Calvinistic Contradictions

These are the elect.</font>[/QUOTE]Well what about those that he invited first? He came unto his own but his own accepted him not! Now I don't know about you but it seems to me that "his own" means they were elect! And indeed scriptures say that the Jews, "his own", are the elect of God!

So it seems to me that you are saying that, "Whosoever believeth in Him", are the elect. Is that true? If yes, then why are you calling yourself a Calvinist?

 

Yes.

Yes.

No.

Correct... your almost there.

That's called mercy... and in the temporal sense God demonstrates it even toward the lost by not immediately judging them.

Yes. He has or else will. He meted out justice for the sins of the saved against our Substitute. And this is the basis for grace.

You still haven't answered the question of why some will seek Him but others won't.

But actually no. God is being good to man to demonstrate His own glory by being merciful and gracious.

God would be, and now is, just as "good" when He justly condemns a sinner to hell. His goodness is not diminished in the least for it would be what we all rightly deserve.

All of them. It isn't necessarily conscious but all sinners seek their own will and glory... even when doing what would be deemed good works. That is sin... it misses the mark of glorifying God.

60 million people died in WWII alone. More Christians were martyred in the 20th century than all the previous centuries combined. Take the poll of your choice that deals with the moral climate in America and American ideals about- sex, violence, lying, cheating, stealing, etc.

You might even be able to find a poll that asks why people do nice things... I suspect the number one answer will be something like, "It makes me feel good"... and can almost guarantee that "It gives God glory and facilitates witnessing the gospel of Christ" will be way down the list... even if the poll were take among professing Christians. The only people with any likelihood of giving this response are serious Christians.

But you haven't done it. BTW, total depravity has a very specific meaning as used by calvinists. Are you sure you know it? Please be honest and don't try to make up your own definition then ascribe it to calvinists.

[ April 22, 2005, 02:34 PM: Message edited by: Scott J ]

 

How can I show you how to think rightly about God and his word if I do not point out how you are thinking wrongly about it?

 

These are the elect.</font>[/QUOTE]Well what about those that he invited first? He came unto his own but his own accepted him not! Now I don't know about you but it seems to me that "his own" means they were elect! And indeed scriptures say that the Jews, "his own", are the elect of God! </font>[/QUOTE] Stripping scripture out of its context doesn't contribute to your argument. As someone explained earlier, the Jews were "elect" as a nation chosen by God to preach His law in the OT and to ultimately provide the world's Savior.

"His own" refers, as you are probably aware, to His people according to blood. The people of the OT covenants. They were not individually elected people.

Because I do accept that scripture as well as the ones that clearly declare that God foreknew and predestined those who believe to believe.

I have never seen any other system account for these two truths better than calvinism. Under that framework, I am not required to abandon either scripture. I can accept both as truth.

 

How can I show you how to think rightly about God and his word if I do not point out how you are thinking wrongly about it? </font>[/QUOTE]By proving that I am thinking wrongly rather than just declaring it matter of factly as if your utterance makes it so.

 

Then you have no imperical evidence to support your "Totally Depraved" theory? What good is a theory if you have nothing to support it?

Now you will notice that I do not say the scriptures are wrong. I am saying that man's use of the scriptures may very well be wrong!

I am saying that I believe we must be able to see the evidence of what is said in scripture. Granted there are things that we cannot see such as the spirit of man, but man's behavior is the manifestation of what is in his spirit! So if man's spirit is totally depraved, there has to be imperical evidence to support that thought. That's what I am asking you to provide!

No we are not talking about "nationalistic" or "geo-polical" activities, but rather the activities of the ordinary human being. There are 6 Billion of us alive on this planet today. If there were that many TOTALLY DEPRAVED humans any where, God would destroy it completely and utterly, like he did Sodom and Gomorrah and the earth in Noah's day. He made it, he can certainly destroy it.

 

Where do you guys get the idea that I am what I am not?

I am not a humanist, nor am I a universalist!

Those things that are irrefutably universal are:

God's Love of his created man

God's Grace toward his created man

Man's propensity to sin

God's call of mankind to righteousness

God's call of mankind to faith

God's call of mankind to repentance

God's Atonement for the sin of the world.

It is appointed unto man Once to die, then the Judgment.

There may be more things that is universal, but man's response to God is not one of them! Man's response to God is uniquely individual, and cannot be done by one for another.

Punishment for failure to come to faith in God, is universal only to those who fail to come to faith in God!

Reward for coming to faith in God is universal only to those who do so!

Am I a humanist?
Am I a universalist?

 

Then you have no imperical evidence to support your "Totally Depraved" theory? What good is a theory if you have nothing to support it?</font>[/QUOTE] Yes. The Bible is the greatest empirical evidence that can be pointed to... especially on matters of man's sin nature and the means of salvation.

Man's use of statistics may be wrong... depending on the questions asked. In the 70's, studies showed that children would be better off if parents in a bad marriage divorced. In the 90's, a new study showed that when parents stay together, even in a bad marriage, the child benefits.

You can if you look for it. It all goes back to what you put your faith in- God's Word or man's interpretations of data?

Not so. I Corinthians 4 clearly teaches that God looks at motives rather than just the activities of men only.

Men do "good deeds" for selfish motives all the time. Only when done in submitted service to God is it judged "good" by Him.

There is heaps of evidence to demonstrate that every part of man has been effected by sin.

Ordinary human beings endorsed the holocaust. Ordinary human beings engage in and rationalize sexual behavior forbidden by God... but thought of as "good" by the world. Many think abortion is "good".

Cite the statistic that shows any lost person ever does anything "good" for the express glory of God.

This demonstrates His mercy. But 2 Peter tells us that a day is coming when He will no longer hold back His wrath against man's sinfulness.

Again, 2 Peter says that He will do just that.

 

I don't think so... but you might be if you carried some of your arguments to their only logical conclusion.

 

That's what I'm asking you to provide!

 

That begs the question then, What is the ONLY logical conclusion of any of my arguments? And What makes it logical? Isn't that the same as a "predefined conclusion", one that one expects me to arrive at?

 

I have!!! Illegitimacy rates both among admitted unbelievers and professing believers. Apostacy within the church. Murder rates. Drug usage. Crime. Selfishness. Divorce. Child abuse. Lying. Cheating. Stealing....

All of these exist and are expressed in the characters of men. The fundamental issue that makes man depraved is who he accepts as the ultimate sovereign authority in his life- God or himself.

Good things done for selfish or prideful reasons are sinful. They are attempts to glorify man instead of God.

But you are evading- Can you show a statistic that demonstrates that unregenerate men do anything that is righteous in God's eyes?

 

That begs the question then, What is the ONLY logical conclusion of any of my arguments? And What makes it logical? Isn't that the same as a "predefined conclusion", one that one expects me to arrive at? </font>[/QUOTE]No. And remember I said some of your arguments.

For instance you said that Christ died for the sin of the world and also suggested that it would be unfair for God to condemn men unless the field was level and even.

If Christ died for the sin of the world and that sacrifice was sufficient for covering sin then why doesn't it? If it takes a good choice by a man then it really isn't sufficient, is it? If it is sufficient then it requires nothing else.

If the field must be level then God can't condemn anyone since to do so would be unfair and unrighteous considering that many have already lived and died without hearing the gospel while some hear it their whole lives.

 

Boy, you make it easy! Yes, count the number of people who profess to believe in Jesus, and you have the number of unregenerate man who believed in Jesus while in an unregenerate state, and by believing have come to righteousness in the same manner that Abraham's faith was counted unto him as righteousness.
You see, coming to faith in God is seen by God as righteousness!

 

Scriptures say that Christ died so that we might have life! Atonement removed the penalty of sin from men so that through faith man has life.

The playing field is level and even now, because works do not bring salvation, only faith brings salvation, no man is prevented from having everlasting life by anything other than his own personal choice to believe or not believe.
And all mankind can have faith in God if they choose to do so.

Works are always a matter of pride. Big dog can do something better than little dog, etc. But faith? Who can say one's faith is better than another's? Are there degrees of faith?

 

You are right. And left to his own unregenerate will, man will always reject the gospel in favor of his self-will.

Not according to Romans 8 and various other scriptures.

That would be a question better answered by you.

I say that saving faith is a gift from God that accompanies grace to accomplish our salvation.

You say that faith is a good choice made by men which is immensely better than the bad choice of having faith in something else. The critical factor if I understand your contention correctly is man's free will choice independent of God's sovereign, perfect will. Therefore a man who chooses to have faith must be better than one who doesn't.

Actually there is as it pertains to submissiveness to God's will.

 

Wes, I have never had someone of your position answer this question adequately:

If faith is a decision made by a person, does God know that they will make that decision? If so, then how can you contend that He didn't ordain their personal salvation since every circumstance in their life is subject to His will... including their personality and every other factor that might effect a choice?

 

The answer is the same as the similar question about when a person sins - does God know that they will make that decision? If so....... Yet scripture says when we are tempted, we are also given the possibility of escape. We have a *real* choice, not a predetermined outcome, even though God knows that outcome. And God is powerful enough to know how to allow this scenario that to us finite beings (who live in and have our thinking restricted by finite space-time) seems like a paradox.

 

What is there that OMNISCIENT God does not know?

By the way, Faith is not a decision made by a person, believing is. Believing, supported by continued 'hearing of the word", causes the condition of the human spirit to be that of faith in God. Faith is the spiritual condition of man that God seeks, and rewards with everlasting life.

How do you know that God did "ordain" any person's salvation? Paul's? Yes, but how often is that kind of conversion recorded in the scriptures? Not very!