I don't know who wrote this, but its not correct. Calvinists don't believe that God EVER has evil intent. His intent is always good, and sometimes he uses evil acts to accomplish it. And this is actually the viewpoint of all of Christianity (orthodox, anyway). An example of God using evil acts to accomplish good would be the cross.
-
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!
Both must be true
- Thread starter Lorelei
- Start date
Ignazio_er
New Member
The point of the article, and I wish I could dig it up again, was that Calvinism essentially teaches that God created some, not just with with foreknowledge, but with the intent of condemning them to everlasting torment. No act of free will, no amount faith, no sincere repentance, no love for God or neighbor, nothing can save them, because God created them expressly to suffer eternally. And, He's happy about it.
Anyway, that was the gyst of the article.
Anyway, that was the gyst of the article.
Lorelei,
I wrote:
Can you answer these questions, too? In what way are we worse off than Adam was before the fall? Is there some way in which we are less able to be actually righteous than Adam was before the fall?
How are people saved? By trusting in Christ's provision for them. That answers the "how" of salvation question. But there are other questions about salvation answered for us, too.
And one of those questions is "Why does one person trust in Christ's provision and another not? Or why does one person see the truth of the gospel as the wisdom of Christ (and therefore to be trusted) and another one doesn't?" We can find the answer to that particular question in 1 Cor. 1.
but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness, but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God......
......But by His doing you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption, so that, just as it is written, "LET HIM WHO BOASTS, BOAST IN THE LORD."
It is God's calling that sets those for whom Christ is wisdom and power apart from those for whom He is foolishness. It is God's doing that makes Christ wisdom from God to us. The "why" that sets those who believe (or trust Christ's provision) apart from those for whom Christ remains foolishness is God's activity, not our own. That's why there's no room for boasting, because the thing that sets us who eventually reconcile to God apart from those who remain forever opposed to God is not anything within us, but something God did for us. He chose--or called--us (those words used as parallels in that passage) and that's the difference. It is "out of Him" instead of "out of us" that we trust Christ and He becomes to us wisdom and justification and sanctification and redemption.
Secondly, God cannot pardon anyone without righteous grounds for that pardon. That's the point of Romans 3: 24 and 25 (I think that's the right reference--somewhere in the twenties of 3, anyway).
And the word "unjust" means giving someone something worse than they deserve. So, unless you think opposition to God doesn't deserve condemnation, God in not "unjust" in His condemnation of anyone. If the condemnation was on just grounds in the first place, how does God having mercy on some who deserve to be condemned, make him unjust in carrying out that condemnation of others?
I wrote:
And you replied:
So, do you agree at least that there may be some circumstances in which a person may be held accountable to do things they cannot do?
Can you answer these questions, too? In what way are we worse off than Adam was before the fall? Is there some way in which we are less able to be actually righteous than Adam was before the fall?
Actually, it says both things. It says God has chosen some for salvation through faith AND it says God saved those who believe. Where is the contradiction? Why does it have to be one or the other and not both?
How are people saved? By trusting in Christ's provision for them. That answers the "how" of salvation question. But there are other questions about salvation answered for us, too.
And one of those questions is "Why does one person trust in Christ's provision and another not? Or why does one person see the truth of the gospel as the wisdom of Christ (and therefore to be trusted) and another one doesn't?" We can find the answer to that particular question in 1 Cor. 1.
but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness, but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God......
......But by His doing you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption, so that, just as it is written, "LET HIM WHO BOASTS, BOAST IN THE LORD."
It is God's calling that sets those for whom Christ is wisdom and power apart from those for whom He is foolishness. It is God's doing that makes Christ wisdom from God to us. The "why" that sets those who believe (or trust Christ's provision) apart from those for whom Christ remains foolishness is God's activity, not our own. That's why there's no room for boasting, because the thing that sets us who eventually reconcile to God apart from those who remain forever opposed to God is not anything within us, but something God did for us. He chose--or called--us (those words used as parallels in that passage) and that's the difference. It is "out of Him" instead of "out of us" that we trust Christ and He becomes to us wisdom and justification and sanctification and redemption.
Of course there's a stipulation. They have to apply for the pardon, and all who apply receive it.
Absolutely.
Ooh....I'll have to disagree here. First of all, God can't do anything "on a whim". Part of His character is to always be purposeful. There is a reason for everything He does. In the case of "election to salvation", it is never whimsical, but always "according to His purpose."
Secondly, God cannot pardon anyone without righteous grounds for that pardon. That's the point of Romans 3: 24 and 25 (I think that's the right reference--somewhere in the twenties of 3, anyway).
Okay, so no one is saying that God is keeping anyone from believing, so the use of the word "allow" here is a little odd. Everyone is allowed to believe. Not everyone does believe, though and they don't believe because their stubborn opposition to God makes them unable to bring themselves to trust in Him.
And the word "unjust" means giving someone something worse than they deserve. So, unless you think opposition to God doesn't deserve condemnation, God in not "unjust" in His condemnation of anyone. If the condemnation was on just grounds in the first place, how does God having mercy on some who deserve to be condemned, make him unjust in carrying out that condemnation of others?
Pastor Larry said:
If the IRS laws stated that a man was going to die and spend eternity in hell, I would bet he would find a way to pay his taxes. 1 Cor. 10:13 comes to mind here.
By Lorelei
So, we have a God who willingly passes over most of mankind to only elect a few, but His love is demonstrated because he is providing life’s pleasures/necessity. They will ultimatly be left in the sinful nature without any chance becaue God is witholding his saving grace. I see exactly the point of Lorelei here. Where is this different?
Ransom said:
I think you missed my point, or perhaps I didn’t articulate it well. We agree, no one is capable of keeping the whole law from birth till death (especially sense we are born with a sin nature). We agree that we can’t be perfect as God is perfect. But my point is that while this is true, God is providing a solution to this problem. That solution is Christ. Now you may say that God is providing the solution to everyone but the non-elect willingly reject that solution. But this is the problem. I am saying that God is not providing a solution to the non elect because they are not given the same opportunity to accept this solution. AND the limited atonement eradicates the solution to them even if they could believe. Calvinism teaches that God is effectually calling only those he elected. So, the unelected are really left with no solution: 1) they are not given the effectual calling. 2) They are left in a spiritual state without the God given ability to make the same choice as the elect. 3) Limited atonement does not extent to the unelect. So, while the law points us to Christ, this is meaning less to the unelect.
His alibi is in the fact that he was not given the same opportunity in that God relieves him of his inability’s.
Well, Christ is not paying for the sin of some people according to Calvinism.
You disagree with other Calvinistic ideas then. I am glad you agree that making good moral decisions is within our capabilities. From all the comments I have read on Total Depravity, it reads as if we are not even capable of doing good period. Faith pleases God. But Calvinism leaves that option unobtainable to an unelected individual. Now let me ask you some question for clarification before I comment further. Do you believe that man has a free will to make these small, moral decisions, but not a free-will to believe?
Don’t you just love the IRS?
Very good point here. Non-Calvinist (especially this one) believes very fervently that without God, we would not have a desire for Him. I do believe we are dead spirituall and with a sin nature that does not seek God on our own. God is the initiator. Where we differ is more in: to whom does he initiate, and how far does He go with it. I believe he draws everyone, and he initiates everyone. The grace of God that brings Salvation has appeared to all men. (Titus 2:11) (not all kinds)
Yes. That is why He provided Himself to live that law perfectly so that He can be our savior.
By Lorelei
Pastor Larry
But you said yourself that God’s love is demonstrated in that He provides the necessary things to life i.e breath of life, water ect…
So, we have a God who willingly passes over most of mankind to only elect a few, but His love is demonstrated because he is providing life’s pleasures/necessity. They will ultimatly be left in the sinful nature without any chance becaue God is witholding his saving grace. I see exactly the point of Lorelei here. Where is this different?
The passage says they suppress the truth, not God. It also says that these attributes are clearly seen, not that they know God. It also says that they are capable of understanding, even in this natural revelation.
Ransom said:
I would say that this is a fairly good point except that God did not challenge Job to explain things with the consequence of burning in Hell if he didn’t. The challenge of the false gods shows the mercy in the God in that they could realize their worship of false gods was not going to get them anywhere. This mercy could result in them turning to God in faith. The ability for them to do so was not withheld from them.
Very quickly, I will respond.
V. 21 confirms for us that Paul was talking about knowing God. They can understand that God exists. They simply reject his authority.
Again, remember that God is not forcing these people to do something they don't want to do. The unsaved are doing exactly what they want to do.
But that was not the contention of Lorelei. Her contention was that God cannot require something impossible. It is not that God can make an exception. Perhaps she doesn't want to slice it that thin, but that is what she said.
But they are. They are kept from accepting by nothing other than their own will. Chet, they don't want it. I don't understand why you don't accept that. They do not want to be saved.
Remember that the atonement takes into consideration these things. It is limited in its effectiveness and everyone on both sides limits the atonement. You do it yourself.
But why?? You want to say that we blame it on God. God says it is the sinner's fault.
But remember that God is the one who said he is without excuse. We didn't make that up.
And according to arminianism as well. At the very least, you must (I would think) assert that Christ did not pay for the sin of unbelief since that is why you would argue people go to hell. (I would differ on that but I will grant it for the sake of argument.)
I have never seen any definition of Total Depravity, given by a Calvinist, that disagrees with what I have said. If you have seen it, please tell us where it is. What I have said is what every Calvinist that I know of would say. I am not disagreeing with any Calvinist that I know of. Perhaps here you have listened to a bad source.
Yes, Rom 8 says he is unable to please God. So Calvinism per se is not the one making that unobtainable to the elect. Follow the thinking. If faith pleases God (and it does; Heb 11:6)) and if unsaved man is unable to please God (Rom 8:7-8), then unsaved man cannot exercise faith. In making that point, I have cited no Calvinistic writers. I have cited only Scripture. That is why faith is a gift from God (John 6; Phil 1; etc).
I think man has a free will to make large moral decisions. I think man has the free will to make any decisions he wants to. Free will is the ability to act in accordance with his nature. His sinful nature does not want to believe.
But then you must reckon with the passages that teach that there is a calling to salvation is effectual. John 6:37 says that "all that the Father gives me will come to me." (If you study the context, you see that "giving" is equivalent to drawing.) You are saying that only part that the Father gives will come. I say that becuase you say he is drawing/initiating everyone. Yet you surely don't think everyone is coming. So there are some that are drawn/given/initiated who don't come.
I don't argue with that. I think the context gives a slightly different picture than you have presented. This is not a text about salvation; it is a text about Christian living. In vv. 1-10, Paul is calling the people on Crete to live a holy life. He calls the old men, old women, young women, young men, and slaves. The basis for the holy life is that the grace that saves (v. 11) is the grace that teaches us to live (vv. 12ff). His point is that there is no one in the church who cannot and should not live a holy life because the same grace came to all of them in salvation.
But he required something that was impossible.
Again, the issue is found in our differences about the nature of man. Man is not neutral. He does not want God. He wants to sin and wants to reject God. Unlike OBL, God is not torturing and killing people innocent people. These people are recieving the just condemnation of their actions. God would not be love if he did any other thing. REmember, love is not the sappy sentimental thing that we think of today.
To make a distinction between truth and God and being being seen and knowing God cannot be substantiated in any way. Besides, it is explicitly refuted in v. 21: For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
V. 21 confirms for us that Paul was talking about knowing God. They can understand that God exists. They simply reject his authority.
Again, remember that God is not forcing these people to do something they don't want to do. The unsaved are doing exactly what they want to do.
Chet did a really good job of explaining this. No one has ever gotten into heaven by being perfect, but many are there. How can this be if God required man to do this? God pointed out that perfection was necessary and that we were not perfect. He pointed out a problem and in his love and mercy he provided a solution. His requirement CAN be fulfilled in Christ. Those who believe in Christ are washed by his blood and he is now righteous in the eyes of God.
So in Christ that requirement CAN be met, therefore it isn't impossible. If this "solution" had only been for a few, then it would not, as Chet pointed out, be a solution for all people.
If we can't know God's definition of merciful how can we be merciful as He is merciful?
Is not God our example for Justice, Mercy and Love? We believe it is unjust to falsely advertise a product. If you say that ALL your merchandise is on sale and then I go shop at your store you say you merely meant all KINDS of items were on sale, that would be deception plain and simple. We don't find it merciful to offer a person with no arms a plate of food and watching him die because he was not able to eat the food himself. Our society would hold responsible the person who did not show mercy and provide that person an opportunity to eat the food. God is our example for justice, mercy and love. The example I gave was indeed an example of what the implication of the Calvinistic belief suggests. To say God is loving because he lets us breath and live before we burn and rot in hell because we didn't believe when we couldn't believe, is hardly the biblical definition of love. Or do you believe it's ok to watch a man starve to death when you have the ability to feed him? Is that merciful and just? Yes or no? If it's not alright for man to behave that way, why is it alright for God to do so WHEN God insists that he is NOT that way.
The phrase "God is just" must have meaning. If it doesn't mean "just" as we define it, then what DOES it mean? Why did HE describe himself that way?
Yes and if they rejected him that means they COULD have accepted him. It was their choice to reject Him, irresistible grace was not required.
According to Calvinism, they are not merely doing what they want to do, they are doing the only thing they can do, because God does NOT give them the ability to WANT God. Again, you have to redefine WANT to make this work. You can't desire grace if you are made with only the ability to resist it.
~Lorelei
But as I covered in my above posts, they don't translate those meanings into society the same way they do about God. You will not call a man merciful for demonstrating the mercy of God according to the Calvinistic definition.
This is exactly what I meant by the statement I made. Calvinists demand that their belief comes from scripture but then they seem to imply that we can't really know what the scriptures mean because God's definitions are not ours and therefore words appear to have no meaning.
It's becoming apparent that discussing scripture with Calvinists is as fruitless at it is with Catholics. Catholics will only read the scripture in light of the way the church has interpreted it's meaning, not what the scriptures really say. Therefore, without agreeing on what the final authority of the issue will be you can never come to a conclusion together. There must be an agreement as to what that final authority will be.
Calvinists are claiming their belief comes from the Scriptures, but only they apparently have the ability to realize that the words within the Bible have meanings impossible to be known to man. Our definitions are not God's therefore, the words are pointless.
Until you admit that the words in the Bible mean what they say, then discussion is going to be rather fruitless, because I refuse to believe anything other than what God said in the scriptures He inspired men to write. The God I read about in that scripture would not use words we did not, or could not understand or comprehend. When He said mercy, he meant mercy. When our understanding of the word was not full enough, he defined it further in His Word. He explained Himself within those texts, and that is what I will believe.
My question has been answered though, only by redefining the words used in the scriptures can a Calvinist make both be true.
~Lorelei
Just a few brief comments ...
This question of God's fairness is brought up in Scripture in Rom 3 and Rom 9. In both cases, Paul forbids finite man from questioning the justice of God based on man's understanding. I can't help but think that is good advice for us here.
You still have to reckon with the passages such as Rom 8 that describe unsaved man (those without the Spirit) as unable to please God.
While all analogies fall short, perhaps this will help you understand. I have no desire to have a baby. I don't want to be pregnant for nine months. I don't want to give childbirth. Therefore, my abilities to do such are irrelevant. If I had the ability, my wants would probably change. But my wants are my wants. In the same way, the unbeliever does not want God, he does not desire God. He is not sitting around saying "Oh I wish God would let me want him." He doesn't care. I still don't think you are reckoning with this reality.
Because he is just. Why else would he use it? He is just because he is God. But you are insisting that God be just by your standards. I cannot accept that your standards are the standards of justice. "Just" is whatever God says it is.
This question of God's fairness is brought up in Scripture in Rom 3 and Rom 9. In both cases, Paul forbids finite man from questioning the justice of God based on man's understanding. I can't help but think that is good advice for us here.
I agree. Irresistable grace has nothing to do with rejection. Everything you hvae said here is correct. They could have accepted him if they had "will"ed to.
These things are not at odds with each other.
I don't have to redefine it at all. It is you who are trying to redefine "want" or "will" as something inconsistent. You have tried to redefine "will" apart from nature. By your definition, God doesn't even have free will, and I don't think you want to deny freedom to God. Free will is always the ability to act in accord with one's nature. It is not the ability to do anything at all.
You still have to reckon with the passages such as Rom 8 that describe unsaved man (those without the Spirit) as unable to please God.
They weren't "made" that way. It is the result of their sin nature. It is the consequence of being in Adam.
While all analogies fall short, perhaps this will help you understand. I have no desire to have a baby. I don't want to be pregnant for nine months. I don't want to give childbirth. Therefore, my abilities to do such are irrelevant. If I had the ability, my wants would probably change. But my wants are my wants. In the same way, the unbeliever does not want God, he does not desire God. He is not sitting around saying "Oh I wish God would let me want him." He doesn't care. I still don't think you are reckoning with this reality.
But this compels me to ask: Why are defining God by how that translates into society?? Doesn't God get to define himself?? I think he does. The fact that some words may have a different meaning with respect to God means we are the ones who need to change our understanding with respect to God. He is not compelled to change to meet 21st century expectations.
Lorelei,I agree with everything you have said in your arguements.I have debated a good part of my christian life away and at this point in my life only comment once in a while.I have never known a calvinist to change his/her views.your doing a good job,out gunned a bit though.I've enjoyed just looking in
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
Because he is just. Why else would he use it? He is just because he is God. But you are insisting that God be just by your standards. I cannot accept that your standards are the standards of justice. "Just" is whatever God says it is. </font>[/QUOTE]I totally agree with this Pastor. However, you must agree that God is just by his own standards, right? As you state yourself, "Just is whatever God says it is."
Wouldn't you agree that God wouldn't fall below the standards he places in his Word concerning just judgments?
This is where I have a real problem with Calvinism, it doesn't seem to mesh with the mercy and justice of our God. Don't get me wrong. If the scripture clearly taught Calvinism I would be compelled to accept it. But in fact scripture doesn't give us any solid reasons why we should accept this other standard of justice you seem to accept and other believers will not.
Would God call it just for a judge to be bias? Of course not. Yet, the Calvinistic God is just that.
Would God call it just for a judge to offer a pardon to all he has convicted by allowing them to repent of their crimes and act as if he truly desires them to repent, yet only gives a few of them the ability to appear before him to repent. Of course not. It is certainly unjust to pretend to geniunly offer something when you have withheld the ability for the recepiant to take it.
The scripture never reconciles this form of so-called justice. Calvinists have reconciled it in their own minds but the scripture never addresses these concerns.
In both cases he is speaking of God's justice in showing the heathen Gentiles mercy by offering them entrance into the covenant of grace by the means of faith. He is NOT, as you seem to suggest, reconciling the reproach that Calvinism brings upon our God.
Arminians attempt to defend God's justice against the Calvinistic approach should not be equated to "questioning the justice of God" any more so than Calvinists attempt to reconcile their own human understanding of justice.
The last time I checked we were both humans reading the same Bible and therefore both must utilize "human understanding." So please don't pretend as if you draw your understanding from some higher plain while we, the poor misguided Arminians, must rely upon our humanness for insight.
Pastor Larry, I can only respond to some of the many things, for time sake…
. I think where we disagree is that I believe every man has it within his ability to hear the gospel and respond to that gospel in a positive way without an “irresistible calling.” The natural man’s desire is to lean toward sin and fulfill their own sinful desires. But God’s gracious act of probing (if you will) takes place in every person. Take away the election, irresistible grace and present the gospel and the unregenerate man is able to respond to that gospel by exercising faith.
Rom 1:16 I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile.
If there were an effectual calling (that did not fail) then it is not the gospel that has the power, but the calling itself. So, presenting the gospel has the potential of making the unregenerate of wanting Christ.
Those who live according to the sinful nature have their minds set on what that nature desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. The mind of sinful man is death, but the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace; the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so. Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God.
NIV
While it is very true that we are sinners by nature that does not make sin itself necessary to sin. The sinful nature makes sin to be expected. Likewise the New Nature does not make good necessary either. But it should be expected. To make Paul say that in our sinful nature we are unable to have faith then you would have to side with the majority of Calvinist who insist that regeneration proceeds faith. I don’t think you do. I am certain that I can make a clear argument that faith proceeds regeneration with Eph. 2:8 being one of my primary texts.
I understand what you are saying
Rom 1:16 I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile.
If there were an effectual calling (that did not fail) then it is not the gospel that has the power, but the calling itself. So, presenting the gospel has the potential of making the unregenerate of wanting Christ.
I don’t limit the atonement. It is free for all. I believe that Christ died for all sins, past – present – future, including even the sin of unbelief. John 1:29 The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, "Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!. He had to die even for the sin of unbelief or no one would be saved. But, only on the condition of belief in Christ can one receive the forgiveness of their once unbelieving state. I believe, though that Jesus’ death on the cross is only part of the gospel. The gospel also includes the resurrection. (1Cor. 15) He rose from the dead to give us life, and that life is eternal. That is why our once dead spiritual state is made alive. This does not mean that everyone will be saved. Only those who by faith believe that they need a savior and accept His atonement can be saved. Eph. 2:8 declares that salvation is a gift. Within that gift includes the forgiveness of all sins, and the resurrected power of Christ to make their dead spirit alive. Also included is the righteousness of Jesus (that will be imputed) to fulfull the requirements of the law. People who are presented with this gift, with the drawing of the Spirit, can and do reject it. Others accept it, no doubt by the grace of God, and by faith receive this gift.
Allow me to post the passage in question: Rom 8:5-8
Those who live according to the sinful nature have their minds set on what that nature desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. The mind of sinful man is death, but the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace; the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so. Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God.
NIV
While it is very true that we are sinners by nature that does not make sin itself necessary to sin. The sinful nature makes sin to be expected. Likewise the New Nature does not make good necessary either. But it should be expected. To make Paul say that in our sinful nature we are unable to have faith then you would have to side with the majority of Calvinist who insist that regeneration proceeds faith. I don’t think you do. I am certain that I can make a clear argument that faith proceeds regeneration with Eph. 2:8 being one of my primary texts.
Jesus is teaching that all that those the Father gives to Him will come to Him. This simply means that all that the Father gives to the Son are believers (those who have responded positively to the gospel). We see that the Father has two wills. First, that Christ shall lose none that were given to Him, but will instead, raise them up in the last day. Second, is for everyone who looks to the Son and believes in Him to have eternal life. Now the question is, who exactly are those whom the Father has given to Him? The answer is, the ones whom He draws and that respond positively to that drawing. How is this drawing done? Verse 45 has that answer, “it is written... in the Prophets”. Jesus said only those who listen to the Father and learn from him comes to me. Can someone be drawn by the Father and not listen to His calling? Yes, this is not stating the negative, but the positive results. The fact that Christ is given only to whom the Father chooses does not imply that the Father only chooses whom he wills at a whim. It clearly states that He chooses to give Christ all those who believe. There is no implication that this means He must will us to believe before we are able to do so. That is simply not in the text.
How about James White; In The Potter’s Freedom chapter three is devoted to the inability of man. While this chapter is ambiguous on certain points, he seems to be very clear about at least this part that I will quote starting on page 79:
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
Those who live according to the sinful nature have their minds set on what that nature desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. The mind of sinful man is death, but the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace; the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so. Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God.
NIV
Pastor, what you fail to see is that the man controlled by the sin nature cannot please God ON HIS OWN. It says nothing to his ability once confronted by the powerful Holy Spirit wrought testimony of the Gospel message.
We all agree that a man left on his own can do no good and will never please the Lord. However, this in no way proves that man is unable to respond to the powerful call of the Gospel. After all "it is the power of God unto Salvation."
This argument holds absolutely no water.
NIV
Chet, excuse me for butting in on your conversation with the pastor but I must comment on his statement here.
Pastor, what you fail to see is that the man controlled by the sin nature cannot please God ON HIS OWN. It says nothing to his ability once confronted by the powerful Holy Spirit wrought testimony of the Gospel message.
We all agree that a man left on his own can do no good and will never please the Lord. However, this in no way proves that man is unable to respond to the powerful call of the Gospel. After all "it is the power of God unto Salvation."
This argument holds absolutely no water.
Pastor Larry,
How can we talk about the scriptures when the words within them mean something different to Calvinists? What's the point?
Dead In Sin - Because we are dead in sin, this must mean we are totally incapable of responding to the gospel. This however does not mean totally incapable of sinning even after we are irrisistably drawn to the gospel. For the record, it reads we are dead in our sin, not dead to the gospel. If dead means incapable then there was a failure because we still sin.
So does dead mean incapable or not? No, of course not.
ALL - Not everyone, but all kinds of people
World - Not really the whole world, just those in the world of which the topic is discussed (even though even then it doesn't always work correctly). One must be a greek scholar to understand this.
Believe A demand to all, but only able by a select few. Never explaining how someone who can't believe can willingly choose not to.
Then there are the words we have been discussing, Just, Mercy, Love. They mean what God wants them to mean, not how they are defined, though no calvinist will say that any human possessing similiar traits is just, merciful or loving.
Limits God's Freedom Calvinists claim that our belief limits God's freedom to choose whom he will save, but in actuality they are the ones limiting his freedom to determine HOW he will choose.
Oh, the scripture you requested
This isn't what it says. None of us can please God, but we CAN come to God and HE then makes us pleasing to Him.
Words must have meaning, and that meaning must be consistant.
~Lorelei
How can we talk about the scriptures when the words within them mean something different to Calvinists? What's the point?
Dead In Sin - Because we are dead in sin, this must mean we are totally incapable of responding to the gospel. This however does not mean totally incapable of sinning even after we are irrisistably drawn to the gospel. For the record, it reads we are dead in our sin, not dead to the gospel. If dead means incapable then there was a failure because we still sin.
So does dead mean incapable or not? No, of course not.
But calvinists will still insist it does.
ALL - Not everyone, but all kinds of people
World - Not really the whole world, just those in the world of which the topic is discussed (even though even then it doesn't always work correctly). One must be a greek scholar to understand this.
Believe A demand to all, but only able by a select few. Never explaining how someone who can't believe can willingly choose not to.
Then there are the words we have been discussing, Just, Mercy, Love. They mean what God wants them to mean, not how they are defined, though no calvinist will say that any human possessing similiar traits is just, merciful or loving.
Limits God's Freedom Calvinists claim that our belief limits God's freedom to choose whom he will save, but in actuality they are the ones limiting his freedom to determine HOW he will choose.
Yes He will and He has chosen to show mercy on those that call upon Him.
Without letting the Words that God CHOSE to describe Himself actually MEAN what they say, it is pointless to discuss them.
Oh, the scripture you requested
This is changed to say "Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot COME to God."
This isn't what it says. None of us can please God, but we CAN come to God and HE then makes us pleasing to Him.
See, we are not controlled by the sinful nature IF the Spirit of God LIVES in us, AFTER we are saved and have accepted the gift offered by God. This does NOT say you are controlled by the sinful nature until the Spirit of God makes you do otherwise.
Words must have meaning, and that meaning must be consistant.
~Lorelei
The point is to examine all the Scriptures to see what meaning we should attach to them.
I think the problem here is confusing the old man/new man with the old nature/new nature. An unsaved person is the old man with the old nature. At salvation, the old man dies (Rom 6); the old nature does not. At salvation, man is a new man with a new nature; however, he still has the old nature. Sin/righteousness (i.e., free will) lies in teh nature. An unsaved man has only a sin nature. He free will is limited by that. A saved man has a new nature and an old nature; his free will is limited by that.
The old man/new man are positional terms ... as in "in Adam" (i.e., old man) and "in Christ" (i.e., new man). The nature (old/new) is the complex of attributes that causes us to do what we do.
All of that to say that your understanding above is not entirely accurate. Paul says that the old man is dead; we are a new man. That is we are not longer in Adam but in Christ.
The rub comes in at places like Rom 8 where the old man is expressly said to be "unable to please God" (I will deal with your explanation below shortly. I have been humored to read the explanations offered by your side, particularly in seeing how they are compelled to insert words into the text that arean't there). Assuem for the moment that Rom 8 means what I have explained it to. It is perfectly consistent with what I have said above because Rom 8 distinguishes between the man of the flesh and the man of the Spirit, which can only be a distinction between saved and unsaved.
"All people" vs. "All kinds of people" is not distinguished in the written text. Such a determination must be made by context of the words. "All" can mean either all people or all kinds of people.
No need to be a Greek scholar. You just have to be a student of the text. For instance, in 1 John 2, the word "world" doesn't have anything to do with people, which illlustrates that this world (kosmos) has meaning in context, not apart from it. Since you have not given a passage in which you are using this world, I cannot pretend to know what it might be referring to.
Their inability is not natural. They can believe. They choose to believe that Satan is more convincing than God is. You keep beating this up. It is not a reasonable objection. They don't want to believe. They have no desire to believe.
So if you drive by a homeless man on the street corner, are you just, merciful, or loving?? You certainly can be. God chooses to passover people and leave them in their sin, just as you choose to pass by that homeless man and leave him in his cold, hungry state. The difference between you and God in this scenario is that you are passing by someone who wants warmth and food. God is passing by those who do not want it.
Who here has pretended to determine "how" he will choose?? God says it is of his grace. I think you have greatly changed the meaning of limit by suggesting that "limit" means "God can do whatever he wants to do." You see, the latter is what Calvinists say: God can do whatever he wants. You say that is limiting. I say that is distorting the meaning fo the word.
And who calls on him?? Those whom the Father draws (John 6). This is why I keep saying you have to use all of Scripture, not just part of it.
I agree.
This is changed to say "Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot COME to God." [/QUOTE]Although that is what Christ said in John 6, I have never seen a Calvinist change this to "come"
I agree.
But it is impossible to please him without faith (Heb 6). The unsaved man cannot please him (as you just admitted). Therefore, the unsaved man cannot have faith. Again, all I have done is say what Scripture said. John 6 says natural "cannot come" to God, which is in direct contradiction to what you have said. As I previously asked, should we believe Scripture or you?
It says you are controlled by the sinful nature unless you you have the Spirit of Christ. The passage is contrasting saved and unsaved. The unsaved are the one "unable" to please God. The saved, with teh Spirit of Christ, are the ones who are able. I don't think the Spirit of God "makes" us do otherwise. I disagree with the coercion idea. The Spirit of God gives us a new nature and that nature has the natural hunger for newness. Therefore, we come to God because we have a new nature. We are not forced to. We do it freely.
I agree, but consistent with what?? Does "world" mean the same thing in every place?? Of course not. Meaning must be consistent with the context in which a word is used. In different contexts, a word might have a different meaning. This is well recognized by anyone who uses language. Don't try to force the same meaning on every occurrence of a word. It just doesn't work. Meaning is determined by context.