Calvinism and the God of Second Chances

[Wildfire]

Originally posted by Scott J:
No. Wildfire's method and standard for debate is that we don't assume or interpret. It only means what it obviously means... from his perspective of what it means to be "obvious" of course.

Further, whosoever does not mean anyone within that context. "Who" might mean any one but whosoever is a qualified group.

A qualified group? Scott, you really need to get a better understanding of both Greek and English in these Scriptures. Whosoever is the broadest term possible. It means absolutely anyone without restriction. This is the historic, linguistic, and socio-anthropological definition of the word and comports with all other uses and references in Scripture.

You tread a very dangerous line when you invent such invalid new definitions of words for the purpose of making Scripture match your doctrine.

 

[Andy T.]

Wildfire, it would help if you read all the posts before you start accusing people. See my post on page 2 on the "whosoever" issue. Also, here is a more detailed discussion on the matter:

http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/10/6420.html?

 

[Wildfire]

Originally posted by epistemaniac:
monergistic regeneration, ie regeneration precedes faith...

1Jo 5:1 esv Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God, and everyone who loves the Father loves whoever has been born of him.

Joh 1:12-13 esv But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God,
(13) who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

Joh 6:63 esv It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is of no avail. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.


wildfire advises
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Don't confuse God's will with His plan, and don't always trust the English translations concerning these words.

ahhh... but we should trust you..... riigghhtttt, how many years of Greek and Hebrew have you had wildfire? what makes you qualified to "correct" our English translations?

blessings,
Ken </font>[/QUOTE]Ahhh, Ken, the trick of cults and false doctines ... allow me to throw out my worldly credentials. So, if I can show you a Jehovah's Witness who has been studying Greek and Hebrew for fifty years, will you accept his teaching?

If not, then you shouldn't be concerned about scoring points like that.

I'm not asking anyone to trust me, any more than I'm asking them to trust you. I keep asking for a single, clear verse that says what Calvinist want everyone to believe they say. What I get instead is poor defintions of words like "whosever" and cherry picking verses out of prophesies that apply to the nation of Israel.

2 Peter 3:9 is clear in both Greek and English, and the translation rendered in KJV, NKJV, NIV, NLT and other has been unversally accepted as accurate. God is not willing that any man should perish.

Now, Calvinist like to say that "in context" this is talking to people who are already regenerate believers. But to be consistent with form and context, and with the structure of the Greek, it would then say "God is not willing that you should perish," or "God is not willing that the elect should perish."

But it doesn't say that. It says "anyone."

Once again, folks, here's the question. Throughout Scripture, God begs people to beieve in Him, and to repent. If He decides who will believe, why does that message get repeated literally hundreds of times throughout Scripture?

That is the question that Calvinists repeatedly skip over, because there is just simply no good answer that comports with bad doctrine.

 

[Gina B]

Wildfire, there ARE no verses that clearly state one way or another, at least not ones that cannot be refuted. That goes for both sides of the coin on this issue.

For example, we could both point to John chapter six.
There are verses there that clearly tell man that he can come to the Father.
There are verses there that clearly say that no man can come unless he is drawn by the Father. He also says that those drawn will come. Not all of them came. And Christ already knew who they were.
All of the disciples who tried to follow him left except the ones Christ CHOSE.
Then again, Judas was also chosen, and betrayed him. Then again, there's no proof that Judas isn't in heaven right now, having been chosen.

Like I said, we could go back and forth with verses. If I wanted to do that though, I could sit here and post in the same manner I just posted, all day and all night for quite a long time!

I could point out this verse: John 1:13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

Then you could point out the verse above that: But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

And what will we accomplish? Nothing useful, and certainly nothing we couldn't have done without each other!

 

[Wildfire]

Originally posted by Andy T.:
Wildfire, it would help if you read all the posts before you start accusing people. See my post on page 2 on the "whosoever" issue. Also, here is a more detailed discussion on the matter:

http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/10/6420.html?

Actually I read that, Andy. It's a pretty obtuse statement based on a single and questionable definition.

First: Will is also defined as making a choice. So the definition then becomes "whosoever chooses."

And since "whosoever will" in the context you chose to define is not found in all cases, we have to compare your assumed defintion with the one I just provided. Since we also see "whosoever blieves," (Jn 3:16), "If any man hears my voice ... " (Rev 3:20), "God is not willing that anyone should perish" (2 Peter 3:9).

Calvinists have to keep redefinng the word and the context each time to find a way that "everyone" means "just who God picks" and where "whole world" means "only the elect."

There. Now you have an answer. I didn't skip over the posts as you accuse. I just found it so obviously flawed that I didn't really think I needed to point it out to everyone.

 

[Wildfire]

Originally posted by Wildfire:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Andy T.:
Wildfire, it would help if you read all the posts before you start accusing people. See my post on page 2 on the "whosoever" issue. Also, here is a more detailed discussion on the matter:

http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/10/6420.html?

Actually I read that, Andy. It's a pretty obtuse statement based on a single and questionable definition.

First: Will is also defined as making a choice. So the definition then becomes "whosoever chooses."

And since "whosoever will" in the context you chose to define is not found in all cases, we have to compare your assumed defintion with the one I just provided. Since we also see "whosoever believes," (Jn 3:16), "If any man hears my voice ... " (Rev 3:20), "God is not willing that anyone should perish" (2 Peter 3:9).

Calvinists have to keep redefinng the word and the context each time to find a way that "everyone" means "just who God picks" and where "whole world" means "only the elect."

There. Now you have an answer. I didn't skip over the posts as you accuse. I just found it so obviously flawed that I didn't really think I needed to point it out to everyone. </font>[/QUOTE]

 

[Wildfire]

Originally posted by Wildfire:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Wildfire:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Andy T.:
Wildfire, it would help if you read all the posts before you start accusing people. See my post on page 2 on the "whosoever" issue. Also, here is a more detailed discussion on the matter:

http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/10/6420.html?

Actually I read that, Andy. It's a pretty obtuse statement based on a single and questionable definition.

First: Will is also defined as making a choice. So the definition then becomes "whosoever chooses."

And since "whosoever will" in the context you chose to define is not found in all cases, we have to compare your assumed defintion with the one I just provided. Since we also see "whosoever believes," (Jn 3:16), "If any man hears my voice ... " (Rev 3:20), "God is not willing that anyone should perish" (2 Peter 3:9).

Calvinists have to keep redefining the word and the context each time to find a way that "everyone" means "just who God picks" and where "whole world" means "only the elect."

There. Now you have an answer. I didn't skip over the posts as you accuse. I just found it so obviously flawed that I didn't really think I needed to point it out to everyone. </font>[/QUOTE]</font>[/QUOTE]

 

[Gina B]

It's not real life. If we don't hear it the first time, we can just back up and read the same post.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Wildfire:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Scott J:
No. Wildfire's method and standard for debate is that we don't assume or interpret. It only means what it obviously means... from his perspective of what it means to be "obvious" of course.

Further, whosoever does not mean anyone within that context. "Who" might mean any one but whosoever is a qualified group.

A qualified group? Scott, you really need to get a better understanding of both Greek and English in these Scriptures. Whosoever is the broadest term possible.</font>[/QUOTE] "Believes" is not... it is a very restricted group.

It means absolutely anyone without restriction.

No... it simply doesn't. Whosoever, like all, everyone, total, etc. depends on its context to determine its limit.

This is the historic, linguistic, and socio-anthropological definition of the word and comports with all other uses and references in Scripture.

You are simply wrong... though I can see why you would be motivated to insist on it.

You tread a very dangerous line when you invent such invalid new definitions of words for the purpose of making Scripture match your doctrine.

Actually that applies both ways. When you strip a word from its context in order to force a doctrine back into the context... you tread a very dangerous line.

This whosoever IS NOT everyone by either of our beliefs. You likewise believe that it is limited to those who believe... but somehow construe that it is an effective argument to complain when I say the very same thing.

Whosoever believes will not perish... Who is that who believes.... those who are born of the Spirit. Again, Christ's dialogue with Nicodemus establishes the context for verse 16. You can't just ignore it because it is inconvenient to your argument.

I have no problem with disagreement. I have not problem with you maintaining a different opinion. I won't even say that what you believe is without basis. I simply believe you are wrong.

You really do yourself no favor when you refuse to recognize merit in your opponents argument when it clearly exists.

 

[Andy T.]

Once again, folks, here's the question. Throughout Scripture, God begs people to beieve in Him, and to repent.

This is the third or fourth time you've stated that God "begs" for people to repent all throughout Scripture. I did a search for "beg" and "plead" (NIV - because it appears that's what you use), and I didn't find one verse showing where God begs or pleads to us. I saw several verses of man begging or pleading to God, but none the other way around.

 

[Wildfire]

Originally posted by Andy T.:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> If you can actually provide a verse that clearly says that no man has free will to decide whether he will accept or reject God, I will concede all other Calvinist points.

There is none righteous, no, not one;
11 There is none who understands;
There is none who seeks after God.

- Romans 3:10-11

Also, Romans 9. Now, I know we disagree with each other on the interpretation of these verses, but to keep repeating the same mantra of "not one verse" supports your view is tiresome. It reminds me of those who deny the Trinity who say there is "not one verse" that has Trinity in it or defines it. Well, sure, but orthodox Christians understand many passages to be speaking of the Trinity and they formulate their doctrine from those verses. Same thing here - you and I have come to different formulations, that's all. </font>[/QUOTE]Andy, the problem is that those verses really don't say clearly what you want them to say. I can show you verses that say "whosoever believes," "God is not willing that anyone should perish," etc. That's clear.

If there is none righteous, how does that prove that no man has free will? If no man understands, does that prove no man has free will? If there is none who seeks after God, does that prove anthing about election or free will?

But if you skip down to verses 19 and 20, you find that Paul is referring to man's state under law ... that no man is declared righteous under law. So his argument is that we're saved by Christ alone ... he doesn't argue anything about election or against free will.

So, once again, the question is out there ... please show me one verse that actually says that man doesn't have free will. One verse that actually says that no man can come to faith without first being elected and regenerated.

 

[Andy T.]

Wildfire, all I was attempting to show was that "whosoever will believe" means exactly that - that anyone who believes on Christ is saved. Whosoever means everyone, "will believe" is a subset of everyone. Not everyone is saved, only those who believe.

 

[Andy T.]

So, once again, the question is out there ... please show me one verse that actually says that man doesn't have free will. One verse that actually says that no man can come to faith without first being elected and regenerated.

Non-Trinitarian: Show me one verse that actually says "Trinity" or clearly defines the Trinity, and I will believe it.

 

[Wildfire]

Originally posted by Andy T.:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Once again, folks, here's the question. Throughout Scripture, God begs people to beieve in Him, and to repent.

This is the third or fourth time you've stated that God "begs" for people to repent all throughout Scripture. I did a search for "beg" and "plead" (NIV - because it appears that's what you use), and I didn't find one verse showing where God begs or pleads to us. I saw several verses of man begging or pleading to God, but none the other way around. </font>[/QUOTE]Are you now resorting to semantics? When someone repeats over and over again the same request ... "come to me," "turn to me," "put aside your false idols," "only believe," over and over ... that person is pleading with you to take an action. If I told you God asked a question, would you do a word search on the word "question" and then tell me that because you can't find "question," God never asked one?

 

[Wildfire]

Originally posted by Andy T.:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> So, once again, the question is out there ... please show me one verse that actually says that man doesn't have free will. One verse that actually says that no man can come to faith without first being elected and regenerated.

Non-Trinitarian: Show me one verse that actually says "Trinity" or clearly defines the Trinity, and I will believe it. </font>[/QUOTE]Weak argument. You won't find "rapture" either, but you'll find a clear description of it. You don't find the word "trinity," but you find clear descriptions of the trinity throughout scripture. But you don't find a single passage of Scripture that clearly says that no man can come to God without first being elected and regenerated. Not even using other terms. Not one verse. Only verses that say we're save by grace through faith. Nothing that says we're saved by grace through election and regeneration or anything remotely like it.

 

[Andy T.]

So, once again, the question is out there ... please show me one verse that actually says that man doesn't have free will. One verse that actually says that no man can come to faith without first being elected and regenerated.

Let's turn the tables. Show me one verse that shows man has unfetterred free will that is not influenced by anything, esp. sin, so that he is completely able to choose Christ on his own. Also, show me one verse that says faith in Christ causes our regeneration.

If you think the Doctrines of Grace are so utterly baseless in Scripture, you must really think awful things about your brothers in Christ. What, are we complete idiots? Are we completely disobedient to the Word of God? It must be something, else we wouldn't hold to such gross error. So which is it? Are we dumb, evil or both?

 

[Wildfire]

Originally posted by Andy T.:
Wildfire, all I was attempting to show was that "whosoever will believe" means exactly that - that anyone who believes on Christ is saved. Whosoever means everyone, "will believe" is a subset of everyone. Not everyone is saved, only those who believe.

And there we agree 100%. Whosover believes. Not whosoever is elected. Choice, not tyranny.

 

[Wildfire]

Originally posted by Andy T.:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> So, once again, the question is out there ... please show me one verse that actually says that man doesn't have free will. One verse that actually says that no man can come to faith without first being elected and regenerated.

Let's turn the tables. Show me one verse that shows man has unfetterred free will that is not influenced by anything, esp. sin, so that he is completely able to choose Christ on his own. Also, show me one verse that says faith in Christ causes our regeneration.

If you think the Doctrines of Grace are so utterly baseless in Scripture, you must really think awful things about your brothers in Christ. What, are we complete idiots? Are we completely disobedient to the Word of God? It must be something, else we wouldn't hold to such gross error. So which is it? Are we dumb, evil or both? </font>[/QUOTE]Actually, those are exactly the verses I have been showing. WHOSOEVER BELIEVES. No other qualifier. SAVED BY GRACE THROGH FAITH, no other qualifier. NOT WILLING THAT ANYONE SHOULD PEERISH, no other qualifier.

No, I don't think awful things about my fellow Christians. I just hate that the great, liberating, freedom of the Gospels has been so misrepresented by Augustine and Calvin, and that so many people are taken in by this false doctrine.

God's grace is free to whosoever will accept it. What can be greater grace than that?

On the other hand, why would you want to believe in a God who picks people to go to Hell for their unbelief, without giving them any ability to believe? Punishing them for something that they have absolutely no choice or control over? Is that the God of grace and love?

 

[Andy T.]

On free will -

So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.

- Romans 9:16

I know you disagree with my interpretation of Romans 9, but it is eminently reasonable to deduce unconditional election from this passage. Many, many people of great faith have interpreted it this way. Any many others of great faith have interpreted it differently.

So once again, please stop with the dishonest "you don't have a verse to stand on" mantra.

 

[Andy T.]

Originally posted by Wildfire:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Andy T.:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> So, once again, the question is out there ... please show me one verse that actually says that man doesn't have free will. One verse that actually says that no man can come to faith without first being elected and regenerated.

Let's turn the tables. Show me one verse that shows man has unfetterred free will that is not influenced by anything, esp. sin, so that he is completely able to choose Christ on his own. Also, show me one verse that says faith in Christ causes our regeneration.

If you think the Doctrines of Grace are so utterly baseless in Scripture, you must really think awful things about your brothers in Christ. What, are we complete idiots? Are we completely disobedient to the Word of God? It must be something, else we wouldn't hold to such gross error. So which is it? Are we dumb, evil or both? </font>[/QUOTE]Actually, those are exactly the verses I have been showing. WHOSOEVER BELIEVES. No other qualifier. SAVED BY GRACE THROGH FAITH, no other qualifier. NOT WILLING THAT ANYONE SHOULD PEERISH, no other qualifier.

No, I don't think awful things about my fellow Christians. I just hate that the great, liberating, freedom of the Gospels has been so misrepresented by Augustine and Calvin, and that so many people are taken in by this false doctrine.

God's grace is free to whosoever will accept it. What can be greater grace than that?

On the other hand, why would you want to believe in a God who picks people to go to Hell for their unbelief, without giving them any ability to believe? Punishing them for something that they have absolutely no choice or control over? Is that the God of grace and love? </font>[/QUOTE]All those verses state is that whosoever is "willing" - it doesn't say that the will is completely free and unfettered. Just "willing". Your demand of Calvinists to show "one clear verse" applies to you as well - you still haven't shown one clear verse that shows man has unfettered free will. So I guess we are at a stalemate under your demands. (And so would the non-Trinitarian v. Trinitarian debate be at a stalemate as well.)

Regarding your last paragraph above - in my base human (sinful) nature I want a god who gives me everything I want with no demands and will reward me with eternal bliss and no judgment. I want a god who never sends anyone to hell. That's what I really want in my flesh. So why would you want a God who does send some people to hell? That's awful! You see, the same shallow argument you threw to me can be used by the atheist or non-Christian to accuse you of believing in a God that created hell and sends people there.

It's not about what we want God to be.