I believed, as you do, that the gospel (apart from prior regeneration) is like water off a duck back...it goes in one ear and out the other...it can have absolutely NO positive effect upon a totally dead and depraved man. Am I right so far?

Now, however, I don't believe this to be the case. Don't get me wrong, I do still believe the condition described above is a real condition, but it is not a natural (from birth) condition of man. It is condition of a hardened man. One who has clearly seen and clearly heard and clearly perceived for a long time but who has also continually refused to accept the truth (example: the pagans described in Romans 1 who are "without excuse" because they did clearly see and understand the divine nature of God but refused to acknowledge him as such).

Hardened men have "grown calloused" over time, but they were not born that way. This is why scripture warns that we should not allow our hearts to grow hard.

You and I both agree that just because the truth can be clearly seen doesn't mean that it can be clearly perceived. You just believe that to be true of all mankind from birth, I do not.

So, of course Pharaoh eyes had seen all that the Lord did in Egypt, as Nick so kindly pointed out, but as the verse goes on to say he did not have eyes to really see it. In other words, he was "ever seeing but not perceiving," right? Why, you ask?

Was it because it was just born an idiot who couldn't see something so obvious as those plagues? Or could it be that the truth was being hidden/obscured from him so that he would continue in unbelief? The word "blinded" is often used synomously with hardening....which is why I refer it the truth as being "hidden." I was never trying to say the truth was not being revealed, quite the opposite. The truth is always being revealed, but it just isn't understood/perceived by those who have been hardened.

As I have continually shown, self hardening is a process by which otherwise perceptive men become blinded to clearly to revealed truth. When someone is being judicially hardened the truth is being hidden or obsured so that it is not understood, seen, or heard lest it be accepted. God does this to seal men in their already rebellous state. To the unhardened people (like the Gentiles of Christ's day) it is perfectly perceivable, but to one who has grown calloused (like the Jews of Christ's day) it is not.

(I understand that my cookie jar analogy did not perfectly capture the aspect of hiding something that is clearly perceivable, but that wasn't the point I was attempting to make with that particular analogy. I was simply attempting to show that when truth is not revealed [in a way that it IS percieved] that a person [like my cookie hunting daughter] will continue in their plot to steal. Likewise, Pharoah, who we both agree was seeing but not perceiving the truth, continued in his unbelief. Had he not been judicially blinded, he might have seen the truth after just a plague or two and let the Israelites go prior to God's design. God wanted to show is power so he hid the truth from Pharoah to keep him in unbelief and rebellion. In doing so God brought about the passover...a foreshadowing of what was to come as he also hardened Israel to bring about the true Passover of the Lamb.)

Now, back to your original question quoted above: "The natural reading of this passage would tend to imply that not having an mind to understand, eyes that see or ears that hear is the natural state of man. Would you agree"

Hopefully my explaination above helps you to see why I would not agree with this finding. The natural reading of the text explicitly shows that hardening is a PROCESS by which men GROW or BECOME calloused/blinded/hardened over a period of time as they continually rebell. The act of judicial hardening (as seen in the case of Pharaoh) is an active and deliberate action taken by God on one particular individual or group for a period of time and for a greater redemptive purpose. I see nothing in scripture supporting the notion that all men are born in this hardened/blinded condition.

Nothing reveals this more clearly than the passage we looked at earlier. Let's read it again and please comment on it this time if you would...

[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]Acts 28:26 "'Go to this people and say, "You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving." 27 For this people's heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them.' 28 "Therefore I want you to know that God's salvation has been sent to the Gentiles, and they will listen!"[/FONT]

Paul is clearly address Israel as being men who have "become calloused." And the prophecy clearly indicates what might have been had they not grown calloused. And it goes even further to illustate the differences between the hardened nation of Israel and Gentiles.

Now, please explain to me DW, if all men where born totally deaf, totally blind and totally hardened as your system insists then (1) how did these men "become/grow" deaf, blind and hardened; (2) why does it claim that they are ones closing their eyes as apposed to them being born closed; (3) why does it indicate what Israel might have done otherwise (if they had not grown hardened); and (4) why does it set the Gentiles a part as ones who will listen...afterall aren't we all just as equally blind, deaf and dumb in your system?

Thanks

 

[Skandelon]

Howdy there brother Allan. We (most calvinists) are of the theological opinion that man can not believe until they are born again of the Holy Spirit. It is that enabling that allows us to believe. All the glory goes to God, none to man. We would not believe unless we were born again of the Holy Spirit. I don't see how you can say that we have a part in regeneration. Our salvation is dependent upon believing, but we would never believe of our own will, without that supernatural enabling.

I think the point being made is that if anyone attempts to call faith a work (whether irresistably motivated by God or not) then we all have to admit that we are saved through a work. Afterall, we all agree we are "saved by grace, through faith." Are we saved by grace through works? If you label faith as just another "work," then yes, we are, regardless of the source or effectuality of that work.

Additionally, I would have to inquire as to how one defines "receiving glory." Is commending or honoring the great cloud of faithful witnesses who have gone before us a way of giving glory to men? Clearly scripture's authors did not hesitate to praise the faith of our forefathers by which they were said to find God's favor (i.e. Heb. 11). Paul did not shrink back is saying that "Abraham's faith was credited to him as righteousness." Jesus did not rebuke himself or his father for not giving men more faith, instead he rebuked men for their little faith. God is not said to create or make men to faithfully worship him, but instead He seeks those who do so.

Clearly, there is a basis on which reward and punishment is founded and what is a "reward" if it's not some measure of what some might label "glory?" The scripture leaves room for merit and reward...so should we.

 

[Allan]

Howdy there brother Allan. We (most calvinists) are of the theological opinion that man can not believe until they are born again of the Holy Spirit. It is that enabling that allows us to believe. All the glory goes to God, none to man. We would not believe unless we were born again of the Holy Spirit. I don't see how you can say that we have a part in regeneration. Our salvation is dependent upon believing, but we would never believe of our own will, without that supernatural enabling.

Good evening Brother Refomed.
I didn't state we have a part in our regeneration I stated that YOU (actively and not passively) must believe in order to be saved as says the scriptures? Did you believe after you were regenerated (in the Calvinist view)? Is your believing God a passive thing in which God believes in Himself through you?? Not in scripture it isn't! The fact that salvation is given ONLY to those who will/have believed shows that you are involved but not the cause of your salvation.

That is why scripture states - YOU still must believe. Regardless of regeneration (that Calvinisticly allows one to now hear) - Gods salvation is brought forth by faith/belief that is excersized BY the individual who desires to recieve it. You must believe in order to be saved. You take part in your salvation because if you do not believe then you will not be saved.

That is why I state: unless God saves you without the need for you to believe then YOU having something to do in that process in which the fullness of God's salvation is applied to you.

If you will Believe on/in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved.
If you will Believe not then the wrath of God abides on you still.

Tell me brother, Can a man lost in the woods being lead out by his rescurer glory in that he is no longer lost because he believed the rescurer could get him home. Have you ever heard one take the glory?

Is the man drowing able to glory in himself, when he yeilds his life into the ability of one rescuing him? Again, have you ever heard one take the glory?

To say they have something with which to glory is false, for without their saviour they would be lost and diening with no hope if He had not come to them. They yeilded to the truth and believed and were saved just as it is with Christ our Saviour.

 

[J.D.]

The scripture leaves room for merit and reward...so should we.

Thank you for your honesty. This is the destination to which synergism always arrives. The Council of Dordt was right - Arminianism is nothing but Pelagianism well disguised and always leads us back to meritorious salvation.

 

[Allan]

Thank you for your honesty. This is the destination to which synergism always arrives. The Council of Dordt was right - Arminianism is nothing but Pelagianism well disguised and always leads us back to meritorious salvation.

Praise be to God most of us Non-Cals on here are not Arminians nor Pelagians.

 

[Skandelon]

Thank you for your honesty. This is the destination to which synergism always arrives. The Council of Dordt was right - Arminianism is nothing but Pelagianism well disguised and always leads us back to meritorious salvation.

:BangHead:

Why do I bother?


J.D. the point is that we all believe faith merits salvation regardless of the irresistability of the source by which that faith comes.

Arminianism is a far cry from Pelagianism. Pelagianism denied the doctrine of original sin among other very foundational doctrines, whereas Arminianism did not. I'm sure you wouldn't appreciate us lumping Calvinists all in with the anti-evangelistic Hyper-Calvinists or even the baby baptizing Augustinians, would you?

 

[dwmoeller1]

:BangHead:

Why do I bother?


J.D. the point is that we all believe faith merits salvation regardless of the irresistability of the source by which that faith comes.

Arminianism is a far cry from Pelagianism. Pelagianism denied the doctrine of original sin among other very foundational doctrines, whereas Arminianism did not. I'm sure you wouldn't appreciate us lumping Calvinists all in with the anti-evangelistic Hyper-Calvinists or even the baby baptizing Augustinians, would you?

He is right though about the Synod of Dordt comparing Arminianism to Pelegianism.

 

[dwmoeller1]

Depends on what you mean. But if I am faced with wall to wall higher mathematics then I have the choice of trusting in man or trusting in God and so does everyone else. I will trust in the beginning until I'm shown it is untrustworthy. If you put your faith in men then you should make sure and that means you must be up to speed. Yet all the cosmologists admit that their theory lacks proof of any sort but the mystery is resolvable.

Ack! You are as bad as skypair. I think I will stick with the conversation with my anti-buddy Skandelon. Forget I ever mentioned the topic.

 

[npetreley]

Did you ever beleive, npetreley?

If so, then enjoy your portion of glory as well.

It doesn't matter if it came from you (faith) or if it came from God to you, YOU must believe and therefore by your own standards must glory in yourself as well.

Either God saved you regardless of if you ever believed in Him or not; or You believed on Him an were saved at that moment. You are the the one actively (not passively) believing, Ergo you took part in your own salvation. For unless YOU believe there is NO salvation.
Kinda sticky huh.

Reformedbeliever gave a good answer to this, so I'll just say, "what he said".

 

[johnp.]

Ack! You are as bad as skypair.

In which way dw?

I think I will stick with the conversation with my anti-buddy Skandelon. Forget I ever mentioned the topic.

How did I offend you, was it being like skypair and if so, as I've asked, in which way please?

john.

 

[J.D.]

Praise be to God most of us Non-Cals on here are not Arminians nor Pelagians.

But you ARE synergists, right? I believe all forms of synergism spring from the same root.

 

[J.D.]

:BangHead:

Why do I bother?


J.D. the point is that we all believe faith merits salvation regardless of the irresistability of the source by which that faith comes.

Arminianism is a far cry from Pelagianism. Pelagianism denied the doctrine of original sin among other very foundational doctrines, whereas Arminianism did not. I'm sure you wouldn't appreciate us lumping Calvinists all in with the anti-evangelistic Hyper-Calvinists or even the baby baptizing Augustinians, would you?

No, we don't all believe that faith merits salvation. Not me anyway. Faith is not the means by which we merit salvation - it is the means by which we experience salvation.

As for lumping you in, see my reply to Allen. You are a synergist, aren't you?

 

[russell55]

J.D. the point is that we all believe faith merits salvation regardless of the irresistability of the source by which that faith comes.

No. The only thing that merits salvation is the work of Christ. That's the whole point of solus Christus--in Christ alone. The only grounds of salvation (or the only thing by which it merited) is Christ's work--his perfect obedience and substitutional death for us.

Salvation is by faith or through faith, but not on account of faith. Faith is the vehicle through which salvation comes to us, and faith is uniquely suited for that role because faith is an empty hand, a hand that says "I have nothing to offer, nothing to by which to merit salvation. I am entirely dependent on Christ and his work for my salvation." Faith has no value in itself; it's usefulness is as a receptical for what is of value--the work of Christ.

 

[Skandelon]

No. The only thing that merits salvation is the work of Christ. That's the whole point of solus Christus--in Christ alone.

There is also the point of sola fide...but that is a rabbit I really don't want to chase at this time or in this thread...

 

[russell55]

There is also the point of sola fide...but that is a rabbit I really don't want to chase at this time or in this thread...

The point of sole fide is solus Christus. Faith is dependence on the merit of Christ.

But we won't go there.

 

[Skandelon]

The point of sole fide is solus Christus. Faith is dependence on the merit of Christ.

We have no disagreement on that point. The problem only exists when one attempts to equate men's contra-casual free choice of faith in Christ with the merits of the law...

 

[russell55]

The problem only exists when one attempts to equate men's contra-casual free choice of faith in Christ with the merits of the law...

I have no idea what this means. :laugh:

 

[Allan]

But you ARE synergists, right? I believe all forms of synergism spring from the same root.

And that root is Calvinism since that theology (synergism) seeks to maintains a balance between the two theologies (C/A) with a distint desire to be more calvinistic in its base but accomidating to the choice view.

BTW - No, I am not a synergist.

 

[Allan]

Reformedbeliever gave a good answer to this, so I'll just say, "what he said".

Then I will answer you the same way I answered him.

I didn't state we have a part in our regeneration I stated that YOU (actively and not passively) must believe in order to be saved as says the scriptures? Did you believe after you were regenerated (in the Calvinist view)? Is your believing God a passive thing in which God believes in Himself through you?? Not in scripture it isn't! The fact that salvation is given ONLY to those who will/have believed which shows that you are involved but not the cause of your salvation.

That is why scripture states - YOU still must believe. Regardless of regeneration (that Calvinisticly allows one to now hear) - Gods salvation is brought forth by faith/belief that is excersized BY the individual who desires to recieve it. You must believe in order to be saved. You take part in your salvation because if you do not believe then you will not be saved.

That is why I state: unless God saves you without the need for you to believe then YOU having something to do in that process in which the fullness of God's salvation is applied to you.

If you will Believe on/in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved.
If you will Believe not then the wrath of God abides on you still.

Tell me brother, Can a man lost in the woods being lead out by his rescurer glory in that he is no longer lost because he believed the rescurer could get him home. Have you ever heard one take the glory?

Is the man drowing able to glory in himself, when he yeilds his life into the ability of one rescuing him? Again, have you ever heard one take the glory?

To say they have something with which to glory is false, for without their saviour they would be lost and diening with no hope if He had not come to them. They yeilded to the truth and believed and were saved just as it is with Christ our Saviour.