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

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Oops, double post

 

[Winman]

If man is born with a sin nature that enslaves him and compels him to sin, he should be viewed as a victim, and not a transgressor. The sinner is doing the only thing he can possibly do.

It would be like a woman prescribed a medicine during pregnancy. This medicine causes a birth defect and the child is born crippled.

Do we hold the child responsible for his condition? Or do we hold the company who manufactured the harmful medicine responsible?

And is it not justice, and not grace that we make the company that manufactured the harmful medicine pay for all damages caused the child and his family, and for all procedures performed to correct his defect?

Likewise, if men are born with a sin nature, a moral birth defect through no choice or fault of their own, it should be that party that caused the defect to be held responsible, and not the victim.

 

[Skandelon]

Non cals have the exact same problem.

No, we have a similar problem, but not even close to being the same.

There is a huge difference in the concept of God foreknowing and permitting free decisions of free moral creatures and the concept of God causally determining creatures (through 2nd/3rd causes etc) so as to carry out His predetermined and unchanging plan. A system which has God determining the nature/desires of creatures from birth so as to make their decisions where they could not have been otherwise affords a much bigger objection than that of non-cals with regard to issues of culpability. Pretending they are the same without answering the original objection is called the 'you-too' debate fallacy.

God says he desires all men to be saved and come to a knowledge of repentance. Yet not all are saved

Right, so your side creates "two wills of God" by which He expresses one "desire" while sovereignly holding to another; while our side simply acknowledges God's choice to create free moral creatures.

, 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.

This argument ignores our premise that God CHOSE to create free moral creatures by assuming that if God really loved mankind he wouldn't allow free choices...that is the fallacy of question begging.

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.

Maybe, but some are clearly born with an illness. That is why our judicial system sends them to a hospital instead of a jail.

(2) Those who reject Christ are doing what they want to do,

Right, but why do they want to do what they do?

If I drug you with a special medication that makes you want to kill the next person you see and you do so who is really culpable? Just because you wanted to kill doesn't make you culpable because your will was determined to be what it was by my will. So too, if God determined man's nature to be such that it could not do otherwise then they are merely doing what God has willed for them to do and there is no independent aspect of their wills on which to rest their culpability.

(3) In the Calvinist system, it is ALL, not just unbelievers who are insane with sin

Yes, I understand that. That is my point. That means they could all be judged "not guilty by reason of insanity." Where as in our system they are guilty for premeditated crime. Thus, in our system they are MORE GUILTY. That is the point of the OP.

 

[gb93433]

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 acknowledgement 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.

John Calvin also stated in his own writing that if his theology were taken to far it would end in trouble. I am unable to find that Jesus ever said that. I fail to find John Calvin in my Bible.

What I do find is, "Therefore, since we have so great a cloud of witnesses surrounding us, let us also lay aside every encumbrance and the sin which so easily entangles us, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, fixing our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of faith, who for the joy set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.

There is no pride to be found in fixing our eyes on Jesus.

 

[Jerome]

Straight from the pen of Calvinist J. I Packer:

Arminianism is an intellectual sin of infirmity

Calvinistic thinking is the Christian being himself on the intellectual level

[J. I. Packer, A Quest for Godliness, p. 134]

 

[glfredrick]

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.

Still at it, huh?

You can dream up more straw man arguments than any other human I've met.

Calvinism RIGHTLY states that man, created in God's image, is sinful and needs God.

 

[glfredrick]

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?

Wow, for a second there, I thought that you finally got it...

Who ALONE can raise a corpse from death into life? Oh, I know, I know... God!

 

[gb93433]

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.

That is a no-brainer choice. You are making the assumption that calvinists do not think. For if they did they would be wrong.

 

[Skandelon]

Still at it, huh?

As opposed to you who left long ago...oh wait, never mind. :laugh:

You can dream up more straw man arguments than any other human I've met.

Ok, if you are going to make a straw man accusation then be willing to defend it. You make more unfounded accusations then any human I've met. And keep in mind, your form of Calvinistic thought is not the only one being represented on this board. Nevertheless, I'm more than glad to answer an actual argument if you ever bother to present one.

Calvinism RIGHTLY states that man, created in God's image, is sinful and needs God.

As does Arminianism. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[preacher4truth]

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.

I believe this misrepresents even your own view, skewed so you can go on to your next strawman argument.

Nothing is "making those who remain in unbelief truly horrible." They are already truly horrible. Yes, "truly" horrible. Thus they were, and are, truly horrible at birth.

That was either poorly worded on your part, or simply that you misunderstand. It could be both.

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?"

The better excuse would be "not elect." Why? Because its a hard Biblical truth. This truth is something you struggle with internally. God knows best here, deal with it. God also does exercise his hatred for sinners and sin. It's Biblical. No need to rehash what you need and state "hate" to mean, I've seen it before.

So, which is worse? Someone who has everything they need to believe but chooses not to do<sic>...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?

I believe the word "do" added above, to which I added "<sic>" is a misplaced word and a freudian slip of your theology. We "do" nothing to be saved. He does it all Himself.

We were all born rebellious. Faith is a gift of God, not an exercise of determination on the part of man, making himself salvific by choosing. I think you believe faith is a gift. Maybe not.

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.

Non cals certainly do have a higher view of man. Consider: their non acceptance of original sin; their non acceptance of Romans 3 indictment upon the lost; their emphasis on the power of choice; the sayings and implications of non-cals that God is crippled to save unless we exercise faith; their emphasis on the goodness of man; their belief that election is conditional (the unbiblical and anti unconditional election stance). Some have argued on here that God saves by choosing them becaue of works. Cornelius being the text of choice to eisegetically prove their point. And there is more. There is so much more that proves non cals hold the higher and unbiblical view of man without the need to come up with a struggling and blundering argument to attempt to prove it otherwise.

You've completely failed to prove Cals have a higher opinion of man than non-cals. The evidence is quite the contrary my dear friend.

- Peace

 

[preacher4truth]

Still at it, huh?

You can dream up more straw man arguments than any other human I've met.

Calvinism RIGHTLY states that man, created in God's image, is sinful and needs God.

Yes, still at it is correct.

Correct on all points here.

 

[OldRegular]

If man is born with a sin nature that enslaves him and compels him to sin, he should be viewed as a victim, and not a transgressor. The sinner is doing the only thing he can possibly do.

It would be like a woman prescribed a medicine during pregnancy. This medicine causes a birth defect and the child is born crippled.

Do we hold the child responsible for his condition? Or do we hold the company who manufactured the harmful medicine responsible?

And is it not justice, and not grace that we make the company that manufactured the harmful medicine pay for all damages caused the child and his family, and for all procedures performed to correct his defect?

Likewise, if men are born with a sin nature, a moral birth defect through no choice or fault of their own, it should be that party that caused the defect to be held responsible, and not the victim.

I will bite Winman. Just who is the guilty party, the one responsible for the sin nature? Name that one so he can be punished!

 

[OldRegular]

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?

First: I am not a Calvinist, never have been and never will be. However, I do believe in the Biblical teaching of Sovereign Grace.

Scripture tells us: No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.[John 6:44]

From this we see that Jesus Christ is saying that God must take the initiative in Salvation. I assume you agree with that truth.

Apparently we have two rebels above. I actually thought that all mankind in general were in rebellion to God as He shows us through the Apostle Paul:

Romans 3:10-18
10. As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
11. There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
12. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
13. Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips:
14. Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness:
15. Their feet are swift to shed blood:
16. Destruction and misery are in their ways:
17. And the way of peace have they not known:
18. There is no fear of God before their eyes..

Skandelon, I believe you have established a false dichotomy. You say both individuals were rebels [and we all are] but one rebel was given enough to believe and would not and the other was deliberately not given enough to believe and could not.

Then why did this individual #1 not believe if they had everything they needed to believe. I don’t know how you define “everything they need to believe” but it is obvious that this individual did not have all he needed to believe or he would have believed!

Now consider your characterization of Individual #1, a rebel,

“has everything they need to believe but chooses not to do”.

I believe you will agree that all people are individuals and all may respond differently to the same information or stimuli.

1. Do some individuals require more “information, drawing or enlightemnt by the Holy Spirit” than other individuals to receive God’s gracious offer of Salvation or do all require exactly the same “drawing” by God?

2. If one individual requires more than another individual does God the Holy Spirit provide whatever amount is needed or does He not?

3. If God the Holy Spirit does not provide that extra stimolus, information required by some individuals to receive God’s gracious offer of Salvation, then they did not receive “all they needed”?

Did They??

 

[gb93433]

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."

As demonstrated earlier on BB, most calvinists have not read Calvin's writings but have bought into what others have said about what they heard. So many have a theology of "repeat after me" and buy into the ignorance of others.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Yes, still at it is correct.

Correct on all points here.

I assumed he was joking.....ah, being a former Calvinist & all! :laugh:

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

As demonstrated earlier on BB, most calvinists have not read Calvin's writings but have bought into what others have said about what they heard. So many have a theology of "repeat after me" and buy into the ignorance of others.

Thats your opinion & I trust you know what opinions are like! :tongue3:

 

[Skandelon]

First: I am not a Calvinist, never have been and never will be. However, I do believe in the Biblical teaching of Sovereign Grace.

Scripture tells us: No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.[John 6:44]

Correct. How can they unless they first hear the powerful Holy Spirit wrought gospel which isn't sent into all the world until AFTER Christ is raised up. That is when he 'draws all men to himself.'

From this we see that Jesus Christ is saying that God must take the initiative in Salvation. I assume you agree with that truth.

Sure. He took the initiative by sending his son, the apostles, the gospel, His Bride the church, but somehow that is deemed as insufficient unless God supernaturally intervenes to MAKE someone a new person first. That makes little since. I mean why not just skip the whole first part and just make people like he wanted them to be in the first place...if indeed he wants people who are created to worship him in the way stones would be made to cry out.

 

[OldRegular]

Correct. How can they unless they first hear the powerful Holy Spirit wrought gospel which isn't sent into all the world until AFTER Christ is raised up. That is when he 'draws all men to himself.'

Sure. He took the initiative by sending his son, the apostles, the gospel, His Bride the church, but somehow that is deemed as insufficient unless God supernaturally intervenes to MAKE someone a new person first. That makes little since. I mean why not just skip the whole first part and just make people like he wanted them to be in the first place...if indeed he wants people who are created to worship him in the way stones would be made to cry out.

You did not respond to my post Skandelon!!!!!!:smilewinkgrin::smilewinkgrin:

 

[Skandelon]

I responded to the first half and then got a phone call. Here is the rest...

Skandelon, I believe you have established a false dichotomy. You say both individuals were rebels [and we all are] but one rebel was given enough to believe and would not and the other was deliberately not given enough to believe and could not.

Then why did this individual #1 not believe if they had everything they needed to believe. I don’t know how you define “everything they need to believe” but it is obvious that this individual did not have all he needed to believe or he would have believed!

That is what free will is all about. Asking me to define what determined the man's will to say no is question begging at it worse because it assumes a deterministic response is necessary. This is the most common mistake of Calvinistic thought. They refuse to debate anyone on their terms. In order to win the debate they MUST bring in their presumption that all things must be determined by something else, yet they are fine to appeal to mystery when asked about what determined God's will to elect them rather than someone else.

Tell me, was God not free to pass you over? If so, then why did he choose you rather than another reprobate? Mystery? Same answer for how any free moral creature makes a free moral choice. They are FREE "self-determined" moral choices and beyond full comprehension. But to claim that the gospel is sufficient doesn't mean it is effectual, it simply means it was enough for a FREE response.

Now consider your characterization of Individual #1, a rebel,
I believe you will agree that all people are individuals and all may respond differently to the same information or stimuli.

Right, where as two different lions presented with the choice between a salad and a steak will always choose the steak. That is animal instinct. Our moral choices should not be reduced to that level, which is what I believe compatibilistism does by suggesting God determined our natures to respond in a predetermined manner according to given predetermined circumstance (stimuli).

1. Do some individuals require more “information, drawing or enlightemnt by the Holy Spirit” than other individuals to receive God’s gracious offer of Salvation or do all require exactly the same “drawing” by God?

Again, you are in essence asking, "What determines their free choice?" which once again is the fallacy of question begging.

When you can explain to me what "requirement" God needed to choose Hitler rather than you then I'll explain to you what requirement other free moral creatures needed to make free moral decisions, deal?

 

[OldRegular]

I responded to the first half and then got a phone call. Here is the rest...

That is what free will is all about. Asking me to define what determined the man's will to say no is question begging at it worse because it assumes a deterministic response is necessary. This is the most common mistake of Calvinistic thought. They refuse to debate anyone on their terms. In order to win the debate they MUST bring in their presumption that all things must be determined by something else, yet they are fine to appeal to mystery when asked about what determined God's will to elect them rather than someone else.

Tell me, was God not free to pass you over? If so, then why did he choose you rather than another reprobate? Mystery? Same answer for how any free moral creature makes a free moral choice. They are FREE "self-determined" moral choices and beyond full comprehension. But to claim that the gospel is sufficient doesn't mean it is effectual, it simply means it was enough for a FREE response.

Right, where as two different lions presented with the choice between a salad and a steak will always choose the steak. That is animal instinct. Our moral choices should not be reduced to that level, which is what I believe compatibilistism does by suggesting God determined our natures to respond in a predetermined manner according to given predetermined circumstance (stimuli).

Again, you are in essence asking, "What determines their free choice?" which once again is the fallacy of question begging.

When you can explain to me what "requirement" God needed to choose Hitler rather than you then I'll explain to you what requirement other free moral creatures needed to make free moral decisions, deal?

You really did not respond at all Skandelon. I ask you about the response of the

free moral creatures

to the drawing of the Holy Spirit. You claim to have experience in the use of your "free will" in response to the drawing of the Holy Spirit so I think the question is reasonable.

You respond by asking me to explain the Grace of Sovereign God in the election of some to Salvation in Jesus Christ.

Do you see how silly that is Skandelon? I ask you a question about the mind of man which you, through an exercise of your "free will", claim you cannot answer. Yet you ask me to explain the mind of God!:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh: