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

[JesusFan]

It is not my opinion. Sometime back I asked on BB about how many have read any of Calvin's works and very few responded positively. Have you read any of Calvin's works such as his Institutes?

So much for your opinion.

yep, have read him, and Hodge, Erickson, Berkhof, Grudem etc!

Still prefer the Bible, and still look at the Cal system of Sotierology as best to the Biblical model of Grace and salvation!

 

[Skandelon]

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

You're not following OldReg. Please reread my response more carefully. I'm trying to explain how you err by presuming a deterministic response is needed and I'm doing so by pointing to the choices of God (as an example). I don't expect you to be able to define the mind of God, in fact that IS the POINT I was attempting to make. I'm glad you at least recognize how preposterous such a expectation would be. Now if you can apply that to your expectation of me regarding defining the free choices of man. Point being, you can no more fully describe what determines God's free choices than you can the choices of he's free moral creatures, yet that is exactly what your post appears to request. And you laugh at me???

 

[JesusFan]

You're not following OldReg. Please reread my response more carefully. I'm trying to explain how you err by presuming a deterministic response is needed and I'm doing so by pointing to the choices of God (as an example). I don't expect you to be able to define the mind of God, in fact that IS the POINT I was attempting to make. I'm glad you at least recognize how preposterous such a expectation would be. Now if you can apply that to your expectation of me regarding defining the free choices of man. Point being, you can no more fully describe what determines God's free choices than you can the choices of he's free moral creatures, yet that is exactly what your post appears to request. And you laugh at me???

Do you see humans having free will exactlly same degree as Adam had when originally created by God?

IF God desires to save you, must you allow/permit Him the means to save you?

Do you see all of us reconciled by the Cross of Christ back to God, so that all of us have a "clean slate", up to us to accept/reject jesus now?

 

[Skandelon]

Do you see humans having free will exactlly same degree as Adam had when originally created by God?

No, but many Calvinists don't affirm that Adam had a libertarian free will prior to the fall anyway, so I don't see that it matters.

IF God desires to save you, must you allow/permit Him the means to save you?

I don't understand the question. God's desire to save us doesn't mean He desires to save us irresistibly. It only means his desire is for us to come to faith and be saved according to the appointed means (gospel etc).

Do you see all of us reconciled by the Cross of Christ back to God, so that all of us have a "clean slate", up to us to accept/reject jesus now?

No. We are born enemies, slaves to sin and dead in our trespasses.

I just believe that enemies can be reconciled, slaves can be set free and the dead can be brought to life by the means God has appointed. THE GOSPEL. Just because someone can reject that means and 'trade the truth for a lie" doesn't make it less powerful or 'not of God.' The power of something is measured by its intent, not its effectuality. It the gospel was intended to save everyone who heard it then you'd be correct to insist that God had failed, but the gospel's intent is to make an appeal for reconciliation, and it never fails to do just that.

 

[JesusFan]

No, but many Calvinists don't affirm that Adam had a libertarian free will prior to the fall anyway, so I don't see that it matters.

ONLY adam and Jesus were without sin natures, and Adam exchanged that for a sinner nature at the fall...

Just saying that Humanity doesn't even have that same offer to freely respond to God as Adam once did!

I don't understand the question. God's desire to save us doesn't mean He desires to save us irresistibly. It only means his desire is for us to come to faith and be saved according to the appointed means (gospel etc).

So you would say that cals hold that God has a determinitive Will as regarding saving his elect in Christ, while Non cals see it as God permissive Will to save them, dependent upon their free will response to the Gospel offer?

No. We are born enemies, slaves to sin and dead in our trespasses.

I just believe that enemies can be reconciled, slaves can be set free and the dead can be brought to life by the means God has appointed. THE GOSPEL. Just because someone can reject that means and 'trade the truth for a lie" doesn't make it less powerful or 'not of God.' The power of something is measured by its intent, not its effectuality. It the gospel was intended to save everyone who heard it then you'd be correct to insist that God had failed, but the gospel's intent is to make an appeal for reconciliation, and it never fails to do just that.

Doesn't the Bible state that God already reconciled us back to Himself in Christ upon the Cross?

That that the Gospel indeed accomplished that which God intended for it, to reprove sinners of their sins, to cause them to grow harder and darker to God, while bringing about the salvation of those elccted by God to come to Christ and be saved!

As it is really a two edged sword, bring wounding or healing to you, all depends if sinner or saint !

 

[glfredrick]

No, but many Calvinists don't affirm that Adam had a libertarian free will prior to the fall anyway, so I don't see that it matters.

That is true... But it does matter. Adam (and Eve) were the only humans who even had the potential to be free agents until Christ was born, and He was the only next one with that potential.

I don't understand the question. God's desire to save us doesn't mean He desires to save us irresistibly. It only means his desire is for us to come to faith and be saved according to the appointed means (gospel etc).

Are you sure about that? I believe it is here that your own personal theology is over-riding what we find in the Scriptures with the picture we are given of "all sin and fall short of the glory of God." Additionally, because you have formed a scenario (picture) in your mind of how God might irresistibly lead us into salvation (i.e., kicking and screaming against His actions) you fail to realize that for God to cause us to want His salvation is both rather simple and well within the purvue of God's domain and power. We see Saul/Paul as a grand example of that. "Why are you kicking against the goads?" God drew Saul out of a rather anthropologically centered belief in God to a true spiritual re-birth even though Saul was admittedly (by his own testimony repeated often) striving against the very God he thought he was serving.

No. We are born enemies, slaves to sin and dead in our trespasses.

Indeed!

I just believe that enemies can be reconciled, slaves can be set free and the dead can be brought to life by the means God has appointed. THE GOSPEL. Just because someone can reject that means and 'trade the truth for a lie" doesn't make it less powerful or 'not of God.' The power of something is measured by its intent, not its effectuality. It the gospel was intended to save everyone who heard it then you'd be correct to insist that God had failed, but the gospel's intent is to make an appeal for reconciliation, and it never fails to do just that.

Here you soft pedal the gospel to "intent" rather than God's ability to be "effective." In essence you are saying that there is SOME higher power than God in this world, and that higher power is the will of man.

I cannot imagine the scenario where God would set aside His divine will in order to allow a mere human being to exercise a power greater than His own. Virtually every word in Scripture points to an ALMIGHTY God who is utterly capable of commanding His will wherever, whenever, and to whomever He desires. That His timing is not always our own seems to be one of the sticking points for those who espouse human libertarian free will above the will of God. "If God saves, then why has He not saved RIGHT NOW..." We can't even begin to know the will of God concerning the number of the elect nor the timing of His salvation to the elect. Only that there are elect and that the atonement is utterly sufficient to win the entire elect, not just in intent, but in effect. Otherwise none of us would have any hope at all (which is what Paul said when he said, "If Christ is not risen from the dead...").

 

[Christos doulos]

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?"

Oh my friend. I severely suggest you study up on the different degrees of Calvinism before you make blanket statements like these.

 

[glfredrick]

Originally Posted by Skandelon
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?"

Oh my friend. I severely suggest you study up on the different degrees of Calvinism before you make blanket statements like these.

I agree... And, further, unregenerate man will make EVERY EXCUSE under the sun in order to justify his or her separation from God. It doesn't matter, does it. They are yet unregenerate and lost in their sin and trespasses. They can say with all assurance (and blasphemy) that they sin because God has not stopped them from sinning. They will not die more because they say that for they are already dead and already doomed. It should be no surprise that sinful men say sinful things -- that is what sinners do!

What is utterly shocking is that that same sinful man can turn and give God the glory for a gracious salvation, and many have, including the Apostle Paul and me, not to mention all the others down through the ages. Only God could work a work of that nature; to change or turn the heart of one set against Him to the point where blasphemy pours from his or her lips continually into one who bows and worships!

:godisgood: :jesus: :godisgood:

 

[preacher4truth]

The thing is, if God did not choose, heaven would be devoid of any redeemed human being.

Yet, even in the truth that it is He who chooses, we have those who think it unfair that He does so, thus the many threads on this issue with said undertone.

 

[glfredrick]

The thing is, if God did not choose, heaven would be devoid of any redeemed human being.

Yet, even in the truth that it is He who chooses, we have those who think it unfair that He does so, thus the many threads on this issue with said undertone.

The answer is here:

Gen 3:4-4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

Still the same old adversary up to the same old tricks.

YOU can be just like God, knowing the choices between good and evil. YOU can rebel against God and get away with it, you will NOT SURELY DIE. God knows! Go ahead, eat, believe, do your own thing! Go ahead, says the serpent! :BangHead:

 

[preacher4truth]

The answer is here:

Gen 3:4-4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

Still the same old adversary up to the same old tricks.

YOU can be just like God, knowing the choices between good and evil. YOU can rebel against God and get away with it, you will NOT SURELY DIE. God knows! Go ahead, eat, believe, do your own thing! Go ahead, says the serpent! :BangHead:

:thumbsup:

Yes. We need to understand that satans words here were a lie. "Ye shall be as gods..." is the big one. Lo and behold we have those still to this day who believe this, and take the false notion of freewill to the extent they think they have some power.

But they'll preach "Jesus only."

We understand mans will is bound by sin, and we all know (or at least preach) only Jesus can set us free; John 8. The fact that Jesus states we are enslaved makes it glaringly obvious even to the most cursory reader that we need help, and that we aren't then "gods" able to "choose" our way out. This is why Jesus is "Savior" and not an "assistant."

I know many would preach "Jesus only" but when it boils right down to it, the arguments of non-cals for choice/freewill absolutely prove this really isn't believed. Instead of arguing against "us" because we are considered "cals" they really need to take an honest look at what is actually happening on both sides of the fence with themselves, and to what and for whom they are arguing.

I'll say this, they are definitely not arguing for "Jesus did it all" they're instead arguing for man, choice, freewill, "ability." It is purely an exaltation of man that is taking place in this type of message. They would preach that they believe "Jesus only" but there is no escaping the fact that the evidence on here speaks against such preaching, rendering it invalid, indicting them as guilty, because it is obvious that it is really about man and his choice, not Jesus only.

Self-deception anyone?

- Peace

 

[MB]

MB

I posted the following [#52] on Skandelon's thread "Let's hash out the distinction between Original Sin and Total Depravity"

Perhaps you can understand; but I will not hold my breath!!!

I do not disagree with the scripture you presented I do disagree with you interpretation of them.
Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
How are we saved by Grace?. Answer; "Through faith". So quite obviously faith must be in place before Grace is even possible. There it is in black and white. No Faith, no Grace. Like most I can only suppose you will then say we have to be regenerated in order to have faith but truthfully that is not what Eph 2:8 is saying. It's what Calvinism teaches. Sinfull creatures we are before Salvation. I do not deny this. Being considered dead is a lot different than being actually dead. Being dead Spiritually would have to be a figure of speach other wise no man is saved. Simply because Grace cannot be had with out faith. Regeneration is being saved.

Regeneration is described in the Bible as the renewing of the Holy Spirit not man's spirit.
Tit 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
Before Salvation man doesn't have the Holy Ghost. God's Spirit never dies it has always lived and always will. It isn't mans spirit that is regenerated. The Holy Spirit is made new with in our selves because we don't have Him with in.

MB

 

[convicted1]

I do not disagree with the scripture you presented I do disagree with you interpretation of them.
Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
How are we saved by Grace?. Answer; "Through faith". So quite obviously faith must be in place before Grace is even possible. There it is in black and white. No Faith, no Grace. Like most I can only suppose you will then say we have to be regenerated in order to have faith but truthfully that is not what Eph 2:8 is saying. It's what Calvinism teaches. Sinfull creatures we are before Salvation. I do not deny this. Being considered dead is a lot different than being actually dead. Being dead Spiritually would have to be a figure of speach other wise no man is saved. Simply because Grace cannot be had with out faith. Regeneration is being saved.

Regeneration is described in the Bible as the renewing of the Holy Spirit not man's spirit.
Tit 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
Before Salvation man doesn't have the Holy Ghost. God's Spirit never dies it has always lived and always will. It isn't mans spirit that is regenerated. The Holy Spirit is made new with in our selves because we don't have Him with in.

MB

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

 

[Skandelon]

Doesn't the Bible state that God already reconciled us back to Himself in Christ upon the Cross?

I don't think so. I think the cross provided the means of reconciliation which comes through faith in Christ.

 

[Skandelon]

That is true... But it does matter.

I meant that the distinction he (JesusFan) was attempting to draw didn't matter...

Are you sure about that? I believe it is here that your own personal theology is over-riding what we find in the Scriptures with the picture we are given of "all sin and fall short of the glory of God."

What specifically did I say that contradicts that truth?

Additionally, because you have formed a scenario (picture) in your mind of how God might irresistibly lead us into salvation (i.e., kicking and screaming against His actions)

You are not a very good mind reader because I've never pictured Calvinism as believing this. I know and have acknowledge countless times the compatiblistic view of God changing man's nature so as to make them desire God. Again, what specifically did I say that lead you to think I believe this? Are you sure you are responding to my actual words, or ones you are presuming upon me?

you fail to realize that for God to cause us to want His salvation is both rather simple and well within the purvue of God's domain and power. We see Saul/Paul as a grand example of that. "Why are you kicking against the goads?" God drew Saul out of a rather anthropologically centered belief in God to a true spiritual re-birth even though Saul was admittedly (by his own testimony repeated often) striving against the very God he thought he was serving.

Proof that God has at times intervened with convincing outward means (i.e. big fish, blinding lights etc) to ensure the calling of his divinely chosen messengers is not proof that he uses internally secret irresistible means (i.e. regeneration) to bring pre-selected members of their audience to faith.

Here you soft pedal the gospel to "intent" rather than God's ability to be "effective."

You missed the point. I argued that the gospel, even in our system, is effectual in accomplishing its intent. Please read it again more carefully.

In essence you are saying that there is SOME higher power than God in this world, and that higher power is the will of man.

This statement begs the question by presuming that a free response is not the will of God and thus not within his power to create and permit.

I cannot imagine the scenario where God would set aside His divine will in order to allow a mere human being to exercise a power greater than His own.

Are you, as a father, less powerful than your daughter if you don't choose physically force her to follow your will? Of course not. So why would you presume God is less powerful than man by simply allowing him to make free choices?

Virtually every word in Scripture points to an ALMIGHTY God who is utterly capable of commanding His will wherever, whenever, and to whomever He desires.

No one here denies that. We just don't believe it was his will to create deterministically controlled creatures as speculated by some.

That His timing is not always our own seems to be one of the sticking points for those who espouse human libertarian free will above the will of God.

Again, this statement begs the question by presuming libertarian free will is NOT the will of God. Question begging is the lowest form of debate and if we are going to move on we must chose to engage each other with actual arguments and not debate fallacies such as these.

 

[Skandelon]

Oh my friend. I severely suggest you study up on the different degrees of Calvinism before you make blanket statements like these.

Christos, I know you haven't been around here much so allow me to point you to a couple of more clarify threads regarding my views on this matter.

Also, you might notice my 'edit' remarks regarding the word "really" as I anticipated this very rebuttal. I've argued with several more 'hard deterministic' types on this board about the mainstream Calvinistic views regarding God's love and appeal, as some here do believe God doesn't love everyone and doesn't really want all to come to faith.

Read THIS THREAD and you will see that I do have a proper understanding of this view. If you have further comment or questions, I'd be glad to respond. Thanks

 

[Skandelon]

The answer is here:

Gen 3:4-4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

Still the same old adversary up to the same old tricks.

YOU can be just like God, knowing the choices between good and evil. YOU can rebel against God and get away with it, you will NOT SURELY DIE. God knows! Go ahead, eat, believe, do your own thing! Go ahead, says the serpent! :BangHead:

And where does it say that man will become unable to respond to God's powerful appeal to be reconciled? Where does it say that an natural born enemy can't be reconciled even after God makes this powerful, life-giving, gospel appeal for reconciliation?

 

[glfredrick]

Skandelon, I know you are waiting to hear this so you can pounce once again, for that is your style, but if what you say above is what you REALLY hold, then what are we debating?

It is that you do not hold what you said above as evidenced by your MANY posts on the subject that lets me make responses as I do. You have argued against the positions you claim above to hold in repeated threads and on your own blog.

Sorry dude, I would like to just agree with you, but I know that the next thing you will say is, "See! A Calvinist agrees with me!" And, from your more than ample evidence, I do not and you do not get the claim.

Your credibility is zero with me because of that habit.

 

[preacher4truth]

And where does it say that man will become unable to respond to God's powerful appeal to be reconciled?

Unable to respond with this clincher: without God's enabling power and gift of faith. Let's keep things in context and not turn things out of context here.

Where does it say that an natural born enemy can't be reconciled even after God makes this powerful, life-giving, gospel appeal for reconciliation?

It says it right here:

But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), Ephesians 2:4-5.

Note that even when we were yet dead, He did this. So we see it is Him, not us. In other words, man can't but God can.

- Peace

 

[glfredrick]

And where does it say that man will become unable to respond to God's powerful appeal to be reconciled? Where does it say that an natural born enemy can't be reconciled even after God makes this powerful, life-giving, gospel appeal for reconciliation?

I thought so... Said so above.

In any case, we CAN be reconciled to God when God makes that possible. We cannot be reconciled to God without God's first intervening. There is nothing we can do on our own accord, including "belief" that will gain us one iota with God.

I asked questions similar to this in another thread. NOT ONE PERSON would touch them. How about you?

Seeing as how "belief in God" is what touches off the entire system of belief that you and others hold, what happens here:

A Mormon "belives in God." He reads the Bible. Is his belief salvific?
A Catholic "believes in God." He reads the Bible. Is his belief salvific?
A Jehovah's Witness "believes in God." He reads the Bible. Is his belief salvific?
A Christian Scientist "believes in God." He reads the Bible. Is his belief salvific?
A Jew "believes in God." He reads the Bible. Is his belief salvific?
A Branch Davidian "believes in God." He reads the Bible. Is his belief salvific?