Are You a Calvinist or a Non-Cal?

[Skandelon]

He is unable because he's unwilling.

And he is unwilling because he is unable to be willing. His heart is corrupted and thus CANNOT be willing according to Calvinism. Again, this is taught very clearly by MANY Calvinistic scholars so I'm not sure why you're attempting to deny it. ???

All people have every opportunity to willingly accept.

How does a corpse, a dead man, have the opportunity to willingly do anything unless he is first made alive? That is a foundational argument of Calvinists. Do I need to provide quotes?

 

[jbh28]

And he is unwilling because he is unable to be willing. His heart is corrupted and thus CANNOT be willing according to Calvinism. Again, this is taught very clearly by MANY Calvinistic scholars so I'm not sure why you're attempting to deny it. ???


How does a corpse, a dead man, have the opportunity to willingly do anything unless he is first made alive? That is a foundational argument of Calvinists. Do I need to provide quotes?

Yes, as you have agreed with me, that the heart is deceitful and he will never believe. No, you don't need to proved quotes to backup a straw man. You are purposefully miss-wording something. He has the opportunity to believe. He chooses willingly to reject it.

Look, stop telling me and others what we believe. Your straw man is exposed. Your statement of "without hope or opportunity to willingly accept God's appeal for reconciliation" is not true. The opportunity to willingly accept God is there. All he has to do is believe. Yes, his nature is sinful. Yes unless God changes his heart he will not believe. But that's because man is a sinner and refuses to believe. Man's sin gets in his way, not God.

As I mentioned the other day, the reason straw men like this get put out there is because you take a statement from us and fit it into your perspective and then restate it from there. That's when we have a problem.

 

[Skandelon]

That is not a straw man brother.

"Whosoever will may come" no more implies that fallen man has the power (in himself) to come, than "Stretch forth thine hand" implied that the man with the withered arm had ability (in himself) to comply. In and of himself the natural man has power to reject Christ; but in and of himself he has not the power to receive Christ. And why? Because he has a mind that is "enmity against" Him (Rom. 8:7); because he has a heart that hates Him (John 15:18). Man chooses that which is according to his nature, and therefore before he will ever choose or prefer that which is divine and spiritual, a new nature must be imparted to him; in other words, he must be born again. - Arthur Pink

 

[jbh28]

That is not a straw man brother.

"Whosoever will may come" no more implies that fallen man has the power (in himself) to come, than "Stretch forth thine hand" implied that the man with the withered arm had ability (in himself) to comply. In and of himself the natural man has power to reject Christ; but in and of himself he has not the power to receive Christ. And why? Because he has a mind that is "enmity against" Him (Rom. 8:7); because he has a heart that hates Him (John 15:18). Man chooses that which is according to his nature, and therefore before he will ever choose or prefer that which is divine and spiritual, a new nature must be imparted to him; in other words, he must be born again. - Arthur Pink

Yes, but that is far different from what you stated. Pink here is speaking about that nature of man and how it's corrupt. Which he is right because that's what the Bible teaches. But you said, "without hope or opportunity to willingly accept God's appeal for reconciliation." That is not the same thing. He has the opportunity to to believe. The issue is that he doesn't want to believe. His sin gets in his way. You have to be careful how you speak about other's views because, as I mentioned, you can say it in such a way to give out a false understanding. As Pink said, the "why" was not God preventing but man's sin.

 

[Skandelon]

But you said, "without hope or opportunity to willingly accept God's appeal for reconciliation." That is not the same thing. He has the opportunity to to believe.

I didn't say "opportunity to believe." As you JUST quoted, I said, "opportunity to WILLINGLY ACCEPT." How does a corpse, a spiritually dead man, willingly accept the appeal for reconciliation unless first made alive? Do you know how many THOUSANDS of times that point has been argued here by Calvinists? You are nit-picking with semantics that point to a difference without a distinction. Men, according to Calvinists, must be ENABLED because they are born UNABLE and that ENABLING is EFFECTUALLY applied to God's ELECT alone. Again, why are you nit-picking this?

The issue is that he doesn't want to believe.

But could he want to believe? That is the question you continue to avoid addressing.

I'm not willing to go exercise right now, but could I become willing? Of course I could. Nothing is preventing me from becoming willing. That is NOT true of the natural man in the Calvinistic worldview. His fallen nature prevents him from becoming willing. He is unable to be willing unless first regenerated. That is NOT a STRAWMAN.

 

[Winman]

Yes, but that is far different from what you stated. Pink here is speaking about that nature of man and how it's corrupt. Which he is right because that's what the Bible teaches. But you said, "without hope or opportunity to willingly accept God's appeal for reconciliation." That is not the same thing. He has the opportunity to to believe. The issue is that he doesn't want to believe. His sin gets in his way. You have to be careful how you speak about other's views because, as I mentioned, you can say it in such a way to give out a false understanding. As Pink said, the "why" was not God preventing but man's sin.

Pink's and JBH's view is error. The scriptures do not teach that men will always choose sin and against God.

Jos 24:22 And Joshua said unto the people, Ye are witnesses against yourselves that ye have chosen you the LORD, to serve him. And they said, We are witnesses.

The scriptures show man not only could, but did choose the Lord to serve him.

Total Inability is false doctrine.

 

[Skandelon]

Yes unless God changes his heart he will not believe. But that's because man is a sinner and refuses to believe. Man's sin gets in his way, not God.

Just as you said here, "UNLESS God changes his heart he will not," in fact he CANNOT believe. Why? He is born unable to be willing.

I can prove it. Answer this question with a yes or no: Is a natural non-elect man able to willingly believe in Christ?

 

[Skandelon]

In The Westminster Confession; doctrine of Total Inability is stated as follows: — “Man, by his fall Into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation; so as a natural man, being altogether averse from good, and dead in sin, is not able, by his own strength, to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto.”

Again, I'm not sure why you are once again accusing me of straw man when the evidence is clear. Calvinists teach men are born unable to be willing to accept God's appeal.

 

[jbh28]

In The Westminster Confession; doctrine of Total Inability is stated as follows: — “Man, by his fall Into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation; so as a natural man, being altogether averse from good, and dead in sin, is not able, by his own strength, to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto.”

Again, I'm not sure why you are once again accusing me of straw man when the evidence is clear. Calvinists teach men are born unable to be willing to accept God's appeal.

Because of your wording of the use of the term "opportunity. You are not addressing that when I reply back to you.

btw, what parts of that would you disagree with? man doesn't convert himself.

But could he want to believe?

He "can't" because he's not willing. So he could if he wanted to. God is not preventing him from wanting.

Is a natural non-elect man able to willingly believe in Christ?

He doesn't want to. His inability is because he has no desire. He's unable because he's unwilling. Man is free to believe anything he wants. He doesn't believe. God doesn't keep man from believing.

 

[Skandelon]

Because of your wording of the use of the term "opportunity. You are not addressing that when I reply back to you.

Opportunity: A set of circumstances that makes it possible to do something. (Webster)

There is NEVER a set of circumstances that makes it possible for a non-elect man to believe and be saved according to Calvinism. Right or wrong?

He "can't" because he's not willing.

BUT CAN HE BECOME WILLING? IS HE GIVEN OPPORTUNITY TO BECOME WILLING? YES OR NO??????

 

[jbh28]

Opportunity: A set of circumstances that makes it possible to do something. (Webster)

and Jesus died on the cross. That makes it possible for anyone to believe.

There is NEVER a set of circumstances that makes it possible for a non-elect man to believe and be saved according to Calvinism. Right or wrong?

If man believes, he will be saved. Jesus Christ paid a sufficient payment on the cross that "is abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world." ~Canons of Dordt

So man has every opportunity to come to Christ. The "non-elect man" rejects this opportunity just as the "elect man" will reject. The difference is that the "elect man" will not reject his entire life.

BUT CAN HE BECOME WILLING? IS HE GIVEN OPPORTUNITY TO BECOME WILLING? YES OR NO??????

He can be willing if he wants to. You keep asking the wrong question. Have you stopped beating your wife?

 

[Skandelon]

He can be willing if he wants to.

He can want to if he wants too? Really? REALLY?

Never mind. :BangHead:

 

[jbh28]

He can want to if he wants too? Really? REALLY?

Never mind. :BangHead:

yes God is not keeping him from wanting to come. (and actually it's he doesn't want to because he desires his sin more...)

As I said, you keep asking the wrong question. Have you stopped beating your wife? I know what you are attempting to do, but as it was shown last time, God is not an excuse for man's lack of belief. Man doesn't want to. The question is why does man ever want to come to Christ. That's the real question that should be being asked.

 

[Winman]

Skan, you are getting nowhere.

Total Inability is false. The Philipian jailer proves it false. He was willing to be saved, but he was not regenerated. He did not even know what he had to do to be saved. Paul told him he must believe on Jesus and then preached the gospel to him. Afterwards he believed.

The Philipian jailer had a desire to be saved before he was regenerated. This refutes Total Inability.

Cornelius refutes Total Inability, he was devout and feared God and prayed always. His prayers were heard and accepted by God, but Cornelius was not saved at this point, God sent an angel to tell him to send for Peter whereby he would hear words where he and his household would be saved. Cornelius didn't rebel, he did exactly what the angel told him to do. When Peter came, he preached the gospel, Cornelius (and his household) all believed and received the Holy Spirit.

It doesn't matter how cleverly JBH words his doctrine, it is false doctrine and error. The scriptures refute his view.

 

[Skandelon]

In your system man doesn't want to come to Christ in the same manner that a rabbit doesn't want to eat steak or a lion doesn't want to eat lettuce. You've reduced man's free moral nature to that of animal instinct by which men simply do as they have been programmed. I know, I know, that is another "straw man," but in all your accusations of straw man you continue to point to differences without distinctions....and even the differences are semantical.

Please answer this one last question for me:
Who, if not God, determined what the fallen nature of man could and could not be willing to do?

 

[jbh28]

In your system man doesn't want to come to Christ in the same manner that a rabbit doesn't want to eat steak or a lion doesn't want to eat lettuce. You've reduced man's free moral nature to that of animal instinct by which men simply do as they have been programmed. I know, I know, that is another "straw man," but in all your accusations of straw man you continue to point to differences without distinctions....and even the differences are semantical.

Please answer this one last question for me:
Who, if not God, determined what the fallen nature of man could and could not be willing to do?

Have you stopped beating your wife?

 

[Skandelon]

Have you stopped beating your wife?

Easy answer: I never started beating my wife.

Now answer my question, it should be just as easy for you. Who, if not God, determined what the fallen nature of man could and could not be willing to do?

 

[jbh28]

Skan, you are getting nowhere.

Total Inability is false. The Philipian jailer proves it false. He was willing to be saved, but he was not regenerated. He did not even know what he had to do to be saved. Paul told him he must believe on Jesus and then preached the gospel to him. Afterwards he believed.

The Philipian jailer had a desire to be saved before he was regenerated. This refutes Total Inability.

Cornelius refutes Total Inability, he was devout and feared God and prayed always. His prayers were heard and accepted by God, but Cornelius was not saved at this point, God sent an angel to tell him to send for Peter whereby he would hear words where he and his household would be saved. Cornelius didn't rebel, he did exactly what the angel told him to do. When Peter came, he preached the gospel, Cornelius (and his household) all believed and received the Holy Spirit.

It doesn't matter how cleverly JBH words his doctrine, it is false doctrine and error. The scriptures refute his view.

Sorry, but this doesn't disprove my doctrine at all. There will be many people in hell that desired to be saved but didn't desire to be saved God's way. (please don't take my quote out of context) There is only one way to heaven and that's through Jesus Christ. Many will be in hell that tried to take another road. So someone asking how to be saved doesn't disprove total inability at all. It very much could show that the Spirit is working in their heart.

 

[Winman]

Sorry, but this doesn't disprove my doctrine at all. There will be many people in hell that desired to be saved but didn't desire to be saved God's way. (please don't take my quote out of context) There is only one way to heaven and that's through Jesus Christ. Many will be in hell that tried to take another road. So someone asking how to be saved doesn't disprove total inability at all. It very much could show that the Spirit is working in their heart.

You've got a big problem, we know for a FACT that Cornelius and the Philipian jailer were saved.

They both desired to be saved, and they both desired to be saved God's way.

Your view is easily refuted, but you will not admit it ever.

 

[jbh28]

Easy answer: I never started beating my wife.

Now answer my question, it should be just as easy for you. Who, if not God, determined what the fallen nature of man could and could not be willing to do?

Ok, I'll do that same. God does not keep man from coming to him.

"without hope or opportunity to willingly accept God's appeal for reconciliation."

all men have the opportunity to willingly accept God's appeal for reconciliation. The issue is that man doesn't want to accept. That's what the Bible teaches.

Now, I'm not going to keep playing your little word games. It gets tiring to try to argue with someone what I really believes. Like they are some expirt on my bliefs. It's strange that non Calvinist believe they know what Calvinists believe better than Calvinist. Your statement "without hope or opportunity to willingly accept" if not true. Jesus Christ paid a sufficient payment on the cross that "is abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world."