Calvinists have a "higher" view of mankind than Non-Calvinists

[Skandelon]

Non-Calvinists teach that unbelieving men reject God despite God's love and gracious provisions, making those who remain in unbelief truly horrible, deserving of condemnation and inexcusable for their rebellion.

Calvinists, on the other hand, teach that unbelievers are unbelievers because God doesn't really 'love' them or desire them to come to faith thus He refuses to grant them faith. This gives unbelievers the perfect excuse for their unbelief. What better excuse is there for an unbeliever than, "God didn't grant me faith?"

So, which is worse? Someone who has everything they need to believe but chooses not to do...who rebells despite God's loving provisions and gracious invitation, ORRRR someone who rebells because he was born that way and wasn't provided all that was needed to believe?

The first is obviously much worse than the second, yet Calvinists are constantly accusing non-Calvinists of having too high of a view of man??? It seems as if they are the ones elevating the view of man above what scriptures actually teach.

 

[jbh28]

Non-Calvinists teach that unbelieving men reject God despite God's love and gracious provisions, making those who remain in unbelief truly horrible, deserving of condemnation and inexcusable for their rebellion.

Calvinists do believe this.

 

[plain_n_simple]

Non-Calvinists teach that unbelieving men reject God despite God's love and gracious provisions, making those who remain in unbelief truly horrible, deserving of condemnation and inexcusable for their rebellion.

Calvinists, on the other hand, teach that unbelievers are unbelievers because God doesn't really 'love' them or desire them to come to faith thus He refuses to grant them faith. This gives unbelievers the perfect excuse for their unbelief. What better excuse is there for an unbeliever than, "God didn't grant me faith?"

So, which is worse? Someone who has everything they need to believe but chooses not to do...who rebells despite God's loving provisions and gracious invitation, ORRRR someone who rebells because he was born that way and wasn't provided all that was needed to believe?

The first is obviously much worse than the second, yet Calvinists are constantly accusing non-Calvinists of having too high of a view of man??? It seems as if they are the ones elevating the view of man above what scriptures actually teach.

John Calvin should not even be an issue, he murdered a man when he rejected his writings. That is not the spirit or mind of Christ. Good fruit does not come from a bad tree. Saying someone is "non-calvinist" gives a misplaced sense of acknowlegement to John Calvin. Calvins teachings deserve nothing but exposure to his demon-inspired take on God's holy word. As a follower of Jesus (notice I did not say non-calvinist) I do not condemn anyone because of their rejection of Christ.

[snipped - unnecessarily inflammatory]

 

[Winman]

Calvinists do believe this.

Yes, Calvinists believe men are born with a sinful nature through no fault or choice on their part and are unable to do anything but reject God's grace. Their sin is simply existing.

 

[Skandelon]

Calvinists do believe this.

Calvinists may claim to affirm "that unbelieving men reject God despite God's love and gracious provisions," but to do so they must redefine "love and gracious provision" to include God's common grace toward those he didn't choose. Regardless, the real saving LOVE that GRACIOUSLY provides what is necessary for salvation is reserved for the elect alone within the Calvinistic system, it is this LOVE and GRACE to which I'm referring, not the redefined lessor versions of 'love and grace' used to placate objections.

 

[Skandelon]

John Calvin should not even be an issue, he murdered a man when he rejected his writings. That is not the spirit or mind of Christ. Good fruit does not come from a bad tree. Saying someone is "non-calvinist" gives a misplaced sense of acknowlegement to John Calvin. Calvins teachings deserve nothing but exposure to his demon-inspired take on God's holy word. As a follower of Jesus (notice I did not say non-calvinist) I do not condemn anyone because of their rejection of Christ.

The labels of "Calvinist", "Arminian, or "non-Calvinist" are in reference to a particular theological soteriology, and should not be confused with a blanket affirmation of any one individual (as many different individuals have held to these differing views throughout history). Thus, such a charge is misplaced.

 

[12strings]

Non-Calvinists teach that unbelieving men reject God despite God's love and gracious provisions, making those who remain in unbelief truly horrible, deserving of condemnation and inexcusable for their rebellion.

-Calvinists also believe this, we simply believe that even those who believe would also be in this category were it not for the electing grace of God.

Calvinists, on the other hand, teach that unbelievers are unbelievers because God doesn't really 'love' them or desire them to come to faith thus He refuses to grant them faith.

Mmm...you should know better than this. Calvinist do not teach this (bolded section), at least not the ones I know. We would say God does in desire (revealed will) them to come to repentance (since the bible says that), but that he has not ordained (decretive will) to grant them the faith that they would not have produced on their own for some purpose we cannot fully understand.

This gives unbelievers the perfect excuse for their unbelief. What better excuse is there for an unbeliever than, "God didn't grant me faith?"

According to Rom. 1, people are without excuse because they do not worship God, even though he has revealed himself in nature. ALL people choose this path, as none seek God (Rom. 3). God is not unjust to punish those who reject him...he was under no obligation to save ANY of us who rebelled against him. But he, in love, predestined us for adoption as sons.

So, which is worse? Someone who has everything they need to believe but chooses not to do...who rebells despite God's loving provisions and gracious invitation, ORRRR someone who rebells because he was born that way and wasn't provided all that was needed to believe?

1. I suppose we would have to have a long discussion about Adam's headship and representation of humanity for this one, but that's for another day...

2. Your argument sounds like an argument a defense attorney would use for a serial killer by claiming "mental illness." I believe that a killer who is so far gone as to have lost the ability to make good decisions is STILL responsible for their crimes, and deserving of punishment. In fact, those who are so hardened are the most dangerous, and the ones that most need to be condemned for their crimes. I think this may be part of what drove God to wipe out entire cities in the OT for their depraved wickedness. Occasionally God would "Choose" to save a few (Rahab, Lot) but he often doesn't.

The first is obviously much worse than the second, yet Calvinists are constantly accusing non-Calvinists of having too high of a view of man??? It seems as if they are the ones elevating the view of man above what scriptures actually teach.

I don't believe all non-Calvinists have a too high view of man, precisely because I think it theoretically possible that God could give each man libertine free will. I simply believe the bible teaches otherwise...that it teaches that because of Adam's sin, we are all born with natural sinfulness that so affects us that we would not choose God apart from a supernatural working of his spirit in us. I do not think that the message itself should be equated with that work, as I think you do...evidenced by the fact that not everyone responds to this message.

So I guess it comes back to the ultimate question of whether it is God's choice that ultimately determines whether one is saved, or whether it is man's choice. Until one has settled that basic question, the other related issues will only be secondary.

I would not even necessarily have a problem with those who say God chooses who will be saved, and man must choose to accept Christ to be saved. From ages 18 -26 I think I would have been in that middle camp, not really a calvinist, but convinced that it was not simply because I was smarter than those people who rejected Christ...it had to be something else that cause me to believe.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Wa...wa...what, shakes head, rather where did you get the part about Calvinists?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

John Calvin should not even be an issue, he murdered a man when he rejected his writings. That is not the spirit or mind of Christ. Good fruit does not come from a bad tree. Saying someone is "non-calvinist" gives a misplaced sense of acknowlegement to John Calvin. Calvins teachings deserve nothing but exposure to his demon-inspired take on God's holy word. As a follower of Jesus (notice I did not say non-calvinist) I do not condemn anyone because of their rejection of Christ.

[snipped - unnecessarily inflammatory]

Im a Calvinist.....bluntly, are you questioning my salvation .....give me a yes or a no answer to this Plain & Simple (live up to your moniker)

 

[jbh28]

John Calvin should not even be an issue, he murdered a man when he rejected his writings.

That's not even close to true. Go read some history before making statements like this.

1. Calvin was not in charge.
2. It wasn't over his writing.
3. Calvin tried to change the death to a different, less painful death, but was unable to get that because he wasn't in charge.

That is not the spirit or mind of Christ. Good fruit does not come from a bad tree. Saying someone is "non-calvinist" gives a misplaced sense of acknowlegement to John Calvin. Calvins teachings deserve nothing but exposure to his demon-inspired take on God's holy word. As a follower of Jesus (notice I did not say non-calvinist) I do not condemn anyone because of their rejection of Christ.

Calvinist doesn't in any way mean a follower of John Calvin. A "non-calvinist" would be you and anyone that doesn't believe the doctrines commonly known as "Calvinism."

 

[jbh28]

Yes, Calvinists believe men are born with a sinful nature through no fault or choice on their part and are unable to do anything but reject God's grace. Their sin is simply existing.

No, they did choose because that's all they wanted to do. What you are seem to be implying(correct me if I'm wrong) is that Calvinist believe men sin against their will.

 

[plain_n_simple]

The labels of "Calvinist", "Arminian, or "non-Calvinist" are in reference to a particular theological soteriology, and should not be confused with a blanket affirmation of any one individual (as many different individuals have held to these differing views throughout history). Thus, such a charge is misplaced.

Point noted, thank you.

 

[Winman]

No, they did choose because that's all they wanted to do. What you are seem to be implying(correct me if I'm wrong) is that Calvinist believe men sin against their will.

Let's say you approach a corpse. You tell the corpse that he can stand up alive, or choose to continue to lie there dead. You have offered the corpse a choice. Can the corpse choose?

This is exactly how many Calvinists view the unelect. They often directly say the spiritually dead are like a corpse.

You will counter that they could choose, but they can only choose death. If this is so, then they are not a corpse, because a corpse can make no choice at all, to be either dead or alive.

You reject the corpse analogy. They can make choices, but they will always choose their desire, and their desire will always be against God. But where do the scriptures say this? It is one thing to say man does not desire or seek God, it is quite another to say man is not ABLE to desire or seek God. Do the scriptures say man is not ABLE to desire God?

What of Cornelius? The scriptures say he feared God, and prayed always. But he was not saved, neither did he have the Holy Spirit. God heard his prayers and sent an angel to him. The angel told Cornelius to send for Peter. Was Cornelius able to obey? So, where do the scriptures say or show a man is not able to desire, believe, or obey God?

 

[OldRegular]

As a follower of Jesus (notice I did not say non-calvinist) I do not condemn anyone because of their rejection of Christ.

[snipped - unnecessarily inflammatory]

It is not within your job description to condemn anyone. That task belongs to God and God alone.

 

[plain_n_simple]

It is not within your job description to condemn anyone. That task belongs to God and God alone.

I did not say it was my job. Response to OP.

 

[plain_n_simple]

Im a Calvinist.....bluntly, are you questioning my salvation .....give me a yes or a no answer to this Plain & Simple (live up to your moniker)

You question yourself. I did not. If you worry about what another says about your salvation, you might not be so firm in your belief. It's that plain and simple.

 

[Skandelon]

-Calvinists also believe this, we simply believe that even those who believe would also be in this category were it not for the electing grace of God.

See post #5 as I replied to this claim there...

Mmm...you should know better than this. Calvinist do not teach this (bolded section), at least not the ones I know.

They use more placating words, but it amounts to the same. (notice my edit remarks regarding "really" where I anticipated this very objection)

We would say God does in desire (revealed will) them to come to repentance (since the bible says that), but that he has not ordained (decretive will) to grant them the faith that they would not have produced on their own for some purpose we cannot fully understand.

Like I said, he doesn't REALLY will them to come to Him...he doesn't give them what they need to believe and thus they have the perfect excuse for their unbelief. That was my contention and your qualification affords the same contention.

According to Rom. 1, people are without excuse because they do not worship God, even though he has revealed himself in nature. ALL people choose this path, as none seek God (Rom. 3). God is not unjust to punish those who reject him...he was under no obligation to save ANY of us who rebelled against him. But he, in love, predestined us for adoption as sons.

Job worshipped God. Abraham worshipped God. Rahab worshipped God. I could go on and on.

Paul is NOT saying that no one worships God. He is saying that no one is righteous according to the demands of the law. All have fallen short. But those who are REALLY righteous are so by faith. "Abraham believed and it was credited to him as righteousness." So, on the one hand Paul claims that 'no one is righteous, no not one' and in the next chapter says that Abraham was righteous. How can that be? Read Romans 3:20-21 and you will see the shift from the law of righteousness to righteousness by faith. So, men are without excuse because they have everything they need to acknowledge God by faith. There is nothing preventing anyone from acknowledging God as God. If there was then they would have a defense.

1. I suppose we would have to have a long discussion about Adam's headship and representation of humanity for this one, but that's for another day...

I'm fine discussing the headship of Adam over all mankind if you are willing to acknowledge the headship of Christ over all those same people. You want Adam to represent all mankind in his rebellion without having Christ represent all mankind in his provision, which is not biblical. (that is unless lean more toward being a four pointer)

2. Your argument sounds like an argument a defense attorney would use for a serial killer by claiming "mental illness." I believe that a killer who is so far gone as to have lost the ability to make good decisions is STILL responsible for their crimes, and deserving of punishment.

Think about this. You are making my point. In our justice system, we declare men "NOT GUILTY BY REASON OF INSANITY." That means we deem these people in our society who have no control over the way they behave as 'not as guilty' as those who willfully and purposefully choose to commit a crime. In the Calvinistic system, unbelievers are more like those who are 'insane' in that they are unable to do otherwise, where as in the non-cal system they are more like those who commit a premeditated crime.

 

[12strings]

Like I said, he doesn't REALLY will them to come to Him...he doesn't give them what they need to believe and thus they have the perfect excuse for their unbelief. That was my contention and your qualification affords the same contention.

Non cals have the exact same problem. God says he desires all men to be saved and come to a knowledge of repentance. Yet not all are saved, not all repent. So in a non-cal system, God's children are running into the street, disregarding God's pleas to stop, and God does nothing about it but ask them to stop. He apparently doesn't love them enough to overcome their rebellious will for their own good. An earthly father would likely grab his child to keep them safe, whether they wanted to or not. By your definition a non-cal does not 'really" believe these verses either.

I'm fine discussing the headship of Adam over all mankind if you are willing to acknowledge the headship of Christ over all those same people. You want Adam to represent all mankind in his rebellion without having Christ represent all mankind in his provision, which is not biblical. (that is unless lean more toward being a four pointer)

I probably do lean this way, depending on how you define this headship...I generally think discussions on the limited atonement are mostly semantics, and not very helpful. "Sufficient for all but efficient for some" seems to define both cals and non-cals positions.

Think about this. You are making my point. In our justice system, we declare men "NOT GUILTY BY REASON OF INSANITY." That means we deem these people in our society who have no control over the way they behave as 'not as guilty' as those who willfully and purposefully choose to commit a crime. In the Calvinistic system, unbelievers are more like those who are 'insane' in that they are unable to do otherwise, where as in the non-cal system they are more like those who commit a premeditated crime.

I know this is not this best argument, but I am saying (1) a "criminally" insane person should not be let off because their insanity is likely the result of their own sin. (2) Those who reject Christ are doing what they want to do, (3) In the Calvinist system, it is ALL, not just unbelievers who are insane with sin...all go astray like sheep, all of our hearts are wicked and deceitful, and lead us to do things that go against our self-interest, because we simply like our sin, and need a supernatural work of God to change that.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

You question yourself. I did not. If you worry about what another says about your salvation, you might not be so firm in your belief. It's that plain and simple.

Convoluted response. Typical of those who set out to demean others.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

You question yourself. I did not. If you worry about what another says about your salvation, you might not be so firm in your belief. It's that plain and simple.

Convoluted response. Typical of those who set out to demean others.