Calvinists: Best Argument?

[MB]

Your posts contain no carefulness of thought. Just rhetoric.
Responding with care would doubtless be a colossal waste of my time.

Awe!!! your just saying that because you're not able to defend it. I ask why you have faith in irresistable grace and you don't think it important enough to answer. Why not just admit you believe in something that has no scriptural bases?
MB

 

[Isaiah40:28]

Awe!!! your just saying that because you're not able to defend it. I ask why you have faith in irresistable grace and you don't think it important enough to answer. Why not just admit you believe in something that has no scriptural bases?
MB

Oh, I think it's important to answer and address so I did just that, just not in response to your immature posts.

 

[webdog]

Why doesn't the believer exchange the Truth for a lie? What is different about Him? Is it because he is smarter? Wiser? More spiritual? What is the root of the difference?

If we could crawl into each others heads we could have the answer to this

Fact is, neither cal's or non cal's know why one responds and the other does not. All have the truth, though, to which we respond.

 

[MB]

Oh, I think it's important to answer and address so I did just that, just not in response to your immature posts.

Maturity is acting responsibly. You have not responded responsibly but instead choose to tell me my post are immature. You believe in a doctrine that you cannot prove, this is irresponsible. This is immaturity in Christ. Relying on the beliefs of men instead of the doctrines of Christ.
MB

 

[Rippon]

Fact is, neither cal's or non cal's know why one responds and the other does not. All have the truth, though, to which we respond.

One responds in counter-distinction to a reprobate because the Lord effectually calls His elect unto Himself .

So you see , God chooses to show mercy to some , and he chooses to harden the hearts of others so that refuse to listen . ( Romans 9:18 )

God decided in advance to adopt us into his own family by bringing us to himself through Jesus Christ . This is what he wanted to do , and it gave him great pleasure . So we praise God for the glorious grace he has poured out on us who belong to his dear Son .( Ephesians 1:5,6 )

[ All Scripture from the NLTse ]

 

[Isaiah40:28]

Maturity is acting responsibly. You have not responded responsibly but instead choose to tell me my post are immature. You believe in a doctrine that you cannot prove, this is irresponsible. This is immaturity in Christ. Relying on the beliefs of men instead of the doctrines of Christ.MB

The thoughtless rhetoric just continues on and on.

 

[Outsider]

Allan,
You made a lot of sence. I can enjoy what you said.

Ok. Let me have you clarify something. You state that God fore(before time was)ordained things to happen. Are you saying you don't believe that man actaully chooses anything in Gods perspective? Is so then you are implying that it is actaully God making all people do whatever it is they do but He gives them the illusion of choice, when in fact it is actually God who is controlling them. Is that you view? See why I need clarificatioin

I have been accused of being a fence rider. I see evidence that we are 100% responsible for our actions and decisions. God is 100% sovereign and nothing will be done outside of His will, and His will never fails. I preach a choice, but I acknowledge that God chose me. I see two views, ours and God's. From our end it is completely a choice that we have to make, He won't save us unless we do. Also, We won't choose Him unless God first chooses us.
The only time it is wrong (Personal opinion here), is when we totally disregard the other. The reason being is when a right wing conservative and a left wing liberal debate (Politics), they spend more time in ripping the other view than they do sharing their vision. You and I are unable to see what God does not allow us to see, what He does allow us to see, we should rejoice and share it. There is beauty in the gospel.
When Christ was on the earth, He was 100% man and 100% God. In my mind I cannot grasp that. I can understand 50/50, but 100/100? There is no starting point with God, He has always been. If I try to rationalize it I would go insane. I just believe it.
I assume I have left you just as confused on the way I see it. But brother, thats the way I see it :laugh:
When on a discussion board, I like to raise questions. I am always looking for more insight on both theological positions. I am definately against a right or left winger, but if I am forced to lean one way or the other, I will always lean to the sovereignty of God. Its His world and His plan. I am just happy to be a part of it.

I like your reply. Thanks for the time and your thoughts.

 

[jcjordan]

All have the truth, though, to which we respond.

Call all the missionaries back home! Everyone already has the truth.

 

[Allan]

I stated the necessity of the work of the Holy Spirit in causing someone to seek Jesus.

No, you were illistrating the mention of the word "will" establishes 'irresistable' grace. It does not.

Many here deny that work is necessary. Most assume like yourself that sinful man of his own has the capacity and the desire to conjure up faith in Jesus.

No one denies the work of the Holy Spirit in causing one to seek Jesus, scripture just does not play out the philosophical position that the causation is irresistable.
No man has to 'conjure up' faith, it is there to be used or not.

When that slave-freeing, heart-opening, eye-seeing work of the Spirit occurs, the person will ask and it will be given to them.
The person will seek and they will find.
They will knock and the door will be opened.
That's irresistable grace.

That is not irresistable but CONDITIONAL. There is NOTHING in these passages that establish ANYTHING about 'irresistablility'. It simply states that 'anyone that asks receives...', it is a conditional statement of - if you do this, then this will happen. There is no guarentee concering the first part will be done.

None seek Jesus without the operative work of the Holy Spirit opening their eyes to their lostness.

No one has EVER stated anything otherwise, most especially me. But grace IS biblically resistable.

Pro 1:24 Because I have called, and ye refused; I have stretched out my hand, and no man regarded;
Pro 1:25 But ye have set at nought all my counsel, and would none of my reproof:

Pro 1:29 For that they hated knowledge, and did not choose the fear of the LORD:

Pro 1:33 But whoso hearkeneth unto me shall dwell safely, and shall be quiet from fear of evil.

In this text we have God calling and they are resisting. He is stretching out His hand to save but they did not care. Sounds like grace is resistable.

Rom 10:21 But to Israel he saith, All day long I have stretched forth my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people.

Or the ESV:

But of Israel he says, “All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and contrary people.”

Again, sounds like grace to me, and it is rejected. Maybe because it is a direct quote from the Prov passage that is dealing grace being offered and man (specifically Israel in the Prov passages) is shown by God to be resisting.

 

[Allan]

Categorical error.
There is no moral or eternal value attached to placing your faith in your dining room chair or any other non-salvific things or events.
If you do, that's great. You can rest your weary body. If you don't, there is no eternal condmenation.
However, if you refuse to place your faith in Christ, that carries an eternity of punishment.

You just proved my point!

Faith of and by itself has no eternal value but the value is in the object to which faith clings.

It is Christ that has eternal salvic value, and those who do not trust in Christ DO trust in something else for that eternal salvic value. ex. ourselves, our own goodness, keeping the law, Budda, Islam... They are looking to these things for some means of eternal salvic value but none have what is needed to fulfill and appease God the Father.

Thus faith has no value but derives it's value from the object to which it clings. Otherwise it faith that saves and not Christ. Yet we know that scripture says we are saved THROUGH faith IN Christ Jesus The Lord. IOW- we are saved BY Christ THROUGH faith IN Him.

 

[John18]

Thinking..........

 

[Isaiah40:28]

Allan,
You can't prove that man has the capacity to have saving faith, just because man in his rebellious state substitutes the idoltrous faith for faith in Jesus.
Did you see my post to you about Romans 8?
Romans 8:6-8

6 The mind of sinful man is death, but the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace; 7 the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so. 8 Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God.

If unregenerate, sinful men have the "capacity for faith", then why does Paul say, "nor can it do so".
It is very clear that Paul believes that unless the Spirit is controlling a person's mind, that person does not have the ability to submit to God's law. And not only does he not have the ability or "capacity", he doesn't even desire to. His mind is hostile to God.

 

[Rippon]

Allan,
You can't prove that man has the capacity to have saving faith, just because man in his rebellious state substitutes the idoltrous faith for faith in Jesus.
Did you see my post to you about Romans 8?
Romans 8:6-8


If unregenerate, sinful men have the "capacity for faith", then why does Paul say, "nor can it do so".
It is very clear that Paul believes that unless the Spirit is controlling a person's mind, that person does not have the ability to submit to God's law. And not only does he not have the ability or "capacity", he doesn't even desire to. His mind is hostile to God.

Amen Is. The only capacity an unregenerate has is inability ! All are not given faith . Scripture is clear .

 

[webdog]

Call all the missionaries back home! Everyone already has the truth.

They do have the truth. One cannot exchange the truth for a lie without having the truth.

Where truth is accepted, God will see it through to the end, including the Gospel presentation.

 

[webdog]

Allan,
You can't prove that man has the capacity to have saving faith, just because man in his rebellious state substitutes the idoltrous faith for faith in Jesus.
Did you see my post to you about Romans 8?
Romans 8:6-8


If unregenerate, sinful men have the "capacity for faith", then why does Paul say, "nor can it do so".
It is very clear that Paul believes that unless the Spirit is controlling a person's mind, that person does not have the ability to submit to God's law. And not only does he not have the ability or "capacity", he doesn't even desire to. His mind is hostile to God.

Where the unregenerate "exchange the truth for a lie"...are they the ones exchanging it...or is God exchanging it? Sure sounds like the ability to freely accept or reject by faith to me.

 

[Isaiah40:28]

In this text we have God calling and they are resisting. He is stretching out His hand to save but they did not care. Sounds like grace is resistable.

As a whole, the nation of Israel did resist God's call. That conformed to His purpose, did it not? However, the believing elect remnant did respond in faith.

Again, sounds like grace to me, and it is rejected. Maybe because it is a direct quote from the Prov passage that is dealing grace being offered and man (specifically Israel in the Prov passages) is shown by God to be resisting.

Snarky reply duly noted.

 

[Isaiah40:28]

They do have the truth. One cannot exchange the truth for a lie without having the truth.

Of course they have the truth. Creation and conscience are always before the unbeliever.
But what do they do with their God-given truth?
They deny it and call it a lie.
And that is the mind of the sinful man.
He has been given the truth and in his wickedness, he hates it, will not submit to it, nor can he do so without the control of the Spirit.

 

[Isaiah40:28]

Where the unregenerate "exchange the truth for a lie"...are they the ones exchanging it...or is God exchanging it? Sure sounds like the ability to freely accept or reject by faith to me.

I've already posted a reply to you, but why don't you deal with the passage here in Romans 8?

 

[LORDs_strateuo]

You know I've heard this from so many Calvinist and not one of them has any scripture to back it up. Where do you get such notions? Certainly it isn't from scripture. Man is always able to rebel. There is no such thing as irresistable grace found in scripture nor is there any such concept ever taught in scripture. Which of the men of the Past thought this one up?
MB

Joh 6:37"All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out.

Now you tell me who can resist? All, here means All. And all those who the father has Given Jesus will come to Jesus. (now thats irresistable)

Does the bible need to say it more than once to be belived?

 

[Allan]

Allan,
You can't prove that man has the capacity to have saving faith, just because man in his rebellious state substitutes the idoltrous faith for faith in Jesus.
Did you see my post to you about Romans 8?

But I did
The truth is this: it is you who can't prove man doesn't have the capcity to beleive. There is nothing in scripture that states it is a different KIND of faith than the same faith all other men have. As I said if man has even a common faith, in regenerating man (in your view) that would make mans faith now able to receive Christ because his faith (in you view) is bound by his nature - ergo regenerated man would not need faith from God but simply would follow his natural inclination to believe. Scripture DOES however state there is a different object in which to place our faith. Scripture never ONCE states that man can't believe, but repetedly, over and over, states for man TO believe, to come, to repent. Therefore, in light of the many things I have already brought forth, it is you who who has the biblical obsticles to overcome not me - at least on this particular point.

With regard for Rom 8, I actaully didn't see it, but it doesn't change anything since the meaning that has been attributed to it by many Calvinists is distorted though not intentionally but is so none-the-less.

If unregenerate, sinful men have the "capacity for faith", then why does Paul say, "nor can it do so".
It is very clear that Paul believes that unless the Spirit is controlling a person's mind, that person does not have the ability to submit to God's law. And not only does he not have the ability or "capacity", he doesn't even desire to. His mind is hostile to God.

Let us look at it:

Rom 8:5 For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit.
Rom 8:6 For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace,
Rom 8:7 because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able {to do so,}
Rom 8:8 and those who are in the flesh cannot please God ---- NASB.

First off, Romans 8 is about sanctification, or their lifestyle. That is the context and that is how we are to understand the verses 5-8, in light of the context. A life style is something judged on the whole and not an in the moment of every moment. This is observed in the fact that no Christian is sinless and inded will fall into sin at various times, otherwise Rom 8:13 would mean the moment a believer sins they must die and as long as they continue to not sin they will live. So IOW - Paul is showing the contrast of two ways of life in two types of people. NOT whether one can or can not do something at given point but on the whole.
1. One group are those who have a mind set on the flesh, literally fixated on the flesh.
2. The other are those who have a mind set on the Spirit, literally fixated on Spirit of God.

Paul is contrasting these two groups (man with no intervention from God, and man now in Christ) regarding how each will live consistently, NOT in relation to a moment by moment event.

I will work this backwards if I may. You stated:

It is very clear that Paul believes that unless the Spirit is controlling a person's mind, that person does not have the ability to submit to God's law. And not only does he not have the ability or "capacity", he doesn't even desire to. His mind is hostile to God.

No, that is NOT what Paul is saying at all. Also you misunderstood what the word 'controls' refers to and apparently ran with it in the wrong direction. The usage of word 'control' means to direct or influence not over ride. The word is more literally translated is ‘mind set’ meaning a fixation of the mind on something and not to control in the manner and definition which you attribute to the word. However you are partially right in that Paul believed apart from the Holy Spirit man could not know spiritual truth nor live a righteous and holy life (life of sanctification). Key words here are 'Holy Spirit' and ‘live’.
Ok, next you precede to state that man does not have the ability to submit to Gods law. Apparently you missed what Paul stated in Rom 2:14

Rom 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, - NASB

So is Paul confused and just forgot that he stated previously in the same book that the sinful wicked man does BY NATURE those things contained IN THE LAW (God’s Law) then to turn around and say the “can’t” do it?. That same Law that is both good and holy reflecting the nature of God Himself. Yet we see in the verse of chapter 8 it stating man mind does not subject (submit) itself to the Law nor indeed can do so. Did Paul forget something?

No and this is where CONTEXT clears the problem up completely. Though man CAN DO those things contained in the Law at times. It must be 'at times' because we know that no man can ‘live’ their life according to the whole law. Man left to himself will not seek after God, can not come to a knowledge of God by himself. Yet scripture specifically states man does have the capcity to DO those things contained in the Law but he is unable to 'live' them in and do them in an acceptable way.

Another key to this is the word 'subject' or 'submit' or coming under to obedience of a thing. This is not refering different times but a 'life' that is submitted to following. THAT is what it can not do.

But let us notice something here please. Though Paul is dealing with two groups, there is nothing in these passages that deal with those with whom God is dealing (a third group). In YOUR view even the ‘so called' regenerate person who is not saved YET is still in their sins though supposedly regenerate. Therefore no other conclusion can be drawn but that those whom Calvinists state are regenerate are infact not alive (and regenerate) but STILL dead. Why? Because to be alive is to be IN Christ and if one is IN Christ there is no sin, and can not be in sin. For if they are not sin free yet (no repentence and faith) they being STILL IN sin are STILL dead. Remember, we are dead IN our trespasses and sins. Also The Holy Spirit can not reside in them (indwell) because they are still IN sin. They can not and are not in a right relationship to God because they are STILL IN their sins. The propitiation has not been applied to them because they have not yet believed.
If none of these thing have happend then what I wonder compells person to no choice but BE saved.

And the first part of your question:

“If unregenerate, sinful men have the "capacity for faith", then why does Paul say, "nor can it do so"”.

Answer: He doesn’t make state any such thing in the manner to which you presume. It is speaking about ‘living’ or a life style. The natural man can not submit live his life under the obedience of the Law, Because his mind is fixated or has set his mind on the things of the flesh (to live). This is a person with whom God is not dealing with, or a man that God has yet to deal with. A strong argument can be made that this is refering to those who have choosen to reject verses those who have choosen to believe, but I'm not contending that, just acknowledging that is an arugment that can be brought up.

What has been done is taking these few verses out of their context and in trying to read them separately from the first (surounding verses) and have created a context outside of the confines of those surrounding texts.

BTW - There is NOTHING in ANYTHING you posted that gives ANY credence to your postulation that man can 'not desire it'. That desire however would only come into play when God gives them understanding in His reproof (Prov 1) and they reject or accept it.


Lastly, if ANYTHING herein sounds offencive to you I'm sorry. That is not my intent so please read it again knowing I'm not TRYING to be offensive but it is late here at work and I have had a hard night and week. I went back through a couple of times because I DID see things I would not normally say. So forgive me please if anything else is here. Seriously, I appreciate your stance on your view and wish more believers were even HALF as passionate about the BASICS. I pray you new addition is doing well. My 10 mth old is has a bad chest conjection and is coughing alot lately from the flu.