Calvinism needs to add words to scripture

[Ben1445]

You start out by flat out saying that coming to Christ is an exercise of the will that is subject to reward by God. And that is right after saying that there is no personal merit. That is a direct contradiction.

I see no contradiction. Jesus said come unto me and I will give you rest.

Come to Jesus is what He said.
We recognize that Jesus saves us where we are and that we made up none of the distance between ourselves and God.
But Jesus said come. I don’t think it is wrong to use the word come or to say I came to Christ. There is no other way. Jesus is the starting point.

 

[Ben1445]

Here again, a neophyte in theology would instantly recognize that the problem of inability in Calvinistic theology is that it is a moral inability because the problem causing our inability is only that we tend to not want to repent and believe or we think we don't need to.

But for Christ, we would not know where to go. We have the Christ. There is no more inability. There is Christ.

 

[Ascetic X]

I don't know why this thread went so long either. Most of them are closed after 150 posts or so because people forget what has been said. But your comment is puzzling in that it was you who started the thread. Did you really expect to come on like you did and take down other peoples views and not have them answer you back. And, I think, since you started the thread you can request that it be closed.

The fact is I am not really content with Calvinism. It does have some flaws or at least some things that must be left as unanswerable. But I guess I would ask why you would start a thread attempting to destroy Calvinism, then when that fails, start acting like you are suddenly above theology and don't wish to discuss it.

I just described how I have seen Calvinists on this board add words to scripture verses routinely.

All of us born again believers are far above theology, for we are seated in the heavenlies with Christ.

Ephesians 2:6

He also raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus.

There is no theology in heaven, just pure, true, direct knowledge of God without surly, pompous scholars bickering back and forth. What a joy it will be when we go to our peaceful eternal home! I look forward to seeing you there, brother!

Sorry if I have ever seemed sarcastic or abrasive! We must all treat each other as family, not debate opponents.

 

[Psalty]

@Psalty. Probably it would be wise to start another thread because they usually close them at this point because of length.


The problem I see is like what you have done above. In the past, I can show quote after quote of top Calvinist theologians like John Owen who said repeatedly that our inability is moral, that the problem is our own free will, and that "ordain" not only includes what God chooses to do as a primary desire, but also includes things he has not directly caused, but has decided to allow or permit, even though what is being permitted is not in accordance with God's primary or revealed will. I gather from your comments I quoted above that you would not be willing to concede that and if that is the case then don't bother as I see no point in engaging if we start from false premises.

This is the breakdown though. You cant have God decreeing inability, and then say he is meaningfully giving humans choice.

Its not a mystery. Its not a secondary cause so it doesnt count. You are correct that if you or any calvinist can say that God causes inability but has really given choice, it truly is an impasse- it’s a logical contradiction unless you definition manipulate. It is pointless to converse if calvinists believe that… and I think that most of them do.

And look, I admit that there is a branch of Calvinism that indeed does insist that every single thing that happens God flat out directly causes to happen. I don't believe that, and I don't think @Martin Marprelate does either. There are a couple of Calvinists on this board who do believe that but they will not engage - probably because they know you have been ordained already to believe what you do so no sense talking about it. But for my part, I am not interested in defending that view and do not consider it as my own.

High calvinists that believe Eph 1:11 to mean every molecule are just like secular determinists: what will happen will happen and you cant do anything about it because what happens would have happened anyway. Usually you cant even discuss anything with them because at a base level it is already fixed and meaningless anyway.

 

[DaveXR650]

@Ben1445. I have to go for now and didn't want you to think that I was ignoring your responses above, which look complete and thoughtful so if the thread does not get closed before I get back I will try to answer.

Sorry if I have ever seemed sarcastic or abrasive! We must all treat each other as family, not debate opponents.

Amen. and I really do appreciate that. You guys do bring up one good point that I agree with wholeheartedly. That being that it is indeed true that what happens is that you are a person going along, living your life, and you somehow hear the gospel. If you respond by believing in Christ and repent you will be saved. All the other issues of why some believe and others don't, what does the "elect" consist of whether regeneration precedes faith, whether faith precedes repentance, and so on, are I guess important in the sense it might influence the way people conduct their evangelism or worship but it is not essential for salvation for sure.

 

[DaveXR650]

This is the breakdown though. You cant have God decreeing inability, and then say he is meaningfully giving humans choice.

Like I said, I have to go for now. Just let me say that if the inability is due to the fact that you could but won't it becomes blameable, and is to my knowledge not decreed in an active way by God but more stated as a fact. Look over the Westminster Confession of Faith under Effectual grace and they try to explain that somewhat, although I am not completely satisfied with it either.

But just let me close for now by saying I obviously touched a nerve and caused an explosion of posts by challenging your theological presuppositions on your theology rather than just letting you dish it out to the Calvinists.

 

[Ascetic X]

We did not wish to destroy Calvinism. We wanted to challenge some Calvinist doctrines and watch Calvinists scramble to try to justify them. The truth may reside in the middle zone between Calvinism and Anti Calvinism.

 

[Psalty]

Like I said, I have to go for now. Just let me say that if the inability is due to the fact that you could but won't it becomes blameable, and is to my knowledge not decreed in an active way by God but more stated as a fact. Look over the Westminster Confession of Faith under Effectual grace and they try to explain that somewhat, although I am not completely satisfied with it either.

But just let me close for now by saying I obviously touched a nerve and caused an explosion of posts by challenging your theological presuppositions on your theology rather than just letting you dish it out to the Calvinists.

Naw, you havent posted any scripture. ;D

Maybe if you had a scripural argument I would be concerned.

I post because much of what I hear is unsubstantiated… like Martin and Yourself. Im not trying to be mean, just trying to call it as I see it.

For Instance, no detailed scripural exegesis defending glorification to Eph 1:4-5, 5, and Colossians; dropped.

No answers to Inability but able to choose, dropped.

No answers to 2 Thess 2 exegesis. Dropped.

Everything gets dropped as soon as it gets specific… and I keep bringing it up, and you all call me rabid because I keep calling you out.

I recognize at this point that if I follow a calvinist argument and try to get them to answer the next part of the argument, they view it as hateful. Maybe I have a thicker skin than that, but I only hold views that play out in the long run. If they cant stand an extended CX, they arent worth keeping.

Such is life.

 

[DaveXR650]

We did not wish to destroy Calvinism. We wanted to challenge some Calvinist doctrines and watch Calvinists scramble to try to justify them. The truth may reside in the middle zone between Calvinism and Anti Calvinism.

That's alright. But you have to admit I started a freakout when I did the same to you guys. I don't think the truth of everything always has to lie in the middle, but I do think it is best to look at all these theologies as guardrails to keep us from straying too far rather than using them as the view of the absolute last word and total truth. Theology is man made and it has a history. In other words it came from some situation that people perceived as needing to be addressed, and in the case of Calvinism vs Arminianism, secular politics was involved too.

 

[DaveXR650]

Naw, you havent posted any scripture. ;D

I have had this come up before. No. When the reason you have different theologies is because smart people have come up with different interpretations of the exact same scriptures you should see why that is useless. Besides, this type of comment shows me you have never even looked at documents like the WCF. You do realize that it is completely foot noted with scripture references. Every single point. You just don't agree with the interpretation. So don't demand I throw verses at you when you started from the point of different interpretation of the same verse.

You know, there is a verse in the Bible where Jesus just tells a prospective follower re salvation "You've heard what the law says. Just keep the commandments". So. I guess we're done here.