CALVINISM'S BLIND SPOT

[grateful4grace]

You assume that the work of the Spirit of God toward all men is equal, and that the inequality of effect is owing only to man's inequality of response, making the end result of salvation entirely decided of man. This is to make God elected of man, and yet the bible NEVER speaks once of such an election. Can you show one place in the bible thus employing the word election, or predestination?
You profess to believe that without Jesus sinners can do nothing. But you also believe that with him they can still do nothing. What this shows is that the ability to do something did not ultimately come from Him, but from themselves, the way you are seeing it, and therein lies your denial of the text.

g4g

Originally posted by Brother Bill:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by grateful4grace:
What part of "Without me ye can do nothing" don't you understand?

And what part of the power of the Holy Spirit in the presentation of the gospel do you not understand?

We don't disagree that nothing can be accomplished apart from Christ. It's your misapplication of my beliefs that lead you to that false conclusion.

Can someone be saved apart from Christ? NO

Can someone believe in him apart from the power of the gospel (Rom. 1:16)? NO

Would the gospel exist apart from Christ's work? NO

Would the gospel have the power unto salvation apart from the Spirit's calling? NO

Does that necessarily prove that the Spirit's calling MUST be absolutely and undeniably "Irrestiable?" NO

Does the fact that we can do nothing apart from Christ prove that man is completely unable to respond postively to Christ's genuine calling in the power of the gospel? NO - NO - NO

If I say yes to His call he gets all the glory, if I say no to His call I take on all the responsiblity!

Now that's a paradox worth accepting!

With Respect,
Bro. Bill </font>[/QUOTE]

 

[Frogman]

I don't know Bill, maybe Paul was just speaking cliches...could be that he just remembered reading this in the O.T. and thought it sounded good.

Paul would know first hand of the envy produced in a Jew by hearing salvation proclaimed, (and resurrection from the dead) in the name of Jesus.

Whenever the Gospel is first preached to anyone, there is offense taking, Jew or Gentile it does not matter, because the offer of free Grace leaves man out all together; thus preventing anything, even belief from man exacting the end result. All is the work of the Holy Spirit and this does produce envy in all who hear.

I don't care to talk to you, but every answer provided to you by a CALVINIST is proclaimed to be a cleverly constructed means to sidestep your question. No one can answer you because with everything anyone says you say, 'don't apply' 'don't apply' and then you say we refuse to be objective in the matter.

That is the ultimate cliche.

Bro. Dallas

 

[romanbear]

Hi frogman;
Let me ask you this.Why do you suppose all are offened by the free offer of free grace? Is it conscience or maybe something else.If Conscience then How is it man totally depraved would know anything about something so spiritual as conscience.Why would man have a conscience is it because he knows right from wrong?If he knows right from wrong then he knows if he is choosing right as opposed to wrong.Why would he know this if he didn't have a choice.Why would man know his own conscience if his spirit were dead from sin?You see Conscience is that part of us that is spirit.Animals are flesh and they have no concept of conscience or right or wrong....
Romanbear.

 

[Frogman]

Because it is in opposition to the flesh of man in which man has glory. Free Grace says there is nothing of man, this is offensive.

Sinners are offended, Children of God are offended, all because of the flesh. When the conscience is depraved, man engages in sin and finds it enjoyable, with little or no consequences; maybe some guilt, but man continues in this cycle until his conscience is seared and he no longer feels the guilt; At whatever level man is in this process, he is depraved and requires the Holy Spirit to regenerate him before he can move to what is right.

God Bless.
Bro. Dallas

 

[Ray Berrian]

Brother Bill,

Your assumptions are correct. I believe you have studied the Scriptures and have received His truth, but may not have documented Biblically what you were stating. We can forgive that, this time, because the brethren from the 'other view' sometimes do this also. And as you said, they make up their own 'illustrations' such as the {corpse} to try to prove a man or woman's inability to understand that Jesus died for sinners and that His blood can cover their sins. No one really believes that non-Christians are this stupid. Did any Calvinist give you a chapter and verse for their assumed 'corpse' that they are trying to shake into life for us? My only criticism is don't try to prove Calvinism's blind spot at one lengthy writing. Incidentally, they have five blind spots, if you catch the drift. Good post and especially a great title.

Regards,
Ray

 

[Ray Berrian]

Roman Bear,

Your question was provocative. 'Why would men know their own conscience if their spirits were dead from sin?

 

[Grasshopper]

Incidentally, they have five blind spots

does that include #5?

 

[William C]

Originally posted by Grasshopper:
Incidentally, they have five blind spots

does that include #5?

I assume you are asking do I believe if the 5th point of Calvinism (Perservance of the Saints).

I believe that faith which is geniunely place in Christ leads to a deposit of the Holy Spirit guarenteeing our inheretance as Eph. 1:13-14 states. But passages such as Romans 11 make me question that for sure:

“But they [Israel] were broken off because of their unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but be afraid. For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either. Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God; sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off. "[ouch] (Rom. 11)

It's the "continuing in His kindness" that is the key to this verse. I believe one who expresses geniune faith will continue in His kindness, but only God knows the motive of the heart.

The other issue I have is this: How much sin is too much before God cuts you off? It seems to me that Grace abounds and that there is no longer condemnation for those in Christ.

I think Paul in this passage is making sure we (gentiles) don't get cocky in our being grafted in and think that because we have grace that we have a licence to sin. But I could be wrong about his intent. He does seem to indicate that God could cut you off at anytime and He would be just in doing so. Would He do that? That's debatable.

Bill

 

[Frogman]

Bro. Bill,

Rom. 11 is speaking of Israel nationally being cut off. Could it not also be speaking to Gentiles, these being "nations" as to the end of the times of the Gentiles, rather than speaking to individual salvation at all?

Note Rom. 11 says Israel failed to find that she sought after, but the elect did not.

God Bless.
Bro. Dallas

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Frogman:
Note Rom. 11 says Israel failed to find that she sought after, but the elect did not.

Now there's a brilliant display of God's respect for the power of man's free will and man's own residual "goodness" after the fall which enables him to "respond to the call", wouldn't you say, Brother Dallas?

God was so impressed by the fact that the Jews exercised their will to seek salvation from the Lord, that God rewarded them by hardening their hearts and bringing salvation instead to Gentile barbarians and idol worshippers who weren't seeking it at all. Seems to me there's a message in there somewhere.

 

[Ray Berrian]

Grasshopper,

Personally, I believe in the perseverence of the Savior but do not always see the perseverence of the saints carried out faithfully and to the end of their lives in all saved persons. I really do believe that if a person is really saved and indwelled by the Spirit, he or she will never be lost and will enjoy the Presence of Christ in Heaven. [John 10:1-30]

 

[William C]

double post---sorry

[ February 15, 2003, 11:50 PM: Message edited by: Brother Bill ]

 

[William C]

Sorry double post, the system is doing weird stuff?

Bill

 

[William C]

Originally posted by Frogman:
I don't know Bill, maybe Paul was just speaking cliches...could be that he just remembered reading this in the O.T. and thought it sounded good.

And you guys tease me about making to much of pronouns? You ultimately dismiss this text as being a "cliche" because it doesn't fit into the Calvinistic system. Come on. Is Roman 9 more inspired than Romans 11?

Hey all you Arminians looking for ways to explain texts away, here is a new method of hermeneutics: the "cliche because it sounded good" explaination.

Paul is also the only one who used the word predestination. Do you think that might have been just a cliche that sounded good too?

Whenever the Gospel is first preached to anyone, there is offense taking, Jew or Gentile it does not matter, because the offer of free Grace leaves man out all together; thus preventing anything, even belief from man exacting the end result.

You walk up to someone and say, Jesus Christ died on the cross for the sins of man. If you have faith in Him and repent of your sins you will be saved.

How does that "offend" him? Even Calvin himself taught that the doctrine of Predestination was for the mature believer. How do one who hears the call of the gospel get upset that he is not included if he doesn't even understand it? This argument has no logical or biblical merit.

All is the work of the Holy Spirit and this does produce envy in all who hear.

So you're saying, the Holy Spirit's work, which is telling men they are left out of the salvation process, produces envy in all who hear? What? Your going to have to explain this, because it's not Calvinism nor is it supported in scripture.

I don't care to talk to you, but every answer provided to you by a CALVINIST is proclaimed to be a cleverly constructed means to sidestep your question. No one can answer you because with everything anyone says you say, 'don't apply' 'don't apply' and then you say we refuse to be objective in the matter.

Dallas, go back and read through all the posts in this thread. You are the only Calvinist who even takes a shot at answering or refuting any of my arguments and you only did that because I pressed you on it and in doing so you come up with "maybe it was a cliche that just sounded good." What do you expect me to say to those kinds of responses, "Yeah, you're right guys I have a bad assumption and this is probably just a cliche that Paul really didn't mean anything by so you win." This is debate, we're supposed to discredit others faulty conclusions with better arguments. And criticize them for merely dismissing your argument for the wrong reasons.

I'm not trying to dismiss you all of your arguments just the ones that avoid the issues, I expect you to do the same thing if you feel that I have not addressed your arguments. You can read through my posts, when a Calvinist calls me on something and I think they are correct, I'll tell them so. I'm not just ignoring arguments like the Calvinist are doing to me.

With Respect,
Bill

 

[William C]

Originally posted by grateful4grace:
You assume that the work of the Spirit of God toward all men is equal, and that the inequality of effect is owing only to man's inequality of response, making the end result of salvation entirely decided of man. This is to make God elected of man, and yet the bible NEVER speaks once of such an election. Can you show one place in the bible thus employing the word election, or predestination?

I never said the work of the Spirit to all man is equal, your obviously not fimilar with my position. I believe "effectual calling" and individual "sovereign election" are the means God employed to save and appoint the apostles (the remnant, those of Israel who were not hardened) to a unique and sacred task of carring out the Sovereign plans of ushering in the new Covenant of grace to the world. So, can you find in scripture where the individual salvation by means of "election/effectual calling" apply to the Gentile believers.

You profess to believe that without Jesus sinners can do nothing. But you also believe that with him they can still do nothing. What this shows is that the ability to do something did not ultimately come from Him, but from themselves, the way you are seeing it, and therein lies your denial of the text.

I understand you point, since I was once a Calvinist myself, but I disagree. Just because the "general calling" of the gospel by the power of the Holy Spirit can be refused by man does not mean that Jesus is "with someone" when they refuse the calling as you assert. He does not abide in them until they abide in Him. Their refusal to respond to the gospel's call in no way implies that "Jesus is with them as they do nothing." That is a false conclusion that you apply to my beliefs that are not merited in any way.

You assume that God does not give man the ability to respond. Can you prove scripturally that man is unable to respond to the general call of the gospel to faith and repentance?

BTW, don't quote verses that have to do with Israel's inablity to respond because remember they are being Hardened and the gospel is "veiled" to them as Romans 11 teaches us. (Only the remnant of Israel will be saved, the rest will be hardened) You have to find texts that clearly have Gentiles in focus in order to prove man's inability to respond to the gospel. Good luck.

With Respect,
Bro. Bill

 

[Frogman]

but do not always see the perseverence of the saints carried out faithfully and to the end of their lives in all saved persons.

Then they are not saved persons. Salvation means we are in Christ.

I heard it explained one time by a preacher who was not educated (Seminary educated, but was educated by the Spirit). He said something like the following:

If you tree an opposum and he simply climbs a tree, then you can shake him off that tree. If he goes into a hole and is in the tree, you will never shake him out.

Being in Christ, we cannot be shaken out. If we are just on Christ because of morality, or whatever reason, we can certainly be shaken off.

God Bless.
Bro. Dallas

 

[William C]

Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
My only criticism is don't try to prove Calvinism's blind spot at one lengthy writing. Incidentally, they have five blind spots, if you catch the drift. Good post and especially a great title.

Thanks for your words. I did provide many passages of scriptural support in my post, I'm not sure why you think it wasn't scripturally supported?

Anyway, I think your right. This was too lengthy of a post. I'll have to break down the points and present them in a more simple manner if I expect people to actually deal with the issues. I just felt that the whole issue of Israel's hardening is so important to understand in light of those verses that teach on man's inability to come to Christ (ie John 6).

The Calvinist just assumes that because Israel can't come that everyone can't come. They totally ignore chapter 11 teaching about the hardening of Israel for the purpose of grafting in the Gentiles.

Ray, how do you think we could get the Calvinists on this board to address that question?

With Respect,
Bill

 

[Frogman]

Originally posted by Frogman:
Bro. Bill,

Rom. 11 is speaking of Israel nationally being cut off. Could it not also be speaking to Gentiles, these being "nations" as to the end of the times of the Gentiles, rather than speaking to individual salvation at all?

Note Rom. 11 says Israel failed to find that she sought after, but the elect did not.

God Bless.
Bro. Dallas

Agreed, Bro. Npetrely.

Bro. Bill,

Is this not deemed a possibility in all your wisdom? Is it not possible that Rom. 11 is speaking nationally to each group "to the Jew first and then to the Gentile. That election is individual.

I believe this to be a very possible interpretation here. It is funny how there is silence when we Calvinists get so particular, isn't it?

God Bless.
Bro. Dallas

 

[Frogman]

Originally posted by npetreley:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Frogman:
Note Rom. 11 says Israel failed to find that she sought after, but the elect did not.

Now there's a brilliant display of God's respect for the power of man's free will and man's own residual "goodness" after the fall which enables him to "respond to the call", wouldn't you say, Brother Dallas?

God was so impressed by the fact that the Jews exercised their will to seek salvation from the Lord, that God rewarded them by hardening their hearts and bringing salvation instead to Gentile barbarians and idol worshippers who weren't seeking it at all. Seems to me there's a message in there somewhere. </font>[/QUOTE]Npetreley,

I keep misspelling your name, forgive my ignorance please.

It seems to me that this point is being over-looked; that's o.k. when the point of the post is the blind spot of Calvin I guess, we aren't suppose to see any other blind spots, dismissals, or acts of being ignored.

I believe as you know the Bible teaches all men are Totally Depraved and cannot answer the Call.

I believe from Rom. 11 Paul is speaking nationally, whether anyone else believes this, whether there is a theological system founded upon this I don't know.

You want to hear something really funny?

My family believes a person can choose to believe or to reject; also that a person, after believing can be lost again if disobedient and dying without repenting; Now, I have been called into foreign missions and am awaiting the opening of the door, and my family are trying to talk me out of it, as if by there own theology I have a choice. I mean, using their logic, if I am called to this ministry and do not go, then won't I be condemned for disobeying, I mean look at all the souls not able to have the opportunity because I failed to answer the call God has given me.

The Free-Will of man opens too many inconsistencies to be able to carry any weight far. It sounds very good, but permits man to justify himself, before God and man.

God Bless.
Bro. Dallas

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Brother Bill:
Pastor, with all due respect to you, isn't this a forum for debate of the "assumptions" that we believe the scriptures support?

Yes.

You say that my arguments are based upon my assumptions which can be clearly refuted, but you yourself are either not willing or able to support your assumptions in the light of these arguments nor are you willing to "clearly" show that my "assumptions" have no bases.

I showed your assumptions to be flawed in Ephesians 1. I believe I responded to several other posts. Others have as well. But you continue anyway.

If you don't consider my arguments valid at least show me enough respect to tell me why they are not valid scripturally. I have done that for you in every post you have presented, most of which you have simply ignored....revealing.

I have responded; I have no seen any of your responses to me except this one. I haven't ignored anything.

It's a ploy to avoid arguments that you don't know how to handle without having to actually think for a change. Your "pat answers" don't work on me so you just label me and dismiss me. It's easier that way I guess.

Not at all. I am telling you that the avenue you are going down is not one that knowledgeable people go down. If you have some sources where these positions have been defended, throw them out. If you, after 2000 years of church history, are coming up with something, then it should be suspect. It certainly is to me. That doesn't mean its wrong but it is suspect. Show us some peopel who agree with you. So far, I am very unimpressed by your arguments and have pointed that out on several occasions.

If you don't want to debate me, that's fine. But don't pretend that you have already refuted these arguments, because you have not. You have only labeled them and dismissed them. That's all. Therefore my conclusions stand waiting for refutation and not mere dismissal.

They have been refuted a number of times. Read the board. I don't have time to keep reposting the same stuff. It is easy to waste a lot of time with people who have no interest in learning. I don't have that kind of time.

Back to the point, you use Rom 9-11 to disprove Total Depravity when Total Depravity is clearly based outside of Romans 9-11. I have not seen many (if any) use Rom 9-11 to argue for total depravity.

John 6:64 says "you cannot come" -- that is a word of ability.
Rom 8:5-8 says twice "you cannot come/are unable to do so" -- that is a word of a ability and has nothing to do with Jews. It deals with all kinds of people
Rom 3:10-12 say "no one understands/no one seeks" and expressly makes it Jews and Gentiles.

These passages clearly teach what you wish to deny. The context is clear. There are other passages was well. My point here is that Rom 9-11 has nothing to do with the issue. That passage addresses why God can do what he wants to do. He doesn't need our permission.