Say what you want, I present scripture to support my views. It is you and others who come back with one-liners like this, yet never present scripture to support your view, or even show how I have misinterpreted scripture. Simply saying someone is wrong without presenting proof is meaningless.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Any Calvinist willing to walk through Romans 11 with me?
- Thread starter Skandelon
- Start date
Say what you want, I present scripture to support my views. It is you and others who come back with one-liners like this, yet never present scripture to support your view, or even show how I have misinterpreted scripture. Simply saying someone is wrong without presenting proof is meaningless.
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
This is why I try to resist using analogies. They distract the conversation because they are removed from the original context in order to shift the discussion about something you would rather discuss.
This difficulty of hell (i.e. the bus) is one we both share, the subject that you are avoiding is the contradiction of the 2 opposing wills...i.e. God desiring to save those who he chose not to save.
Do you even remember the point of the analogy, which you conveniently skipped right over? It was to show that we can have 2 different none opposing desires...i.e. the desire to physically force obedience from our child or the desire to allow our child to freely obey. Those are TWO separate and non-opposing desires.
But as I said, and you ignored, if I plugged my daughters ears because I didn't desire her to hear my command and then proceeded to command and even longingly beg her to obey there would be an obvious contradiction. I would be expressing contradictory desires...i.e. the desire for my daughter not to obey that which I'm longingly desiring her to obey.
You all need to deal with that point of the discussion before shifting to the completely separate discussion regarding why God doesn't effectually save everyone. (a difficult question for both sides and completely unrelated)
You're right - I diverted the discussion, in order to show that the often used attack (not done by you in particular) against Cals that God is a monster for not electing some people to salvation can be thrown right back at the non-Cal (at least to those who hold to orthodox theology on the omnipotence and omniscience of God).
Now back to the two wills issue - not so sure the non-Cal escapes the apparent contradiction that you think Cals have to deal with here. From a non-Cal perspective, God wants all men to be saved, yet he is not willing to take all means to save them. And the end result is, God wills some men to go to hell more than he wills for them to be saved. So God is being disingenuous when he says he wants all to be saved, when he has the power and authority to do it, but won't do it. Maybe the consistent thing for the non-Cal to do is to become an Open Theist?
Your view assumes that God's will is always done. But that is not what the scriptures say.
Matt 6:10 Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.
Why would Jesus teach us to pray that God's will be done on earth if it is always done?
Matt 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
Jesus said only those who do the will of the Father shall enter into the kingdom of heaven, therefore those who do not enter obviously are not doing the will of God. God has a will, but it is the responsibility of men to perform it. It is not imposed or forced on man. We are not robots.
So, this teaching that God's will is always done is unscriptural.
Last edited by a moderator:
The Archangel
Well-Known Member
Perhaps you missed this in Psalm 135:6
Whatever the Lord pleases, he does,
in heaven and on earth,
in the seas and all deeps.
Seems you're wrong again!
The Archangel
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
Well, what I hope you understand is that the "attack" against Cals about God appearing to be a "monster" is not because He elects to save some and not all. The attack more centers around this discussion with regard to God appearing to desire, long for, and have patience with all the world, while not really desiring for all the world to come to repentance. It seems disingenuous at best.
But we don't believe that God just wants all men to be saved. We believe God wants all men to come to him for reconciliation so that they will be saved. See the difference? It begs the question of the debate to presume that God just wants all people to be saved. If that were the case then all people WOULD be saved, for who can thwart his will? Our position then is NOT that God wills all to be saved, but instead that he WILLs all to come to willingly come to repentance and be reconciled to him. That is the distinction you must acknowledge in order to avoid the fallacy of question begging.
Depends on what kind of will we are taking about. If we are taking about God's "will of command" - i.e., what He commands, then I agree. If we are talking about his will of decree, then I disagree. Do you believe God is all-powerful and able to stop men from sinning if He so desired?
You are one of few non-Cals that I have seen make this distinction, so I respect you for that. What you have said in essence is that God loves man's free will more than he loves saving man.
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
No, that is not the essence of what I've said or what I believe. Once again you statement is a fallacy of begging the question. The phrase itself presumes that God's love for free will must be greater than his love for saving souls because you presume that salvation must be effectual, the very premise we reject. Look up the fallacy called "Begging the Question" and study it before replying. I don't think you even realize you are doing it.
If you want to properly word it to represent our view, then you would say: God loves the world enough to provide the means by which whosoever believes in him will be saved. Those means are not "irresistible" or "effectual," but they are intended for the whole world, thus God's expression of longing desire and patience with the world is consistent with his expressed plan of redemption.
I don't think it is begging the question; it's just pointing out what God's greater desire is. Your second paragraph puts your perspective on it, while I give a different perspective - God would rather see men go to hell than to override their free will. Sure, my perspective doesn't make your theology sound very nice, but it's the same type of game non-Cals turn on Cals all the time in these debates...and it's not very fun, is it?
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
But, don't you see that the position you are arguing from must be that of a Universalist, because both our views have God desiring only to save those who believe upon Him, regardless of the means by which they come to faith. At least in my view you don't have the problem of opposing wills...i.e. the desire to save someone he doesn't desire to save. Or the problem of divine culpability in that men born total depraved in the Calvinistic sense have the perfect excuse on judgement day.
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
By the way, I thought of another point... Please answer this question and explain why:
Do you believe that God would rather see men remain Arminians than to override their free will?
What you do not comprehend is that God can be sovereign and let man have free will at the same time. Analogies always fail, but let me see if I can give an example.
Can a person eat whatever they want to eat? Yes, nobody can stop you from eating whatever you want to eat. But can you eat arsenic? Well, you can, but it will kill you. Why? Because God has designed our bodies in such a way that some foods are good for us, while others are not. God has established all the laws, and the laws hold true. So, you could eat arsenic, no one can stop you, but the physical laws which God decreed hold and you will be poisoned and may die.
And this holds true in the moral realm as well. Can you sin? Of course, we all can and do sin. But what does God's word say will happen if we sin? We shall spiritually die.
Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
God allows us all free will. It is never God's will that any man sin. But if we sin, is God's sovereignty twarted? No. If we sin, God's death penalty passes upon us and there is nothing you, I, or anyone else can do to prevent this.
Gal 6:7 Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.
8 For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.
If you read these verses carefully you will see they support what I am saying. God is clearly showing that a man can choose to sow to his flesh, or sow to the Spirit. But God still rules, if you sow to the flesh you shall reap corruption, but if you sow to the Spirit you shall reap life everlasting.
So, man can have free will, but God is still sovereign and rules.
Apparently, yes, otherwise all would eventually abandon Arminianism (assuming such is incorrect). Why? I leave that to the secret counsel of His will. And it may not be that He loves their free will more; He may have other purposes for allowing them to remain Arminian.
But that is a question of little consequence compared to the question of heaven vs. hell.
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
So, you must admit that God wants, desires and has decreed for some of us to be Arminian? Right?
And why do you suppose God would value our free will over whether or not his own elect children would believe and teach these so-called "doctrines of Grace?" Why would God value man's free will in this sense but not in the other?
And there you have it. The exact answer can apply for the question that Calvinists often ask with regard to why some believe and others don't. The mystery of God's free will is a reflection of the mystery of those who He created in His image. And the reason God chooses to allow men the freedom to be reconciled may not be that He loves their free will more; He may have other purposes for allowing them to remain unbelieving...reasons beyond our full comprehension.
Not really. They both reflect on the mystery of God's purposes, which it the point I was attempting to make.
Except that the common philosophical argument from non-Cals is that God values our free will, wants us to come freely and doesn't want us to be robots, etc. In fact, I've seen you make many of these same philosophical arguments. Therefore, I am just following your own reasoning - God loves our free will more than He loves actually saving someone. Since you are making these very same arguments, you can't just turn around and say He has other purposes for not saving some people - that's actually the Calvinist's answer! No, the reason He doesn't save some people is that He values their free will more - no robots in heaven, remember?
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
How would you like me saying about your view that God loves condemning people to certain destruction without ever giving them an opportunity to be saved more than he loves justice?
Well, I've heard much worse flung at Calvinism.
To be honest, I think both of us have hard philosophical questions to answer, and if we try too hard to be philosophical rather than Biblical, it will lead you to Open Theism and me to Hyper-Calvinism.
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
That is something we can agree on. Now, if I can get you to agree with me on how to properly interpret your bible we would be getting somewhere. :smilewinkgrin:
What? Saying that God is a cruel monster who determined even before a man was born that he would be condemned to an eternity in the lake of fire unconditionally is not the worst thing about Calvinism you have heard? Then tell me what is?
Why does God talk so much about sin in the scriptures and plead with men to repent? It makes no sense, because according to Calvinism, those who go into the lake of fire were determined so unconditionally. If it was determined unconditionally as you teach, then sin is not the reason they perish, there is no reason.